911 Poll

Originally posted by bsbray11

Smarter people than me have performed objective experiments that prove what was happened was possible.

Post them, please. We would all love to see this.

You might want to check this show out:

LINK

I thought it was funny to see the Truthers in the episode try to talk their way out of the holes that were dug for them with science.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by bsbray11

Smarter people than me have performed objective experiments that prove what was happened was possible.

Post them, please. We would all love to see this.

You might want to check this show out:

So instead of linking me to an actual investigative report, which I was expecting, you link me to a TV show.

I guess my hopes were too high.

I suppose you are ignoring all the forewarning information I just posted too. There's tons of it. I only posted a fraction and you can STILL see that there were plenty of references before 9/11 to flying planes into prominent NY buildings, and that the WTC itself was an obvious target, especially after what happened in 1993.

I thought it was funny to see the Truthers in the episode try to talk their way out of the holes that were dug for them with science.

You might as well have been watching Bill O'Reilly. Though maybe you think that's "fair and balanced" too.

Oh well, like I said, I'll just keep waiting for whatever actual evidence you or anyone can provide for the "official story." You said experiments were done that validated this stuff, I asked to see it, and you posted a link to this sensationalist TV show instead. I can already see I'm not dealing with someone who understands how science is actually conducted. Then again if things were any different we probably wouldn't be arguing about this in the first place.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
So instead of linking me to an actual investigative report, which I was expecting, you link me to a TV show.

I guess my hopes were too high.

Wow, I take it that you made that informative opinion of yours after you watched it.

I suppose you are ignoring all the forewarning information I just posted too. There's tons of it. I only posted a fraction and you can STILL see that there were plenty of references before 9/11 to flying planes into prominent NY buildings, and that the WTC itself was an obvious target, especially after what happened in 1993.

We get threats to this country every single day, some of which are acted upon. All you show is that there is a trend towards certain targets, which we knew in advance.

The only way we could have protected ourselves against such vague threats would have been to have forces stationed in the vicinity permanently, which would not sit well with most Americans.

Oh well, like I said, I'll just keep waiting for whatever actual evidence you or anyone can provide for the "official story." You said experiments were done that validated this stuff, I asked to see it, and you posted a link to this sensationalist TV show instead. I can already see I'm not dealing with someone who understands how science is actually conducted.

Since when did National Geographic become sensationalists?

If you are not willing to watch the episode, than can you at least tell me why? What do you have to lose by watching it? Perhaps you can be the one to prove them wrong.

All I am asking is that you watch the episode (or just view the content on the website) with an open mind and then we can try to have a civil converstaion about it.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Wow, I take it that you made that informative opinion of yours after you watched it.

You think I haven't already seen these shows?

We get threats to this country every single day

Oh, ok. First you ask for forewarnings, then I give you a ton of them, now you're going to make excuses for why they messed up anyway. It's all downhill from here. You already have your mind completely made up, have no intention of changing a single idea, already think you know it all. This will be my last response to you on this thread in order to not junk it up and make it any harder for impressme to count the votes here.

But maybe before you make your mind up so quickly about how we missed them anyway, you should go re-read Sibel Edmonds' case against government officials, the one that John Ashcroft had thrown out of court before it was even tried.

Since when did National Geographic become sensationalists?

Since when are their TV shows about covering all the technical evidence complete with sources, proper documentation for their claims, etc., and not just trying to make money by appealing to their audience? Is it strictly an academic resource, or is it a TV show trying to make money? When you realize the difference you will realize why I am disappointed that you didn't link to a technical report instead. And you will realize why I said I expected too much of you.

If you are not willing to watch the episode

I wonder why you assume I haven't already seen it, even though I have?

If you want me to prove something wrong you can do a lot damned better than a TV show. Like the 9/11 Commission Report, or the FEMA Report, or the NIST Report. Seriously, this show is about as credible as Loose Change, which was also sensationalist.

All I am asking is that you watch the episode (or just view the content on the website) with an open mind and then we can try to have a civil converstaion about it.

