A Question of Accuracy in FEMA Reports

reply to post by GoodOlDave

This is deliberate bait and switch. You were talking about the investigation on how the towers fell..

See the original OP this thread is about FEMA, the Government and accurate reporting!

Before you continue, what say you explain what investigation, precisely, that you're referring to, and how you think said investigation "hasn't been adequately done"

easy to do goodoldave...

ADD TRUTH to the report, facts to the report and stop hiding things from investigation!

Ohh I remember Condalisa Rice stating that Evidence would be provided that these claims are substantiated. Well when has that happened? Almost nine years later and...

..Let me see, it has been stated that Iraq had no conenction to 9/11, OBL had no connect to 9/11. SO MUCH FOR TRUTH!

Yet the day of 9/11 we were all told OBL and Iraq were to blame right? Without anytime to really investigate a thing! Ohh thats right they knew that the planes were hijakced by OBL and Iraq Immediately!


Hmm anything else?

Originally posted by theability
See the OP. this thread is about FEMA, the Government and accurate reporting!

No, this thread is about your gripes over the boilerplate, "isn't necessarily the views of FEMA" disclaimer some government robot put into the report in case someone slips something offensive in . What you're speculating entirely on your own that somehow that necessarily means it ISN'T the view of FEMA.

Ohh I remember Condalisa Rice stating that Evidence would be provided that these claims are substantiated. Well when has that happened? Almost nine years later and...

That's funny, since I don't remember any statement from Condi Rice about how the WTC fell one way or the other. Please post a link.

..Let me see, it has been stated that Iraq had no conenction to 9/11, OBL had no connect to 9/11. SO MUCH FOR TRUTH!

Well, since Klalid Sheikh Mohammed is openly admitting that he was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack and he's soon to give us a dog and pony show in his trial to point out all the bad things we did to derserve the 9/11 attack, I'm going to accept his explanation of things over those college kids making internet videos in their dorm room, that religious nut pretending to be an explosives expert, or whatever phony it is you're getting this conspiracy crap from.

Yet the day of 9/11 we were all told OBL and Iraq were to blame right? Without anytime to really investigate a thing! Ohh thats right they knew that the planes were hijakced by OBL and Iraq Immediately!

Naughty, naughty! We went to war with Iraq over Saddam Hussein's supposed illegal stockpiling of WMD, not over his involvement with 9/11.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Well good morning goodoldave!

Hmm to answer a few of your questions..Drinking coffee anyway:

No, this thread is about your gripes over the boilerplate, "isn't necessarily the views of FEMA" disclaimer some government robot put into the report in case someone slips something offensive in . What you're speculating entirely on your own that somehow that necessarily means it ISN'T the view of FEMA.

I am not speculating anything I have the printed page two of the performance study for anyone to view and linked to it, no speculation needed!

That's funny, since I don't remember any statement from Condi Rice about how the WTC fell one way or the other. Please post a link

Now never did I say antying about her and how the wtc fell, did I?
RIGHT? I said she was going to provide evidence to 911. Please don't put words in my quotes!

Well, since Klalid Sheikh Mohammed is openly admitting that he was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack and he's soon to give us a dog and pony show in his trial to point out all the bad things we did to derserve the 9/11 attack, I'm going to accept his explanation of things over those college kids making internet videos in their dorm room, that religious nut pretending to be an explosives expert, or whatever phony it is you're getting this conspiracy crap from.

Is that a question? I don't see how any of this was relevant....

Naughty, naughty! We went to war with Iraq over Saddam Hussein's supposed illegal stockpiling of WMD, not over his involvement with 9/11.

Thanks for pointing that out! Wasn't it Valerie Plame CIA agent that found out that Bush had planted evidence about yellow cake uranium in africa. Plame was undercover and found out that this was all a cover-up and that is the reason why they exposed her which is a treasonable offense.

That right it is!

Here is great documention how all the Iraq WMD is a farse thanks for bringing that up!
What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA

"We knew nothing about what was going on in Iraq," a CIA official recalled. "We were way behind the eight ball. We had to look under every rock." Wilson, too, occasionally flew overseas to monitor operations. She also went to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence officials who had intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes heading to Iraq that CIA analysts were claiming--wrongly--were for a nuclear weapons program. (The analysts rolled over the government's top nuclear experts, who had concluded the tubes were not destined for a nuclear program.)

