9-11 Debunkers P.M. are credible?
JamMastaE
Posts: 444
this is the guy at popular mechanics who people like jlew and others put their faith in to tell them the "truth" about 9-11.this is what they use to try and "debunk" people like me who don't swallow the "official" story of 9-11.
give a listen and tell me what YOU think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb49MfDrwOo
http://www.youtube.com/v/t0uVwS544Rg
give a listen and tell me what YOU think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb49MfDrwOo
http://www.youtube.com/v/t0uVwS544Rg
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot". Mark Twain
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"So popular mechanics can see the pictures, but the american public can't?"
"yes. that's correct."
If I opened it now would you not understand?
where are all the people who keep referencing popular mechanics dis-information as proof 9-11 was not an inside job?
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
yeah that one was classic!!!
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
while i agree this interview is troubling in that this guy is obviously incapable of answering very simple questions, "911 truthers" need to be realistic about certain things ... Photos of the South Side of WTC 7...
once again, i think there are plenty of things that point to there being much more to 911 than the public is told ... but also a lot of "truthers" tend to rely on what they read without doing any fact checking [yes i have been guilty] and this seems to be one of those cases ...
i still think that those interested in the truth should stay away from arguing over the physical issues of building collapse ... as those issues seem to be miles away from the the core of wheather we have been lied to or not ...
in other words, you didn't have to "bring down" or "pull" buildings in order for it to be "an inside job" and focusing so much on that sets the movement up for failure ...
arguments over controlled detonation are convenient because as "smoking guns" they would elliminate the need for ANY further proof, but it is a cop out ...
there are plenty of other reasons to argue 911 and beyond that ... there are plenty of reasons to argue why even beyond 911 the motives of this government are in serious question and should be handled by some sort of legal action ... (impeachment!?!) ... starting wars under false pretense would be a good place to start ...
... even my mom says things like "but i thought everyone knew the war in Iraq was about oil" ...
okay, well, if EVERYONE knows that ... why aren't charges brought up against the administration?
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think that it's only logical to assume that the people truely responsible for 9/11 are probably as active in the "conspiracy" movement as any truther....and I think that placing blame on oil or foreign policy, or the legality of the Iraq occupation takes away from what should be the true focus of investigating the attacks:
Who was responsible? (this has not been satisfactorily proven IMO)
and
Who had foreknowledge?
they won't testify under oath.
Any credible report about anything related to 9/11 is met with a hailstorm of misinformation, re-direction and so called "experts" who question your patriotism and debunk the questions (but not the answers).
they feel they are above the law.
The deep semantics of of the collapses is like speculating, and arguing, about the existence of something invisible. It's just not there outside of endless theories and opinion.
We can see, and know, what is here and now though.
Lot's of lying and shadiness there was/is, and (so far) continues to be.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Like a lot of people now, I'm trying to look at the bigger picture. We know palms are greased and favors are exchanged. That's how those monkeys operate. The Achilles heal to that kind of MO is that they actually believe that is how the world works.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Why do people think that? What explains all the "psst..do not fly on sept 11!!"
I should have bought a lottery ticket on 9/11.... with all the ridiculous odds going on in so many places I would have won something for sure...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Give us tangible evidence. You can't provide it. Instead, all we get is a bunch of youtube nerds. I watched that first video on this thread. What a waste of time. I can't believe you people get off on this stuff.
Give us tangible evidence. You can't provide it. Instead, all we get is a bunch of youtube nerds. I watched that first video on this thread. What a waste of time. I can't believe you people get off on this stuff.
Oh wow, Deuce Bigalow is on. Back to the tv!
Is there any tangible evidence it wasn't?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Your job to prove it wasn't. Anyway, we got the planes flying into buildings on our side. You've got pipe dream theories that are based out of an intense hatred for America. It is funny, every time I start leaning left, freaks like the Loose Change folks bring me back to reality.
Why is it my job? It's rather your job to think critically and question all this insanity were all living in outside of 9/11. How's that for perspective?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So am I to begin questioning that the sky is really blue? Did the Yankees really win the World Series in 2000? So now when I see a plane fly into a building on TV, I'm supposed to question that it happened? Why would that make sense? If the Bush administration is so smart to pull off 9/11, why didn't they have a better plan for Bush to find out then looking dumb on tv? Why didn't the have Bush not take so much vacation before 9/11 so that he didn't look asleep at the wheel? Who would even think they could pull something off like this with all of the video and eyewitnesses? It doesn't make sense. When I said "pull" in that last sentence, I didn't mean it in the same sense of "pulling" a building. I just wanted to clarify that as somebody might take it the wrong way while chilling in his parents' basement and put it on the internet because all they do all day is hate George Bush because they think the president can make them happy, when in fact they are unhappy because they are in their parents' basement because they never listened to authority.
Fox is your best bet. Look no further... Vote war...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Dick Cheney. Have you heard of him? He was uniquely, and unprecedentedly, placed in charge of Americas East coast defence system NORAD, on the morning of 9/11. When informed of two hijacked planes heading towards New York, he did nothing. He and his buddies then refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 commission. They also hand-picked who should be on the panel of that commission.
March 31, 2004
Is Fix in at 9/11 Commission?
by Paul Sperry
In finally accepting the 9/11 Commission's request for public testimony under oath from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, the White House was not the one that flinched. It was the 9/11 Commission.
The fine print of the deal takes the chance of the commission taking sworn public testimony from any other White House official – including Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, President Bush himself or Vice President Dick Cheney – completely off the table. It also precludes the panel from having the option of calling Rice, who's made media statements contradicting evidence and sworn statements by other officials, back to testify.
It's a one-shot deal. And it stinks.
