The Great 9/11 Challenge.

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

Varied from "almost entirely", "at least 75%" and "not 100%" though not specific could all refer to say 76% for example, and I must admit it made me laugh reading that from you considering all the many inconsistencies that you effortlessly brush aside.

So can we lock you down for that ball park figure, to prevent moving the goalposts?
Cause 99% true is technically "not 100%".

uprising2 wrote: »

Book reviews give a general insight into the book, so without having a copy in my hand, reviews from people who had actually read it seemed like the next best thing.

And they can be also based on biased opinions.
And then the only reason you are using them is because the quotes to supplied form the commissioners, which you believed to be irrefutable proof the report is unreliable, are starting to crumb under scrutiny.

uprising2 wrote: »

kingmob I was referring to your general 911 view.

Unfortunately that's not what you were implying in your post:

uprising2 wrote: »

You've already done a little backtracking from your view not so long ago, ie: you now admit officials lied, NORAD and FAA lied, so were making some progress at least.

It can't exactly be backtracking when it's the first thing I post.
It really looks like you were trying to pretend you've scored some points, despite what I've clearly stated in most (if not all) of my posts in this thread.

uprising2 wrote: »

The 911 commission had one official say one thing, then another official would come along say his thing, both cases could not be true, then the first official wasn't called back to give his version again.

Or they could have constructed facts from various different sources and were able to find out the truth.

uprising2 wrote: »

Here's the quote/review again, this is from somebody who actually read the book, I've no reason to believe it's not accurate because it's very, very similar to all the other reviews I've read concerning the same book.

Yes, because there isn't a certain biased audience who might be disproportionally interested in buying the book and reviewing it...

And here's the quote I've been posting.
From the guy who actually wrote the book:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/transcript-john-farmer-on-malloy-show-with-brad-friedman-91109/

John Farmer- Well, let me just say that I think the report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found.

You don't seem too interested in addressing this point.

Also you're straying from the rules of the thread.
Those two youtube videos add nothing to your points. Your other post is a different point to your original one.
Please try to stick to this one.

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

So can we lock you down for that ball park figure, to prevent moving the goalposts?
Cause 99% true is technically "not 100%".

No, I don't know the exact percentage of lies, nor have I claimed to, so no.

King Mob wrote: »

And they can be also based on biased opinions.
And then the only reason you are using them is because the quotes to supplied form the commissioners, which you believed to be irrefutable proof the report is unreliable, are starting to crumb under scrutiny.

Biased opinions?, but they cannot simply make it up as they go along like you do.
What scrutiny?, the report is very unreliable and you have done absolutely nothing here to change that or prove otherwise.

King Mob wrote: »

Unfortunately that's not what you were implying in your post:

I was talking about ALL your 911 posts, I believe this is the first thread that you've admitted officials have lied, when people have been telling you that for years.

King Mob wrote: »

It can't exactly be backtracking when it's the first thing I post.
It really looks like you were trying to pretend you've scored some points, despite what I've clearly stated in most (if not all) of my posts in this thread.

Until you prove that the report is true with some evidence you've done nothing, said nothing and shown nothing to prove me wrong.

King Mob wrote: »

Or they could have constructed facts from various different sources and were able to find out the truth.

Yes well then they would have went back to the commission and said "actually I was mistaken with that evidence I gave, let me rectify it and set the record straight, but they didn't, so their evidence remains bogus to this very day, unless you can show otherwise, but you cant coz you would have already.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, because there isn't a certain biased audience who might be disproportionally interested in buying the book and reviewing it...

People looking for some truth in the web of lies maybe bought it looking for answers, they were only left with even more questions than before.

King Mob wrote: »

And here's the quote I've been posting.
From the guy who actually wrote the book:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/transcript-john-farmer-on-malloy-show-with-brad-friedman-91109/

You don't seem too interested in addressing this point.

Also you're straying from the rules of the thread.
Those two youtube videos add nothing to your points. Your other post is a different point to your original one.
Please try to stick to this one.

Well you said you'll be eating your words and have failed to prove anything I've said wrong, you've also ignored the fact that the main sources of evidence in the report, "the captured terrorists" interviews were recorded then destroyed, the commission were not allowed access to them despite being told they would have, then tenent pulls their confessions from his ass, and straight thinking people are expected to swallow it, well I don't.

