JFK Assassination Forum
Off Topic => News - Off Topic - Weird & Wacky => Topic started by: Matt Grantham on May 04, 2018, 03:18:50 AM
-
Hard to find a forum where these are discussed, so I just wanted to open the door on these topics if anyone is interested
-
It looks like some people actually looked at the previous post and probably my mistake for not putting up something more than an invitation S
So I will take a shot at 9/11
John Skilling the Chief Architect and Engineer for the WTC state they were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner with the equivalent force and resultant fires we saw on 9/11
The images of the Pentagon facade in the first ten minutes after the impact
Donald Rumsfeld is out on the Pentagon lawn around 9.40 while the country is still under attack
Virtually all the top administration officials say "oh it must have been a lost small aircraft" when reports first told planes had hit the towers
Andrew's AFB, which was obviously known, as the heart of protecting the capital does not manage to get a jet scrambled And almost weith a day of the attck changes it's wesite to sound less prepared to defend the DC airspace
The Langley fighters are scrambled in time, but fly over the ocean because they had been programmed to only intercept attacks from overseas
And then one of my favorites which smacks of an internal conspiracy. When an aircraft was approaching Washington and the Pentagon around 9.20 a report came in that the approaching aircraft was not lost flight 77 but was actually Flight 11 So to be clear there is an approaching aircraft coming towards Washington, just confusion over which plane it is But when the top generals in charge appear in front of the 9/11 Commission, they claim they did not send out aircraft because the report of Flight 11 was a false report and they could not scramble jets to respond to a plane that did not exist That kind of presentation can only be made to a hopelessly gullible populace and media
I shied away from some of the more common objections but apparently it is just now accepted as not surprising that there was foreknowledge that WTC was going to collapse around 5 though there was no reason or precedent for such a belief
-
It looks like some people actually looked at the previous post and probably my mistake for not putting up something more than an invitation S
So I will take a shot at 9/11
John Skilling the Chief Architect and Engineer for the WTC state they were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner with the equivalent force and resultant fires we saw on 9/11
The images of the Pentagon facade in the first ten minutes after the impact
Donald Rumsfeld is out on the Pentagon lawn around 9.40 while the country is still under attack
Virtually all the top administration officials say "oh it must have been a lost small aircraft" when reports first told planes had hit the towers
Andrew's AFB, which was obviously known, as the heart of protecting the capital does not manage to get a jet scrambled And almost weith a day of the attck changes it's wesite to sound less prepared to defend the DC airspace
The Langley fighters are scrambled in time, but fly over the ocean because they had been programmed to only intercept attacks from overseas
And then one of my favorites which smacks of an internal conspiracy. When an aircraft was approaching Washington and the Pentagon around 9.20 a report came in that the approaching aircraft was not lost flight 77 but was actually Flight 11 So to be clear there is an approaching aircraft coming towards Washington, just confusion over which plane it is But when the top generals in charge appear in front of the 9/11 Commission, they claim they did not send out aircraft because the report of Flight 11 was a false report and they could not scramble jets to respond to a plane that did not exist That kind of presentation can only be made to a hopelessly gullible populace and media
I shied away from some of the more common objections but apparently it is just now accepted as not surprising that there was foreknowledge that WTC was going to collapse around 5 though there was no reason or precedent for such a belief
Matt,
It would be helpful if you would source the claims that you've made. It's been 7 or 8 years since I've looked at the 9/11 Truther stuff. I recall that most of it was easily debunked.
-
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
https://www.google.com/search?q=photos+of+pentagon+before+facade+collapses&rlz=1C1VFKB_enUS769US769&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=a5hXE77tSuTJgM%253A%252C07fXTpJyJzywtM%252C_&usg=___qJBLyow_EdVM96fN6TWeLR5Sko%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHmc-mnvraAhVU1IMKHZFlBB4Q9QEIKzAA#imgrc=a5hXE77tSuTJgM:
As for the Langley fighter they take off at 9.24 and the Pentagon is hit at 9.37 It is 1,431 The jets were capable of doing over 500 miles er minute Plenty of time
http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2009/05/f-16s-that-failed-to-protect-washington.html
On Phantom Flight 11 https://steemit.com/conspiracy/@budz82/september-11-2001-the-interesting-story-of-the-phantom-flight-11-on-9-11
When looking around at the sites that come up on Google, and they are dominated by the Official Story folks ,there is a lot of talk about how phantom Flight 11 messed everything up So yes it has all the markinngs of a created event used to excuse the failures for a response on DC
I can't find one link that speaks to the reactions of top level administration when they first heard about the plane strikes Bush knew about the first strike before leaving for the classroom He would later state to a large audience that he watched the first plane hit the tower before he went it to class That of course was not possible, or was it?
Can't find a link to show Andrews AFB base after 9/11 You don't expect that to show up
In regard to the Langley fighter they take off from Langley at 9.24 and the Pentagon is hit at 9.37 Thirteen minutes to travel
http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2009/05/f-16s-that-failed-to-protect-washington.html
-
Hoping you are going to reply Tim It did take a little effort to track some of those link down
-
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
Matt, I don't have the time to deal with all of the items. Sorry.
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that "... such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building...."
The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
https://www.nist.gov/pba/national-institute-standards-and-technology-nist-federal-building-and-fire-safety-investigation
https://www.google.com/search?q=photos+of+pentagon+before+facade+collapses&rlz=1C1VFKB_enUS769US769&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=a5hXE77tSuTJgM%253A%252C07fXTpJyJzywtM%252C_&usg=___qJBLyow_EdVM96fN6TWeLR5Sko%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHmc-mnvraAhVU1IMKHZFlBB4Q9QEIKzAA#imgrc=a5hXE77tSuTJgM:
And your point is??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6RG9A0rlhg
So what? What is the problem with him being out there aiding the injured?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
Mineta's memory was faulty. He was not in the PEOC before 9:37. The plane that he witnessed being tracked was UA93, not AA11.