Even under oath, Rice can dodge tough questions by claiming her answers would jeopardize national security or the war on terror. "I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but again, that's a classified area, and I just can't get into it," she could say. Or she could come down with Washington amnesia – "I have no recollection of that." And she and everyone else in the White House could skate. The commission has no recourse at that point.
Other compromises are curious. Why did the panel, which has subpoena power and could compel Rice to testify, originally bow to White House demands not to even tape-record the statements they were "allowed" to take from her in private? Why will it let Bush tag-team with Cheney in a joint Q&A in the White House without oaths or even tape recorders? Why has it agreed to let just four panel officials lay eyes on a key intelligence briefing Bush got a month before the 9/11 attacks?
Why is the commission bending over backwards to please the White House when it's supposed to be fiercely independent and bipartisan, made up of five Republicans and five Democrats?
The answer may lie in the little-known fact that the White House has a friend on the inside. And not just any friend, either.
His name is Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the commission. Though he has no vote, the former Texas lawyer arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses. He also picks which fights are worth fighting, legally, with the White House, and was involved in the latest round of capitulations – er, negotiations – over Rice's testimony. And the commissioners for the most part follow his recommendations. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.
He also carries with him a downright obnoxious conflict-of-interest odor, one that somehow went undetected by the lawyers who vetted him for one of the most important investigative positions in U.S. history.
There's a raft of evidence to suggest that Zelikow has personal, professional and political reasons not to see the commission hold Rice and other Bush officials accountable for pre-9/11 failings, and may be the de facto swing vote for Republicans on the panel. Here are just a few of them:
Philip D. Zelikow
*
He and Rice worked closely together in the first Bush White House as aides to former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. Zelikow was director of European security affairs, and Rice was senior director of Soviet and East European affairs, as well as special assistant to the president. Rice reportedly hired Zelikow. Both started in 1989 and left in 1991.
*
A few years after leaving the White House, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together called, "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft."
*
The two associated again when Zelikow directed the Aspen Strategy Group, a foreign-policy strategy body co-chaired by Rice's mentor Scowcroft. Rice, along with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, were members.
*
Zelikow also directed the Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age under co-chairman James Barksdale, a Bush adviser and major Bush-Cheney donor. A 9/11 commissioner, Republican Sen. Slade Gorton, also served with Zelikow on the task force. (Interestingly, the pair serves together on yet another panel – The National Commission on Federal Election Reform – with Gorton acting as vice-chairman and Zelikow as executive director.)
*
After the 2000 election, Zelikow and Rice were reunited when George W. Bush named him to his transition team for the National Security Council. Rice reportedly asked Zelikow to help organize the NSC under the Scowcroft model, which was insular and steeped in Cold War worldview.
*
Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke says he briefed not only Rice and Hadley, but also Zelikow about the growing al-Qaida threat during the transition period. Zelikow sat in on the briefings, he says.
*
A month after the 9/11 al-Qaida attacks, President Bush appointed Zelikow to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which is chaired by Scowcroft.
*
Zelikow's regular job, the one he'll return to after the commission releases it final report in late July, is director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. The center is dedicated to the study of the presidency, and maintains contact with the Bush White House, which fought the creation of the commission.
Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow, insists Zelikow has a "clear conflict of interest." And she suspects he is in touch with Bush's political adviser, Rove, which she says would explain why the White House granted him, along with just one other commission official, the greatest access to the intelligence briefing Bush got a month before the 9/11 suicide hijackings.
The two-page memo in question mentions "al-Qaida" and "hijackings," that much we know. What we don't know is if it gets any more specific about the threat. And the White House won't let us find out. It refuses to declassify any of the August memo (or any of the other briefings Bush got before 9/11, for that matter), and it won't even let most commissioners review it.
Bush and his top security adviser insist they have nothing to hide.
Rice pal Zelikow, for his part, says he's recused himself from any part of the probe that deals with the roughly one-month period after the election when he worked with Rice on the transition, as if any potential conflicts he might have would end there. Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg doesn't understand the fuss over Zelikow. "He has not served in the Bush administration," he argues more technically than convincingly.
The fuss, Mr. Felzenberg, is that 9/11 relatives like the wife of the late Ronald Breitweiser want to know they are getting an honest investigation into what their government did to protect their loved ones from a foreign-ordered attack on American soil.
But the way key pre-9/11 documents and sworn testimony from top officials are being denied the public, it looks like the fix is in.
To be sure, Zelikow could be a remarkably objective fellow and not let his close ties to the Bush administration influence his final report in any way.
But with the commission still refusing to subpoena the documents and caving to White House ground rules on testimony, the stench of political bias has become too strong, and Zelikow should nonetheless step down, immediately, for the sake of the families, many of whom are demanding his resignation. And the commission should vote to further extend its deadline while it finds a more politically detached replacement for him and redoubles its efforts to deliver the "full and complete" and "independent" investigation it originally promised the country.
There aren't just theories surrounding 9/11, there are also facts. You are obviously afraid to confront these facts and so take the easy, age-old cop-out, of accusing people of 'hating America'.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If they began to question the world that Fox news presents to them, and happened to discover some cracks in this edifice, then the entire building could come crashing down around them. This is a very scary prospect for some people. Obtaining a critical faculty is like eating Pringles: Once you pop, you can't stop!
stuck inside the box while being made to think they are outside of it....or nothing exists or matters outside of it.
as per wikipedia:
"In the United States, Fox News Channel is rated as the cable news network with the largest number of regular viewers"
yeap...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I enjoy an opposing view, but I have no respect for straw man tactics.
Kinda like when you're a in a room full of stink, after a while you just can't smell it anymore.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Has anyone read this there's more, check it out and do tell what ya think. It's called Reply To Popular Mechinics re: 9/II.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
reading it now...interesting.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
After a good night's rest many things appear to be clearer, so what did ya think about this?
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)