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

No, I don't know the exact percentage of lies, nor have I claimed to, so no.

That's why I said "in that ball park". But if you've no problem backtracking from "almost entirely" I'll just point it out if and when you do.

uprising2 wrote: »

Biased opinions?, but they cannot simply make it up as they go along like you do.

Well considering that Farmer believes (and has clearly stated that he believes) the report to be extremely accurate, the only conclusion is that the people writing the reviews that conclude the opposite must either be out and out wrong, or interpreting statements and arguments in a biased way.

uprising2 wrote: »

I was talking about ALL your 911 posts, I believe this is the first thread that you've admitted officials have lied, when people have been telling you that for years.

It's not the first time, nor have I ever held the belief that none of the officials told ever lies to cover their asses.
So there never was a back track on this thread or otherwise.

uprising2 wrote: »

Well you said you'll be eating your words and have failed to prove anything I've said wrong,

Well except for when I showed how you misrepresented a quote about Farmer's book. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69470573&postcount=10
And where I showed you a quote where he specifically and unambiguously says he believes the exact opposite of what you claim he believes.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69530228&postcount=27

And various other places where I've shown the quotes to be not a clear cut as you'd want us to believe.

uprising2 wrote: »

you've also ignored the fact that the main sources of evidence in the report, "the captured terrorists" interviews were recorded then destroyed, the commission were not allowed access to them despite being told they would have, then tenent pulls their confessions from his ass, and straight thinking people are expected to swallow it, well I don't.

Yes I am ignoring it. because the point of thread was to stick to one particular point.
The point in our discussion so far had been the quotes the commissioners for the last 3 pages. So for now we should stick to the "irrefutable" point that you originally chose.
Besides you still have an on topic point you've yet to actually address, or even acknowledge:
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/transcript-john-farmer-on-malloy-show-with-brad-friedman-91109/

John Farmer- Well, let me just say that I think the report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found.

King Mob

So since it's been a week Uprising, I can assume that you're no longer interested in defending your irrefutable evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

So one last honest question: do you still stand by your original comment?

uprising2 wrote: »

Yeah I have one.

John J Farmer, senior council at the 911 commission report says its a pack of lies, which it is, yet you and meglome continue to lap it up as troof.

And would Yehaks be interested in continuing to discuss his line of evidence?

Yitzhak Rabin

King Mob wrote: »

And would Yehaks be interested in continuing to discuss his line of evidence?

Yeah I suppose I'll give it a bash in the morning when I've a bit more time on my hands.

Hookah

Why did the Secret Service not feel the need to move George Bush to safety until about one hour after the first plane hit the Twin Tours, despite his appearance at the school having been announced days earlier, and with several airports within a short flying time of the school?

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

Why did the Secret Service not feel the need to move George Bush to safety until about one hour after the first plane hit the Twin Tours, despite his appearance at the school having been announced days earlier, and with several airports within a short flying time of the school?

The first plane could have been a tragic accident, there's no evidence it was a terrorist attack.

It was only after the 2nd plane had that it was clear it was a terrorist attack, and a route needed to be planed and secured for a emergency escape.

If George Bush had foreknowledge of the attack, why was he engaged in such gormless activity, giving such a trite sound bite as his immediate reaction, and then rushed to a secure location for over a day making him look terrified and ineffectual?

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

Why did the Secret Service not feel the need to move George Bush to safety until about one hour after the first plane hit the Twin Tours, despite his appearance at the school having been announced days earlier, and with several airports within a short flying time of the school?

Ok, so can you explain how this is irrefutable proof of a conspiracy and offer something to support the claim?

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

The first plane could have been a tragic accident, there's no evidence it was a terrorist attack.

It was only after the 2nd plane had that it was clear it was a terrorist attack, and a route needed to be planed and secured for a emergency escape.

If George Bush had foreknowledge of the attack, why was he engaged in such gormless activity, giving such a trite sound bite as his immediate reaction, and then rushed to a secure location for over a day making him look terrified and ineffectual?

Bush claimed he seen the first plane hitting on TV before he ever went into the class.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa

What footage was he viewing?

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

The first plane could have been a tragic accident, there's no evidence it was a terrorist attack.

Then why were the dancing Israeli Mossad agents filming, dancing and celebrating a "tragic accident" when just one plane had hit?