-
Matt, I don't have the time to deal with all of the items. Sorry.
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that "... such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building...."
The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
https://www.nist.gov/pba/national-institute-standards-and-technology-nist-federal-building-and-fire-safety-investigation
And your point is??
So what? What is the problem with him being out there aiding the injured?
Mineta's memory was faulty. He was not in the PEOC before 9:37. The plane that he witnessed being tracked was UA93, not AA11.
Where did the plane go through the facade
The country is still under attack at 9.40 but it is OK for the Secretary of Defense to grandstanding while Americans are dying
Yes I explained phantom flight 11 to you Maybe you didn't get the explanation but don't posture like you are explaining anything to me You are conflating two issues One is the Mineta testimony and the the other is the generals claim that they need not scramble any fighters in response to the plane approaching DC around 9.30 What was flight 93 approaching? Just eliminating Mineta because you imagine he just lost a half hour somewhere along the way is almost as ridiculous as the claim that by using protractors and crayons it was determined an imaginary plane was heading towards something at 10;10 When do you think this original report came in of this event occurring shortly after 10? Lets guess they needed to make something up to account for Mineta's testimony Mineta, the poor guy, of course thought the order was a shoot down order since he was still lost in the belief the military was interested in defending the country
In regard to Skilling one must first establish what the established scientific understandings are at a given time. Then if one wants to claim those understandings are in error they need to have convincing proof in doing so You know Sagan and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof NIST provided us with a comedy of theories, the pancake theory, the broken truss theory and then finally the well we don't really have a theory just a computer modulation that no experts can look at In 93 there was every opportunity to re-examine the vulnerability of the buildings and the claims that Skilling was publicly making at that time, yet no reassessment was offered If NIST claims are correct hundreds of skyscrapers across the country are more vulnerable than previously believed and are much more vulnerable to terrorism and fire than first believed yet nothing is done to remedy the supposed new undertakings
-
Where did the plane go through the fa?ade.
Through the hole that it made in it.
The country is still under attack at 9.40 but it is OK for the Secretary of Defense to grandstanding while Americans are dying
What you call grandstanding, I call human decency and compassion.
Yes I explained phantom flight 11 to you Maybe you didn't get the explanation but don't posture like you are explaining anything to me You are conflating two issues One is the Mineta testimony and the the other is the generals claim that they need not scramble any fighters in response to the plane approaching DC around 9.30 What was flight 93 approaching? Just eliminating Mineta because you imagine he just lost a half hour somewhere along the way is almost as ridiculous as the claim that by using protractors and crayons it was determined an imaginary plane was heading towards something at 10;10 When do you think this original report came in of this event occurring shortly after 10? Lets guess they needed to make something up to account for Mineta's testimony Mineta, the poor guy, of course thought the order was a shoot down order since he was still lost in the belief the military was interested in defending the country
Yeah, I have trouble understanding you most of the time. Who were the generals that you refer to?
In regard to Skilling one must first establish what the established scientific understandings are at a given time. Then if one wants to claim those understandings are in error they need to have convincing proof in doing so You know Sagan and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof NIST provided us with a comedy of theories, the pancake theory, the broken truss theory and then finally the well we don't really have a theory just a computer modulation that no experts can look at In 93 there was every opportunity to re-examine the vulnerability of the buildings and the claims that Skilling was publicly making at that time, yet no reassessment was offered If NIST claims are correct hundreds of skyscrapers across the country are more vulnerable than previously believed and are much more vulnerable to terrorism and fire than first believed yet nothing is done to remedy the supposed new undertakings
What is the convincing proof that the towers should have remained standing?
-
Through the hole that it made in it.
What is the convincing proof that the towers should have remained standing?
What is the size of the hole ?
Do you agree Skilling was one of leading engineers of the time and made his calculations based on established science This is the starting point in the discussion
Are you asserting NIST ever made a calculation for the entire global collapse of the structures?
-
What is the size of the hole ?
About 50 feet in width.
Do you agree Skilling was one of leading engineers of the time and made his calculations based on established science This is the starting point in the discussion
Yes.
Are you asserting NIST ever made a calculation for the entire global collapse of the structures?
I have not made that assertion.
-
About 50 feet in width.
I assume that is there are some supports still standing in the 50 foot width you are describing And your explanation for the wings, tail rudder, and engines?
[/quote]
Yes.
[/quote]
That is objective of you
[/quote]
I have not made that assertion.
[/quote]
If you agree that Skilling, and others at the time of their construction of the towers, represented the leading edge of scientific understandings of building engineering and behavior then the collapse of the towers should have been seen as anomalous in 2001 Therefore it is odd that none of the media made any note of the anomalous nature of said event But the only question I am asking you is in regard to the nature of the NIST explanation. I don't want to put words in your mouth but I assume their failure to either provide a scenario for a global collapse and not making any of their results for peer review, is justified either by the idea that releasing such information could be used by terrorists in future attack or simply concluding that since they collapsed after the impacts of the planes that said proximate cause was the ultimate cause I get that to a degree, but it is not science
There is also the question of the collapse time I am probably going to explain this more poorly than usual since I have some kidney stone issues and am on meds and it is difficult to explain anyway Maybe I will dig up the You Tube that made it clearer to me The example they used that helped me was simply showing two automobiles smashing into one another and explaining that the force, as in speed and mass is converted into damage of the vehicles Thus when the towers fell if they destroyed material below them required force to be lost from the upper portion This is why the pancake theory could have worked since it did not really require destruction of the lower portion of the buildings but unfortunately the fact was the material was pulverized Amateur hour is over for now
-
I assume that is there are some supports still standing in the 50 foot width you are describing
Hmmm...I think not. Although, it's hard to tell from the images.
And your explanation for the wings, tail rudder, and engines?
The wings folded back towards the fuselage. Do the tail rudder and engines need explaining? I'm not positive about this but I seem to recall that the engines were found at the exterior of the building.