The civil conversation went out the door when you said they did physical experiments to prove something but then utterly failed to back up your claim. And then when you asked for forewarnings, I gave them, and you started making excuses. I've seen much better arguments than yours a hundred times before. Start a new thread on your Nat Geo show if you want to discuss all its fallacies and straw men. I'll be more than happy to discuss it there.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by bsbray11]

OS is a pile of crap.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/7/2010 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by bsbray11
You think I haven't already seen these shows?

Your reaction to it led me to believe that was the case.

Oh, ok. First you ask for forewarnings, then I give you a ton of them, now you're going to make excuses for why they messed up anyway.

I asked for specific evidence or knowledge of an attack occurring on specific targets on a specific date. You failed to provide that.

It's all downhill from here. You already have your mind completely made up, have no intention of changing a single idea, already think you know it all.

Sounds a lot like you as well.

Since when are their TV shows about covering all the technical evidence complete with sources, proper documentation for their claims, etc., and not just trying to make money by appealing to their audience? Is it strictly an academic resource, or is it a TV show trying to make money?

You discount it's value simply for the fact that it is a television show? Talk about a closed mind. Had you watched the show you would have seen the effort and expense they went to in proving their theories.

When you realize the difference you will realize why I am disappointed that you didn't link to a technical report instead. And you will realize why I said I expected too much of you.

Any technical reports I link to you would just discredit as it does not fit your theory.

If you are not willing to watch the episode

I wonder why you assume I haven't already seen it, even though I have?

Really, then can you tell me why it is of no value?

If you want me to prove something wrong you can do a lot damned better than a TV show. Like the 9/11 Commission Report, or the FEMA Report, or the NIST Report. Seriously, this show is about as credible as Loose Change, which was also sensationalist.

Then you can be the one to prove them wrong. We await your efforts with baited breath.

The civil conversation went out the door when you said they did physical experiments to prove something but then utterly failed to back up your claim.

How did their experiments fail to prove the OS? Can you point out the differences with what you have accomplished to prove the theory false?

And then when you asked for forewarnings, I gave them, and you started making excuses. I've seen much better arguments than yours a hundred times before.

You gave me general items when I was looking for specifics.

I too have seen much better arguements. I have rarely seen one with someone so closed minded.

reply to post by COOL HAND


I told you to start a thread on the National Geographic show if you want to discuss it specifically, where it will not be off-topic.

I'll be keeping an eye out for it.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I told you to start a thread on the National Geographic show if you want to discuss it specifically, where it will not be off-topic.

I'll be keeping an eye out for it.

Someone else already did:
LINK

You even posted in it.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

The only way we could have protected ourselves against such vague threats would have been to have forces stationed in the vicinity permanently, which would not sit well with most Americans.

I take offense to this statement. We had forces that are normally 'stationed' in the vicinity. They were involved in war games a 1000 or more miles away.

How about better airport security? The 'OS' claims some of the hijackers were detained then allowed to board anyway.

"the only way" is quite frankly your opinion and nothing more. Many warnings were given, no one in a position to do something did anything.

Some were promoted! Others continue to defend them as 'heros'.

What crap, but hey if it helps you sleep at night no harm done, right?

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
I take offense to this statement. We had forces that are normally 'stationed' in the vicinity. They were involved in war games a 1000 or more miles away.

They aren't allowed to do certain kinds of training where they were stationed. The only place they could do that kind of training was at an offsite location. Those exercises were scheduled in advance.

"the only way" is quite frankly your opinion and nothing more. Many warnings were given, no one in a position to do something did anything.

You're right, it is my opinion.
No one in a position to do anything had specific advance warning of the targets and dates.

[edit on 7/2/10 by COOL HAND]

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Those exercises were scheduled in advance.

Exactly, which is why they are suspicious. There are sources that indicate many of the wargames on 9/11 were originally scheduled for October but were later bumped up to September 11th. FEMA was also in Manhattan setting up a command post in WTC7 on September 10th for a "bio-terror exercise." A massive coincidence. When 9/11 began they were already right where they need to be, in advance, directing the NYPD and FDNY as a federal authority. NY's OEM and Giuliani's office were also with FEMA during all of this and Giuliani testified to this himself before the 9/11 Commission. The same morning there was a simulation of a plane being flown into the NRO HQ near DC (the agency responsible for satellite reconnaissance and similar activities) and when the real planes started hitting they sent all these employees home. The wargames are also KNOWN to have confused NORAD/FAA employees into not being able to tell whether events were real or simulation, and this is documented fact. All of this, like you said, set up in advance.

reply to post by COOL HAND


So do you think the terrorists knew of the war games going on and used that info to give they're operation a better chance at success?