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Bush claimed he seen the first plane hitting on TV before he ever went into the class.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa

What footage was he viewing?

He was mistaken? Because he never makes mistakes.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Then why were the dancing Israeli Mossad agents filming, dancing and celebrating a "tragic accident" when just one plane had hit?

Oh lord not this **** again.

Yes a team of mossad cameramen were filming the event because hey, no one else was going to be doing it, and being mossad agents they decided to start cheering, because thats what super secret agents really do.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Oh lord not this **** again.

Yes a team of mossad cameramen were filming the event because hey, no one else was going to be doing it, and being mossad agents they decided to start cheering, because thats what super secret agents really do.

Perhaps you could answer the actual question.

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

The first plane could have been a tragic accident, there's no evidence it was a terrorist attack.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

8:40 a.m.: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notifies NORAD that American Airlines Flight 11 has been hijacked. Even NORAD officially admitted that the FAA told them about the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11 at 8:40.[/FONT]

Bush remained at the school until 9:45 a.m.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so can you explain how this is irrefutable proof of a conspiracy and offer something to support the claim?

It is irrefutable proof of foreknowledge.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

He was mistaken? Because he never makes mistakes.

So you can't answer it then?

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

It is irrefutable proof of foreknowledge.

Please explain how.
And would you mind providing a good source for the times you are quoting?

Also BB and Diogenes, any chance you'd stick to the rules on the first post?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Please explain how.
And would you mind providing a good source for the times you are quoting?

Also BB and Diogenes, any chance you'd stick to the rules on the first post?

Didn't know there was one, sorry.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Please explain how.

I'll spell it out for you.

It is the SS's job to protect the president. If there are an unknown number of planes, at an unknown number of locations, aiming to hit an unknown number of targets, why, after Bush's previously announced visit to the school, did the Secret Service deem it fit to leave him in situ for well over an hour after the first crash, 45 minutes after the second crash etc.

And would you mind providing a good source for the times you are quoting?

http://www.911timeline.net/

RGDATA!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Bush claimed he seen the first plane hitting on TV before he ever went into the class.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/05/september11.usa

What footage was he viewing?

interestingly, he repeated this claim in late 2001 - i.e. that he watched the first plane crashing into the tower on TV before entering the classroom.

I don't have a source offhand, but it was in a public 'town hall' style meeting, pretty sure it was in Florida, probably Dec 2001, and there was a full transcript of this meeting on CNN for years.

It bugged me at the time, still does in truth, because obviously it could be a mistake, but to repeat that same mistake, months later, a basic observational mistake about one of the key days of his life, always seemed...'odd' to me.

edited to add source:

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well...

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

RGDATA!

clarification:
I mistakenly referred to the same incident as Brown Bomber, but Bush definitely made this same claim quite publicly at a different time. will go through my "old notes" and dig it up later.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

I'll spell it out for you.

It is the SS's job to protect the president. If there are an unknown number of planes, at an unknown number of locations, aiming to hit an unknown number of targets, why, after Bush's previously announced visit to the school, did the Secret Service deem it fit to leave him in situ for well over an hour after the first crash, 45 minutes after the second crash etc.


http://www.911timeline.net/

Right, there's many issues with this.
First, again assuming it is a conspiracy, it doesn't make sense for Bush to be in public. It would have been entirely more convenient for him to be away from cameras at the very least wouldn't look like an ineffectual twit. Also I would imagine he would want up to the minute updates of the plan in action. With him being there in public he couldn't really receive the real news thus running the risk of announcing something to the camera too early.
Also it's a missed opportunity, they could have had him in the White House receiving all the information in private, then when all is done they can let the press in to see him making calls and appearing to be managing the situation.

But if for some reason they needed him to be there, why would they act so laid back, especially since it might tip people off about their foreknowledge. It would make, far far more sense that, if there was a conspiracy, they would hustle him out at whatever speed you think (or have been told) is the appropriate speed.

Moving on to actually address the events, you're timeline aside from having more editorialising have some errors. Bush left the school at 9.35 am, only 32 mins after the second plane crashed.
We know he was told that the second plane hit 2 minutes later, then ten minutes after that he was hustled out of the room.
Then after 15 minutes of talking with the VP and Condi over the phone, he goes out to make an address to the cameras and the people in the school, which includes a minutes silence. Minutes later he's in the car speeding away.