If you agree that Skilling, and others at the time of their construction of the towers, represented the leading edge of scientific understandings of building engineering and behavior then the collapse of the towers should have been seen as anomalous in 2001 Therefore it is odd that none of the media made any note of the anomalous nature of said event But the only question I am asking you is in regard to the nature of the NIST explanation. I don't want to put words in your mouth but I assume their failure to either provide a scenario for a global collapse and not making any of their results for peer review, is justified either by the idea that releasing such information could be used by terrorists in future attack or simply concluding that since they collapsed after the impacts of the planes that said proximate cause was the ultimate cause I get that to a degree, but it is not science
There is also the question of the collapse time I am probably going to explain this more poorly than usual since I have some kidney stone issues and am on meds and it is difficult to explain anyway Maybe I will dig up the You Tube that made it clearer to me The example they used that helped me was simply showing two automobiles smashing into one another and explaining that the force, as in speed and mass is converted into damage of the vehicles Thus when the towers fell if they destroyed material below them required force to be lost from the upper portion This is why the pancake theory could have worked since it did not really require destruction of the lower portion of the buildings but unfortunately the fact was the material was pulverized Amateur hour is over for now
Skilling's statement in 1993 was lacking in detail. The claim was that the buildings were built to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707 and from the burning of the fuel within the building. That's it. Nothing more was offered. But surely an impact at the 106th story level would result in different stress variables than an impact at the level of the 80th floor or lower. What was the velocity of the impacting 707? How much fuel was onboard? How many passengers were on board?
Are you familiar with Leslie Robertson? He was the lead structural engineer for the construction of the twin towers.
I won't try to speak for NIST. As far as explanations for the tower collapses go, I recall reading a paper by an engineer by the name of Frank Greening. It was fairly easy to understand and was quite convincing. I can look it up for you if you like. Greening also wrote a critique of NIST's building 7 collapse theory.
-
RFK Jr. seriously questioning the events of the RFK assassination:
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Who-killed-Bobby-Kennedy-His-son-RFK-Jr-doesn-t-12946227.php
-
Michael Medved has as a regular feature on his show, "Conspiracy Thursday" (or Wednesday, I forget which day)... when 911 truthers call, he refers them to the Popular Mechanics debunking of 911, for whatever that's worth.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
I see other links out there, some alleging to debunk what Popular Mechanics said. Since, I am not going through these links thoroughly and have no idea what kind of websites they are, I would say, one can find them for oneself.
-
Tim Said
Skilling's statement in 1993 was lacking in detail. The claim was that the buildings were built to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707 and from the burning of the fuel within the building. That's it. Nothing more was offered. But surely an impact at the 106th story level would result in different stress variables than an impact at the level of the 80th floor or lower. What was the velocity of the impacting 707? How much fuel was onboard? How many passengers were on board?
Are you familiar with Leslie Robertson? He was the lead structural engineer for the construction of the twin towers.
Tim I find this response really disappointing especially calling into question Skilling's credentials
Nothing else was offered?
He was doing an interview with a newspaper Did you expect him to bring blueprints with him Sorry if there is some sarcasm here, but it is a real question Yes I know of Robertson and his study which examined a smaller plane, but Skilling did his own calculations and they are spelled out to a so called White Paper from 64. Official story folks will point to fact that the document is not signed by Skilling That begs the question who else would be doing a study on the WTC other than the person who said he did at this time Yes stress variables can be different under various circumstances, but the redundancy of support apparatus is beyond these minor variables by many order of magnitude In general all the floors, beams, and the exterior shell are consistent throughout the structure, so which floor an impact occurs is relatively meaningless
Leslie Roberton Lead engineer
John Skilling CHIEF Engineer
If you read the following links you will see Robertson as saying the WTC would likely survive any type of attack before 2001
Is it really your suggestion and his engineers never made blueprints and the kind of structural calculations you are looking for? The fact that they are not publicly available is a surprise? Hate to say it Tim but it seems like you are just lapping out the rhetoric of the debunkers websites Occasionally I draw a firm line with my opinions, and my suggestion here is that if you cannot except that the designers of the WTC, who are clearly some of the top credentialed engineers on the planet at the time, made clear claims that they were as good as certain it would withstand a fully fueled jetliner , and that was the standing science of the time then I believe this is a pretty clear indicator that your biases have gotten the better of you
It is not the end of the game to admit that Skilling and the WTC designers did build a structure that by all scientific expectations should have easily survived the impacts and fires Maybe they were wrong, but the overriding point is the onus is on NIST to create some extraordinary proof for the extraordinary claim that the existing science of the time was so far off
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
-
RFK Jr. seriously questioning the events of the RFK assassination:
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Who-killed-Bobby-Kennedy-His-son-RFK-Jr-doesn-t-12946227.php
Hi Richard that is good news thanks for posting it Perhaps you saw I am struggling with a kidney stone I posted that mostly to explain to Tim i am a bit off my game While it is almost a burden to think and type it does serve as a nice discretion from the pain I am not sure if you want to discuss anything in particular The whole Sirhan, and whether he was mind controlled, in some manner is kind of a category to itself Not sure if you knew RFK left film director John Frankenheimer's house in Malibu before going to the Ambassador hotel that fateful night Frankenheimer's film the Manchurian Candidate the film deals with a sleeper agent who will blindly obey orders without any memory of his actions,and carries out political assassinations Maybe not significant in any practical way, but the coincidence seems like a bit of mind bender to say the least
-
From Larry Teeter's site
As a result of both (1) the blackmailing of defense attorney Cooper and his resultant collaboration with the prosecution and (2) the systematic withholding and falsification of evidence by the prosecution, the jury which convicted Sirhan never knew the following:
1. Senator Kennedy was shot in the back and from behind. Yet all witnesses placed Sirhan as standing face-to-face in front of RFK.
2. Sirhan's gun was placed by all witnesses at between 2 and 5 feet from the victim, but the autopsy report states that the distance between the assailant's gun and the victim was between 1 and 2 inches.