Seems plausible, but stinks of collusion and treason.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

No one in a position to do anything had specific advance warning of the targets and dates.

[edit on 7/2/10 by COOL HAND]

Fact or opinion? I'm not privy to what the Prez or CIA or FBI knew in advance.

Care to clarify this statement with links or quotes.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Fact or opinion? I'm not privy to what the Prez or CIA or FBI knew in advance.

Care to clarify this statement with links or quotes.

Fact. There were no warnings of a specific attack on that date. Just the usual general threats that someone was planning something nasty that may or may not happen in the future.

Otherwise they would have taken action. They would have at least raised the DEFCON level in the area. Can you show me where they did that?

They did not because they had no reason to. Trust me, I was in a position at the time where such a thing would have directly affected me.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Exactly, which is why they are suspicious.

Routinely scheduled exercises happen all the time. Often times their dates are changed for various reasons.

There are sources that indicate many of the wargames on 9/11 were originally scheduled for October but were later bumped up to September 11th.

Care to posts links to any of them? Perhaps then we can find logical reasons why they were moved.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Routinely scheduled exercises happen all the time. Often times their dates are changed for various reasons.

Actually those particular wargames are scheduled once a year by NORAD.

And I would love to see the evidence that FEMA being in WTC7 setting up a command post happened "all the time." Or that the NRO simulated a plane flying into their HQ "all the time." etc., etc. These are obviously either huge coincidences or else happened on purpose. One or the other, but definitely not a bunch of things that coincide "all the time," let alone with massive terrorist attacks.

Care to posts links to any of them? Perhaps then we can find logical reasons why they were moved.

Having them coincide with 9/11 to prevent proper air response IS a logical reason that conforms to the idea that 9/11 was aided and abetted by our own officials.

According to a 1998 Internet article by the British American Security Information Council—an independent research organization—Global Guardian is held in October or November each year. [Kristensen, 10/1998] In his book “Code Names,” NBC News military analyst William Arkin dates this exercise for October 22-31, 2001. [Arkin, 2005, pp. 379] And a military newspaper reported in March 2001 that Global Guardian was scheduled for October 2001. [Space Observer, 3/23/2001, pp. 2 pdf file] If this is correct, then some time after March, the exercise must have been rescheduled for early September. Furthermore, there may be another important facet to Global Guardian. A 1998 Defense Department newsletter reported that for several years Stratcom had been incorporating a computer network attack (CNA) into Global Guardian. The attack involved Stratcom “red team” members and other organizations acting as enemy agents, and included attempts to penetrate the Command using the Internet and a “bad” insider who had access to a key command and control system. The attackers “war dialed” the phones to tie them up and sent faxes to numerous fax machines throughout the Command. They also claimed they were able to shut down Stratcom’s systems. Reportedly, Stratcom planned to increase the level of computer network attack in future Global Guardian exercises. [IAnewsletter, 6/1998 pdf file] It is not currently known if a computer attack was incorporated into Global Guardian in 2001 or what its possible effects on the country’s air defense system would have been if such an attack was part of the exercise.

www.historycommons.org...

Plenty of good, fully-documented reading at that link.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Having them coincide with 9/11 to prevent proper air response IS a logical reason that conforms to the idea that 9/11 was aided and abetted by our own officials.

None of the information that you provide states why the exercises were moved. If we knew that it would make this discussion easier.

Military exercises get moved around constantly in order to ensure that there is maximum particpation in them. If major players are not available (broken equipment, other taskings) then they move the exercise so as to allow for them to participate. This happens all the time, and I suspect that there was a similar reason as to why that particular exercise was moved.

reply to post by bsbray11


Thanks, I'll review your link and expand my base of understanding.

second line

spelling


[edit on 2/7/2010 by infinityoreilly]