During that entire time they didn't know if there were other hijacked planes and up until 9:05 they couldn't have known there was even an attack rather than an accident. At the time jetliners had never been used in attacks like that so they had no way of knowing the scale or intended targets. And Bush couldn't have simply jumped out a window telling the kids to run for their lives.

So my questions are:
What would have been an appropriate time for them to get out of the school and why didn't they?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Right, there's many issues with this.
First, again assuming it is a conspiracy, it doesn't make sense for Bush to be in public. It would have been entirely more convenient for him to be away from cameras at the very least wouldn't look like an ineffectual twit. Also I would imagine he would want up to the minute updates of the plan in action. With him being there in public he couldn't really receive the real news thus running the risk of announcing something to the camera too early.
Also it's a missed opportunity, they could have had him in the White House receiving all the information in private, then when all is done they can let the press in to see him making calls and appearing to be managing the situation.

But if for some reason they needed him to be there, why would they act so laid back, especially since it might tip people off about their foreknowledge. It would make, far far more sense that, if there was a conspiracy, they would hustle him out at whatever speed you think (or have been told) is the appropriate speed.

Moving on to actually address the events, you're timeline aside from having more editorialising have some errors. Bush left the school at 9.35 am, only 32 mins after the second plane crashed.
We know he was told that the second plane hit 2 minutes later, then ten minutes after that he was hustled out of the room.
Then after 15 minutes of talking with the VP and Condi over the phone, he goes out to make an address to the cameras and the people in the school, which includes a minutes silence. Minutes later he's in the car speeding away.

During that entire time they didn't know if there were other hijacked planes and up until 9:05 they couldn't have known there was even an attack rather than an accident. At the time jetliners had never been used in attacks like that so they had no way of knowing the scale or intended targets. And Bush couldn't have simply jumped out a window telling the kids to run for their lives.

So my questions are:
What would have been an appropriate time for them to get out of the school and why didn't they?

So the second plane hits the tower at 9:03am, and Bush and the secret service felt it was safe for him to remain there until 9:35am?

Is that right?

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

So the second plane hits the tower at 9:03am, and Bush and the secret service felt it was safe for him to remain there until 9:35am?

Is that right?

No, it just took them that long to receive the information needed, organise the early evacuation, decide where to go and how to get there, decide how to address the public, address the public as soon as possible, then leave.
All while trying not to freak out the kids.

So could you please actually address the points I made in my post and answer the questions, as asked of you in the first post on the thread.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

No, it just took them that long to receive the information needed, organise the early evacuation, decide where to go and how to get there, decide how to address the public, address the public as soon as possible, then leave.
All while trying not to freak out the kids.

And that's a reasonable explanation, in your mind?

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

And that's a reasonable explanation, in your mind?

Yes.
Listen, if you're not going have basic courtesy and follow the simple, fair rules of this thread, don't bother posting.

I have made several points in my first post to you and asked two questions. Please address them.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Yes.

Cheers. I'm done.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

Cheers. I'm done.

Yup, so much easier than actually holding your beliefs to some sort of scrutiny.

Can you be honest enough to explain why you're not going to address any of my points?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Yup, so much easier than actually holding your beliefs to some sort of scrutiny.

Can you be honest enough to explain why you're not going to address any of my points?

I've read all your points. None of them ring true. And I've better things to be doing than getting into another protracted debate and having to face the same questions ad nauseum.

Buildings all over the states were evacuated that day. Bush's security team felt there was no need to. He was perfectly safe where he was.

Thanks and goodbye.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

I've read all your points. None of them ring true. And I've better things to be doing than getting into another protracted debate and having to face the same questions ad nauseum.

Buildings all over the states were evacuated that day. Bush's security team felt there was no need to. He was perfectly safe where he was.

Thanks and goodbye.

And even though they don't ring true, you can't explain why or answer simple questions.

Also you've a barefaced untruth there. Bush's security team did evacuate him. You've yet to show anything to suggest that they were slow.

But then sticking to the truth doesn't support the conspiracy theory.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

And that's a reasonable explanation, in your mind?

Yes. Does the president return to Washington, or go to secure location?

What is going on in Washington?

IS it even safe to be in the air?

9/11 was a unique event wondering about how slow or fast the secret service reaction was in a pointless exercise. And trying to find some sinister motivation in how quickly they reacted is purely conjecture and speculation.