3. The shots entering the victim's body were fired at a sharp upward angle, but the defendant was seen by all witnesses to hold his gun horizontally.
4. The autopsy report which exonerates the defendant was withheld from the court and the defense by prosecutors for at least four months, until after defense counsel had conceded to the jury that their client was the killer--something which the autopsy report demonstrates to be impossible.
5. Thane Eugene Cesar, a recently-hired part-time private security guard who worked full-time for Lockheed Aircraft, admitted to police that he was standing behind and in actual contact with Senator Kennedy, that he dropped down into a crouching position and that he pulled his gun when the shooting began. This account puts the security guard and not the defendant in position to have shot RFK.
6. Cesar falsely advised police that he had sold his .22 revolver before the crime. A receipt proves that it was actually sold after the crime. One witness, media assistant Don Schulman, stated that Cesar actually fired his gun during the assassination. The prosecution ignored and even pressured this witness along with others whose accounts suggested a conspiracy.
7. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) never test fired Cesar's gun or even asked to see it once Cesar admitted having been in position to have fired the shots which struck RFK. The FBI was later told that the gun had been stolen from the home of the person who purchased it from Cesar.
8. The police inventory accounted for eight .22 cal. bullets discharged at the crime scene. Seven were removed from victims, and the eighth was described as having been lost in the ceiling.
A police officer observed police criminalists dig two bullets out of a door frame in the pantry area within which the victim was killed, bringing to 10 the total number of shots that were fired during the attack.
9. These extra bullets were never disclosed to the defense or the court and were never mentioned in the police property report. The police and prosecution have continued to deny their existence.
10. FBI documents describe holes depicted in the pantry door frame as "bullet holes", and William Bailey, the first FBI agent on the scene, has stated that he saw a bullet in one such hole. An AP photograph shows a bullet lodged in a door frame.
11. The police continue to maintain that only one gun was fired during the attack. The FBI has never deviated from its endorsement of this view, which is inconsistent with its own photographs and inventory as well as the observations of the first FBI agent on the crime scene.
12. The police test fired two different weapons and obtained test shots from both but have continued to claim that only one gun was involved in the case.
13. A police photograph with the police "DR number" for this case shows a different weapon than the one introduced into evidence at trial.
14. The second gun that was test fired by police as though it had been recovered at the crime scene was in police custody even before the attack.
15. The police continued to claim that this gun was available to the defense during the trial. However, it was actually destroyed by police within less than 2 months after the assassination, long before the trial's commencement.
16. The police created a "comparison photomicrograph" ("Special Exhibit 10") which they claimed showed a match between a test bullet fired from the defendant's gun and the bullet that was removed from the murder victim's neck. In 1975, a panel of experts concluded that this photomicrograph showed a match between two different victim bullets. A report prepared during this 1975 examination proves that the bullets viewed by the experts at that time were actually different from the ones that were removed from the victims in this case. Thus, the police created a photograph showing a match between two fake victim bullets and then claimed that their exhibit proved the defendant's guilt. This photograph depicting fraudulent bullets was made less than 48 hours after the assassination.
17. Although security guards left the scene without their guns being checked, a 15 year old who photographed the attack was thrown to the ground and arrested at gun point. His camera and film were seized. No photographs of the attack were ever made available to the defense or the court. (When the photographer, James Scott Enyart, requested the return of his films from the State Archives 20 years later, he was told that his films were probably among 2,410 photographs connected with this case that were burned by police in a hospital incinerator less than 3 months after the attack. Enyart brought suit. Police investigators then claimed to have themselves found the young photographer's pictures at the Archives. Because these photographs did not show the shooting itself and were taken on film different from the film he used, the photographer requested their transport to Los Angeles so that they could be examined for possible signs of alteration or substitution. The suspect photographs then disappeared after supposedly being stolen from the car of a state-selected courier. A Los Angeles jury awarded the photographer over half a million dollars in a verdict. The verdict was successfully appealed, but the City settled rather than risk a retrial.)
Apologists for the prosecution like to assert that only honest mistakes were made. Yet our petitions and exhibits demonstrate a number of instances in which the prosecution and police engaged in demonstrably intentional misconduct. Here are some examples--in addition to the overriding fact that defense counsel was blackmailed by the prosecution and made a deal to save himself (see above):
1. Withholding a document showing that according to a police officer witness, someone followed Sirhan into a police firing range on June 1, 1968 (three days before election day) and signed Sirhan's name into the roster to show practice-firing by the fall-guy-to-be! In other words, Sirhan had a handler (see below). The defense never saw this document, which I found in 2002.
2. Concocting Special Exhibit 10; (See paragraph 16 above).
3. Withholding the autopsy report until after defense counsel had conceded Sirhan's status as the assassin--a concession that is refuted by the autopsy report itself;
4. Lying to the court in December of 1968 by falsely representing that the autopsy report, which was completed in September or October of 1968, was not yet available;
5. Incinerating 2,410 assassination-related photographs;
6. Suppressing a photograph of a second gun connected with this case;
7. Suppressing extra bullets removed from the crime scene door frames, door jam and possibly ceiling panels;
8. Destroying the pantry door frames, door jam and ceiling panels before Sirhan's appeal process even commenced;
9. After admitting in the judge's chambers that the prosecution could not authenticate the bullets supposedly involved in the crime, offering substitute bullets into evidence, without disclosing that they were fraudulent (see paragraph 16 above).
10. Destroying the second gun during the month after the assassination and then suppressing the fact of this destruction;
11. Test firing the second gun as a crime scene weapon and then suppressing the fact that test bullets used for police identification purposes were the result of this test firing.
12. Withholding the entire Sheriff's Department file on this case from the defense prior to and during the trial;
13. Withholding from the defense the vast bulk of the LAPD and FBI files on this case;
14. Offering into evidence a gun that was never identified as Sirhan's by any witness and which was materially different from the weapon observed in Sirhan's possession at a gun range on election day by the only witness to describe Sirhan's gun with any specificity.