The JTFI found nothing. The few scientists it managed to reach insisted Saddam had no WMD programs.

Originally posted by theability

I am not speculating anything I have the printed page two of the performance study for anyone to view and linked to it, no speculation needed!

All right then, show me where FEMA ever said they did not support the investigation. If you're attempting to build some case for conspiracy by the standard boilerplate disclaimer they put on all their documents then you're stretching things mightily.

Now never did I say antying about her and how the wtc fell, did I?
RIGHT? I said she was going to provide evidence to 911. Please don't put words in my quotes!

Good grief, dude. YOU are the one who said to look at the OP to understand what you're griping about, and the OP was about "a question of accuracy in FEMA reports". If just out of some random flight of fancy you're going to switch to griping over the evidence showing OBL was behind 9/11 then please say so...or better yet, start another thread.

Is that a question? I don't see how any of this was relevant....

You said "it was shown that OBL wasn't involved in 9/11" and I pointed out that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted to being the mastermind. If you're going to be griping about the accuracy of the events of 9/11 then it's your responsibility to know what the connection is between KSM, Bin Laden, and Al Qaida.

Thanks for pointing that out! Wasn't it Valerie Plame CIA agent that found out that Bush had planted evidence about yellow cake uranium in africa. Plame was undercover and found out that this was all a cover-up and that is the reason why they exposed her which is a treasonable offense.

So WTF does yellowcake in Africa have anything to do with the FEMA report, the WTC collapse, or even Iraq? Sheesh, pick one topic and then stick with it, please.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

So WTF does yellowcake in Africa have anything to do with the FEMA report, the WTC collapse, or even Iraq? Sheesh, pick one topic and then stick with it, please.

Because it was MADE UP! Just like all aspects of 9/11.

Now I never said Condoleezza Rice said anything about the towers you placed thoses words on my quote.

Next FEMA and the US Goverment State they don't support The facts in the OP.

Seriously, take time not to place word or mislead my statements.

And I need to pick on topic let see how many you pick!

Quotes below:
topic one

Now this is REALLY grasping, even for you conspiracy people. That prelude is standard boilerplate disclaimer which appears on pretty much ever publication there is. It's to protect the group as a whole in the event one of the members manages to insert his own personal opinions unrelated to the report material (I.E. anti-Muslim bias), and it was almost certainly put there by the publishers, rather than the writers.

I never brought opinions into this thread.
topic two

I suppose I could agree that some educational guesswork appeared in the NIST report, but then again, it goes without saying that the core columns actually were damaged, as the emergency stairwells were in the core along with the columns and the plane impact destroyed the emergency stairwells and trapped the peopel to their fate. The destruction/damage of one necessarily means destuction/damage of the other due to their proximity to each other.

I don't have to tell you that argung over exactly how many columns had been damaged by the impact is being rather pedantic, since if even ONE column had been destroyed by the impact, it necessarily means the impact did in fact have the ability to bring the towers down and the NIST account is correct after all. This tact smacks of an exasperation to push your own agenda out against the body of evidence that shows it to be nonsense, more than it does anything else.

Topic three

That would be true, presuming you were talking about mosquitos trying to slip through a window screen to get at the people behind it...but you're not. You're talkign about aircraft wreckage travelling at ~500mph, and it isn't going to twist and dodge in between the structural supports tryign to get at the stairwells. It's going to mindlessly smash up everything in between it and the stairwells, up to and including the support braces and columns. The whole reason why wreckage would be going through the empty spaces beyond the structural supports is becuase the wreckage was first broken up from hitting the structural supports to begin with. It is not for debate that the structural supports were damaged. The debate is whether they received enough damage to cause the collapse we all saw.

This thread is about accurate report by the US government and FEMA

and I can go on and on...with the bait and switch as you call it.

Anyway,

There has never been an accurate report done yet and the OP states this!


I have on many occasions Redirected you to the OP, its not hard to understand!






[edit on 28-4-2010 by theability]