I have listed only some of the instances in which the prosecution intentionally and deliberately suppressed, altered, destroyed or fabricated material evidence prior to, during or immediately following the trial. There are many acts of misconduct which have taken place during and since that time.
-
Tim I find this response really disappointing especially calling into question Skilling's credentials
Matt, I have not questioned Skilling's credentials. In fact, I acknowledged them when I agreed that Skilling was one of the leading engineers of the time.
Nothing else was offered?
He was doing an interview with a newspaper Did you expect him to bring blueprints with him Sorry if there is some sarcasm here, but it is a real question
Yes, nothing else was offered. I'm not criticizing him for it. I'm just stating a fact.
Yes I know of Robertson and his study which examined a smaller plane,
A smaller plane? Robertson's paper examined a Boeing 707 and compared it to other aircraft.
but Skilling did his own calculations and they are spelled out to a so called White Paper from 64. Official story folks will point to fact that the document is not signed by Skilling That begs the question who else would be doing a study on the WTC other than the person who said he did at this time Yes stress variables can be different under various circumstances, but the redundancy of support apparatus is beyond these minor variables by many order of magnitude In general all the floors, beams, and the exterior shell are consistent throughout the structure, so which floor an impact occurs is relatively meaningless
What is this White Paper from 64 that you refer to and where can I find it?
Leslie Roberton Lead engineer
John Skilling CHIEF Engineer
Ok. The former offered detail about what they looked at in regards to a 707 impact. The latter did not.
If you read the following links you will see Robertson as saying the WTC would likely survive any type of attack before 2001
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
Sorry but I clicked on the link and don't see where Robertson said the WTC would likely survive any type of attack before 2001. You're going to have to highlight the statement for me.
Is it really your suggestion and his engineers never made blueprints and the kind of structural calculations you are looking for?
Yes it is. They never made calculations for every possible scenario of a Boeing 707 impact. They looked at one possible scenario only. That being a Boeing 707 traveling in the fog and at a low speed striking the building at one of the top floor levels.
The fact that they are not publicly available is a surprise? Hate to say it Tim but it seems like you are just lapping out the rhetoric of the debunkers websites Occasionally I draw a firm line with my opinions, and my suggestion here is that if you cannot except that the designers of the WTC, who are clearly some of the top credentialed engineers on the planet at the time, made clear claims that they were as good as certain it would withstand a fully fueled jetliner , and that was the standing science of the time then I believe this is a pretty clear indicator that your biases have gotten the better of you
Top credentialed engineers on the planet at the time did NOT make clear claims that they were as good as certain it would withstand a fully fueled Boeing 767 jetliner traveling at full speed.
It is not the end of the game to admit that Skilling and the WTC designers did build a structure that by all scientific expectations should have easily survived the impacts and fires Maybe they were wrong, but the overriding point is the onus is on NIST to create some extraordinary proof for the extraordinary claim that the existing science of the time was so far off
Skilling and the WTC designers did not build the towers to survive the impacts of fully loaded and fully throttled Boeing 767s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pvEge5HPJU
"I believe that the building probably could sustain"
Oh yeah, that's convincing. ::)
-
Matt, I have not questioned Skilling's credentials. In fact, I acknowledged them when I agreed that Skilling was one of the leading engineers of the time.
Very Good to hear that reinforced
Maybe you can clarify your concern with seeing the exact technical analysis he did? Or is your question just more general and you nee a little more on what his ideas were in the the buildings resiliency in regards to a jetliner impact And finally I assume there is no reason to believe an expert of this stature did not do what he said he did Could you demonstrate that such an analysis should be available to the public We both agree that it would be nice to have some of said analyses, but up to this point I fail to see their absence as in anyway dismissive that experts did what they said they did
Tim Said
A smaller plane? Robertson's paper examined a Boeing 707 and compared it to other aircraft.
This of little consequence unless you are claiming this somehow has bearing on what Skilling stated
Tim said
Ok. The former offered detail about what they looked at in regards to a 707 impact. The latter did not.
The former was alive to do so
Tim said
Yes it is. They never made calculations for every possible scenario of a Boeing 707 impact
How do you know? Robertson?
Further possibilities have parameters If I building can carry live loads then you will need something in excess of that load do you have any evidence of such a load
Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 9
Tim also said
. They looked at one possible scenario only. That being a Boeing 707 traveling in the fog and at a low speed striking the building at one of the top floor levels.
This is Robertson quoting his analysis
Tim said
Top credentialed engineers on the planet at the time did NOT make clear claims that they were as good as certain it would withstand a fully fueled Boeing 767 jetliner traveling at full speed.
Who are DeMartini and Skilling?
Skilling and the WTC designers did not build the towers to survive the impacts of fully loaded and fully throttled Boeing 767s.
Did you look at the calculation regarding the size, speed, and amount of fuel that is shown on the link
The quotes from the bottom link have the calculations from the White Paper I have seen it online once somewhere, but imagine why it might be difficult to find
In regard to Robertson he first quotes the 180 MPH publicly days before 9/11 where was he in 93 when the structural integrity of the towers was very much up for concern, and Skilling makes a very public statement that Robertson had to have heard With so much on the line he chose not to say anything Yes the link for the other quote of Robertson is missing, perhaps part of fake news cleansing project
-
"I believe that the building probably could sustain"
Oh yeah, that's convincing. ::)
Well so far you have not officially discredited Skilling, but I assume we can say you have chosen to do so with DeMartini Do you know something more about this than he did?
-
?Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ?I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,? though does not elaborate further.?[7]
[Leslie Robertson:] ?The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.?[8]
Also suspicious is the fact that he said in 1984-5 that there was ?little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.?[17]- Reference link not found by my server
?The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: ?The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707?DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.? However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.?[5]
And then there is this
?The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. [Leslie] Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. [Robertson] concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly.?[10]
At least Robertson was alive and should have known what happened to his analysis
I am interested on what has happened on the references for Robertson quote of 84-85, and am also annoyed by the so called truther communities ability to network with one another to answer mysteries such as this So hopefully i might get some response
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
-
Maybe you can clarify your concern with seeing the exact technical analysis he did? Or is your question just more general and you nee a little more on what his ideas were in the the buildings resiliency in regards to a jetliner impact And finally I assume there is no reason to believe an expert of this stature did not do what he said he did Could you demonstrate that such an analysis should be available to the public We both agree that it would be nice to have some of said analyses, but up to this point I fail to see their absence as in anyway dismissive that experts did what they said they did]
I can't understand what you were trying to say in that.
Tim Said
A smaller plane? Robertson's paper examined a Boeing 707 and compared it to other aircraft.
This of little consequence unless you are claiming this somehow has bearing on what Skilling stated
It has direct bearing on what Skilling stated. Robertson's paper explains the scenario that they considered with the 707.
The former was alive to do so
Correct.
Tim said
Yes it is. They never made calculations for every possible scenario of a Boeing 707 impact
How do you know? Robertson?
Yes.
Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 9
I have no idea where you got that from. I'll wait for a link to it before I comment any further on it. The same goes for anything else that you do not properly source.
Tim also said
. They looked at one possible scenario only. That being a Boeing 707 traveling in the fog and at a low speed striking the building at one of the top floor levels.
This is Robertson quoting his analysis
That is correct.
Tim said
Top credentialed engineers on the planet at the time did NOT make clear claims that they were as good as certain it would withstand a fully fueled Boeing 767 jetliner traveling at full speed.
Who are DeMartini and Skilling?
DeMartini and Skilling did NOT make clear claims that they were as good as certain it would withstand a fully fueled Boeing 767 jetliner traveling at full speed.
Did you look at the calculation regarding the size, speed, and amount of fuel that is shown on the link
Yes.
In regard to Robertson he first quotes the 180 MPH publicly days before 9/11 where was he in 93 when the structural integrity of the towers was very much up for concern, and Skilling makes a very public statement that Robertson had to have heard With so much on the line he chose not to say anything Yes the link for the other quote of Robertson is missing, perhaps part of fake news cleansing project
Are you questioning the integrity of Leslie Robertson?
Matt, you really should try to learn the use of the quote function.
-
Matt,
(https://i.imgur.com/U07EVG4.png)
This is how it will look:
(https://i.imgur.com/LO9eAsF.png)
-
Thank you for trying to assist me with the quote function and i agree it is a problem At the same time this tred is so fragmented i am not sure it is a good place to practice For the moment I just want to address this
DeMartini and Skilling did NOT make clear claims that they were as good as certain it would withstand a fully fueled Boeing 767 jetliner traveling at full speed.
I assume you are relying on the term at full speed as "an operative term" that was missing from their statements? Are saying the Feb 3 1964 is not authored by Skilling? Full speed is certainly cited in that paper
-
Thank you for trying to assist me with the quote function and i agree it is a problem At the same time this tred is so fragmented i am not sure it is a good place to practice For the moment I just want to address this
DeMartini and Skilling did NOT make clear claims that they were as good as certain it would withstand a fully fueled Boeing 767 jetliner traveling at full speed.
I assume you are relying on the term at full speed as "an operative term" that was missing from their statements? Are saying the Feb 3 1964 is not authored by Skilling? Full speed is certainly cited in that paper
By "Feb 3 1964" I assume you mean the White Paper that you referred to previously. Without seeing the White Paper itself, I cannot comment on it.
-
There are many who feel that the 4 jets crashing on 9/11 was a False Flag operation that had nothing to do with hijackers or Osama Bin Laden . Not one jet engine was found at any of the four crash sights . The Twin Towers and Bldng. 7 all fell at free fall speed ( 9 to 10 seconds ). The so-called jet that hit the Pentagon at first left about a 15 to 17 foot hole until the collapse of the surrounding area.
-
There are many who feel that the 4 jets crashing on 9/11 was a False Flag operation that had nothing to do with hijackers or Osama Bin Laden . Not one jet engine was found at any of the four crash sights . The Twin Towers and Bldng. 7 all fell at free fall speed ( 9 to 10 seconds ). The so-called jet that hit the Pentagon at first left about a 15 to 17 foot hole until the collapse of the surrounding area.
If you haven't already you should watch the History Channel Documentary "The Road to 911" especially the last few episodes. In the end the FBI agents accuse the CIA of helping the terrorists. It is stated the reason why we needed to attack Iraq is because there is not enough places to bomb in Afghanistan. The biggest question is the part where the CIA financially broke Bin Laden, he then winds up in a cave in Afghanistan supposedly financing terrorists with no money. At any rate the history that led to 911 is interesting.
-
I agree the whole is smaller Those who argue for a larger hole seem to be referring a fifty area where you see damage but not a continuous span where all the supporting posts and other facial components are intact at intervals along the way This whole does not seem to be a hole in the common sense, certainly not the type of wholes we see at WTC which shows the clear outline of the plane, As far as the wing folding, well I don't believe there were previous examples of this phenomenon nor were the wings found inside the building
Good point about the engines. I though there was a story about an engine that was discovered right at the bottom of one of the towers before the collapse The story was quite fishy, and included witness who claimed trucks pulled up to the area with some tarps or something to hide their activity I can't find it know, and sense the 9/11 community has no way of talking to one another I may give up on it
No black boxes being found is also a stark anomaly to say the least If one says nothing else about 9/11 is that virtually every expectation on could have had both regarding the people involved but the way objects behaved as well
Have you ever looked at the Ace Baker stuff? I would not even consider it until a couple of years ago, but will save my opinion for now
-
Why wasn't one single black box recovered from any of the crashes on 9/11? Because? you aren?t paying attention.
Both recorders were recovered from Flight 77, right at the point it hit the outer wall of the Pentagon and disintegrated. All data was recovered from the flight data recorder?s solid state drive, but the magnetic tape in the cockpit voice recorder was, well, this:
Continued at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/02/13/why-wasnt-one-single-black-box-recovered-from-any-of-the-crashes-on-911/#e3810191be3b
-
There is pretty compelling information that Saddam was committing genocide against the Kurds, that's not why we went in there; but I do think we should always fight genocide when we can, "Never Again".
-
Yes I was aware that flight 77 recorder was found, but then I googled some link titled by Forbes that said why were none of the Black Boxes found on the four planes and somehow imagined there was a difference in term flight recorder and black box A faux pas for sure
-
There are many who feel that the 4 jets crashing on 9/11 was a False Flag operation that had nothing to do with hijackers or Osama Bin Laden . Not one jet engine was found at any of the four crash sights . The Twin Towers and Bldng. 7 all fell at free fall speed ( 9 to 10 seconds ). The so-called jet that hit the Pentagon at first left about a 15 to 17 foot hole until the collapse of the surrounding area.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
-
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
It seems odd that the reinforced perimeter walls are not able to break off any visible portion of the engines but the interior walls break them down to small pieces or should I say just one identifiable piece
-
All they saw at Shanksville Pennsylvania was a hole in the ground. The Coroner of that county left after 20 minutes . No bodies , no blood , no plane.
The only "energy" that could have caused the damage that was done at the Twin Towers was massive "High Heat Energy" that could cause such damage to these buildings that over "200,000 Tons of construction steel could be turned into shrapnel, that thousands of tons of concrete could be pulverized into powder, that thousands of tons of metal office equipment could be shredded into small pieces of metal and that "3,000" human bodies could disappear or be turned into Microscopic body parts, such that both buildings looked like they went through a " Shredding Machine."
profjoeval.wordpress.com/tag/raging-fires-did-not-cause-the-collapse-of-the-twin-towers
-
As said, Popular Mechanics and Quora debunks most of this rather extensively,
When the Russians murdered hundreds of people over Ukraine who were in a commercial airliner a few years ago, little evidence was there a plane crashed as well because of the impact.
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-there-no-plane-wreckage-in-9-11-terrorist-attacks-on-the-Pentagon
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6f75dcbdc6115d6fbc10cdcbf7f9c523-c)
-
Yes I was aware that flight 77 recorder was found, but then I googled some link titled by Forbes that said why were none of the Black Boxes found on the four planes and somehow imagined there was a difference in term flight recorder and black box A faux pas for sure
The destruction at ground zero was beyond belief and is shown very well in Oliver Stone's "911", fine movie:
(http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/docs/gz_d1391p19.jpg)
Black boxes were not made to withstand some amounts of great destruction.
-
As said, Popular Mechanics and Quora debunks most of this rather extensively,
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6f75dcbdc6115d6fbc10cdcbf7f9c523-c)
My experience here is that individuals here need to make arguments for themselves rather than quoting the opinions of someone else who you believe is some final authority If you can quote them in an effective manner great, but just saying Popular Mechanics, while typical of most people, is meaningless
-
What the "Truthers" say is can be widely seen on the internet and what the debunkers say, likewise, can be found. So, it is an interesting argument but one can find the questions and responses pretty easily, it's just an exercise in searching the web.
-
My experience here is that individuals here need to make arguments for themselves rather than quoting the opinions of someone else who you believe is some final authority If you can quote them in an effective manner great, but just saying Popular Mechanics, while typical of most people, is meaningless
So, you are saying you are an expert in aviation crashes?
If your answer is no, then, perhaps, you can examine your statement about "meaningless"!
-
Again, what we are being fed is just "truther" stuff that has been around for more than 15 years, expounded by people like Alex Jones. It's not as if the Truthers are telling us things they came up with.
-
All they saw at Shanksville Pennsylvania was a hole in the ground. The Coroner of that county left after 20 minutes . No bodies , no blood , no plane.
The only "energy" that could have caused the damage that was done at the Twin Towers was massive "High Heat Energy" that could cause such damage to these buildings that over "200,000 Tons of construction steel could be turned into shrapnel, that thousands of tons of concrete could be pulverized into powder, that thousands of tons of metal office equipment could be shredded into small pieces of metal and that "3,000" human bodies could disappear or be turned into Microscopic body parts, such that both buildings looked like they went through a " Shredding Machine."
profjoeval.wordpress.com/tag/raging-fires-did-not-cause-the-collapse-of-the-twin-towers
Despite this absence of human remains at the Flight 93 crash scene, the Washington Post reported: "[T]he 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. ... Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks [after 9/11] were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total." (Peter Perl, "Hallowed Ground," Washington Post, 5/12/2002)
By December 19, 2001, "the remains of the 40 passengers and crew, and, by process of elimination, the four hijackers" had all been identified. (Steve Levin, "Flight 93 victims' effects to go back to families," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/30/2001)
http://whale.to/b/flight_9323.html
I'm vaguely familiar with one of those on the plane, Tom Burnete, he was one of those alleged to have fought the hijackers.
Wallace Miller, the coroner for Shanksville definitely said:
"It was a plane crash but yet it was a homicide because the terrorists hijacked the plane and killed the people, and the terrorists committed suicide. So from that point, yes it was a misquote, because the point that I was trying to make was, after that it more or less became a large funeral service."
http://911-questions.com/no-bodies-were-found-in-shanksville-said-coroner/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5688/debunking-911-myths-flight-93/
-
I'm vaguely familiar with one of those on the plane, Tom Burnete, he was one of those alleged to have fought the hijackers.
Wallace Miller, the coroner for Shanksville definitely said:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5688/debunking-911-myths-flight-93/
This is interesting they said they found flesh in the nearby woods? This would lend credibility that 93 was shotdown which there is evidence for
-
This is interesting they said they found flesh in the nearby woods? This would lend credibility that 93 was shotdown which there is evidence for
So, why would that mean it was shot down? Are you saying it precludes a plane crash as well? Crashing because hijackers took over the plane?
-
Boy, which is it with Truthers? Plane Shot Down Leaving Flesh Tissue or No Bodies At All?
-
Boy, which is it with Truthers? Plane Shot Down Leaving Flesh Tissue or No Bodies At All?
Apparently they found bodies in tissues in the woods nearby You feel it was more likely it got there by a crash at the site and were thrown clear into the woods or that a shootdwn got them there A shootdown explains everything pretty nicely The crater remains a bit of a mystery since virtually nothing seems to have caused it
-
Apparently they found bodies in tissues in the woods nearby You feel it was more likely it got there by a crash at the site and were thrown clear into the woods or that a shootdwn got them there A shootdown explains everything pretty nicely The crater remains a bit of a mystery since virtually nothing seems to have caused it
I know what caused it, hijackers. So a missile hits a plane in the air and it causes a crater on the earth?
And so, the recording of the hijackers taking the plane over was a fabrication put out by the government to fool the people?
-
I know what caused it, hijackers. So a missile hits a plane in the air and it causes a crater on the earth?
And so, the recording of the hijackers taking the plane over was a fabrication put out by the government to fool the people?
Let me know when you get clear on whether you believe the entire plane and its passengers crashed into the hole identified as the crash site
-
On September 10th, the day before one of the worst days in our history , Donald Rumsfeld held a press conf. saying that the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 "TRILLION" dollars . The next day, when the Pentagon was hit , the "PLANE" coincidentally hit the very side of the building where the accounting department is , killing most of the accountants/book keepers/budget analyst that would be investigating where this money went. 2.3 Trillion dollars would have been 25% of the total budget for the Pentagon. We never heard about this missing 2.3 TRILLION dollars ever again. Building 7 which was not hit by a plane but fell into its own footprints at freefall speed which was 7 seconds . NIST claims that the building had a failure at one cement column but that the building fell due to burning office furnishings . Wrap your head around that one !!!
-
... The report that uncovered the trillions appeared at the end of February 2000, and Rumsfeld and others had spoken about this before, on more than one occasion, and for months before the attacks:
Dates this was spoken about before by Rumsfeld and others:
March 2000, January 2001,
February 12th 2001
The inspector general of the Pentagon said there are 2.3 trillion dollars in items that they can't quite account for. That's not billion. That's trillion dollars. $2.3 trillion -- and the General Accounting Office said there are about $27 billion in inventory items that they can't find.
John Isaacs
PBS Online NewsHour
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june01/dollars_2-12.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html
-
Richard Waiting for a response to my question if you think the question is unfair let me know and we can try starting somewhere else
-
Let me know when you get clear on whether you believe the entire plane and its passengers crashed into the hole identified as the crash site
The hole itself does not represent the entirety of the crash site. Not all of the aircraft and its contents ended up in that hole after the explosive results of the impact had settled, nor would it be expected to.
-
On September 10th, the day before one of the worst days in our history , Donald Rumsfeld held a press conf. saying that the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 "TRILLION" dollars . The next day, when the Pentagon was hit , the "PLANE" coincidentally hit the very side of the building where the accounting department is , killing most of the accountants/book keepers/budget analyst that would be investigating where this money went. 2.3 Trillion dollars would have been 25% of the total budget for the Pentagon. We never heard about this missing 2.3 TRILLION dollars ever again. Building 7 which was not hit by a plane but fell into its own footprints at freefall speed which was 7 seconds . NIST claims that the building had a failure at one cement column but that the building fell due to burning office furnishings . Wrap your head around that one !!!
Mike, all of your silly claims here have been debunked years ago. How is it possible that you were not aware of that.
-
Mr. Matt Grantham; I am reflecting on this. However, I think Mr. Tim N. does make a good point. A bit of this has been discussed...but I definitely, don't care to be a party-pooper. I will think about all of this for now. Thank you for your kind attitude.
-
On the topic of RFK, I read an article that was saying RFK in 1968 when he was shot; was still too far behind Hubert Humphrey to win the Democratic nomination that year. Does anyone know if that is so? I gather it probably is.
-
Tim
I'm having a hard time finding where the 2.3 Trillion dollars could be accounted for. The DOD had until last year (2017) to be audit ready . The DOD has never been audited unless they made their deadline last year. I think when you have 2.3 Trillion dollars unaccounted for then you don't have a clue where your money has gone or what it was used for. Penn Square Bank tried this same type of accounting several years ago and a lot of people lost their ASS . I've been hearing this debunked excuse for a long time so I don't think we will be closing this inquiry anytime soon . The pentagon did not have to worry about cooking the books ! They had never been audited ...
-
On the topic of RFK, I read an article that was saying RFK in 1968 when he was shot; was still too far behind Hubert Humphrey to win the Democratic nomination that year. Does anyone know if that is so? I gather it probably is.
My recollection is that Humphrey did not even run in the Democratic primaries Look forward to hearing back from you
-
Tim
I'm having a hard time finding where the 2.3 Trillion dollars could be accounted for. The DOD had until last year (2017) to be audit ready . The DOD has never been audited unless they made their deadline last year. I think when you have 2.3 Trillion dollars unaccounted for then you don't have a clue where your money has gone or what it was used for. Penn Square Bank tried this same type of accounting several years ago and a lot of people lost their ASS . I've been hearing this debunked excuse for a long time so I don't think we will be closing this inquiry anytime soon . The pentagon did not have to worry about cooking the books ! They had never been audited ...
I heard some information that the number went up to about 5 trillion I am not sure if this was a reassessment from what was missing prior to 9/11 or more that disappeared afterwards
-
Matt
There is a very good you tube segment from an Eye Witness who was in the last World Trade Center
Tower 1 before it was hit and he looked up and out his window after Tower 2 was hit. He did not see what hit Tower 2. He was very surprised to see molten steel coming out of the building . We do know that Thermate (a mixture of thermite & other oxidizing agents used as filling for incendiary munitions) was found.
you tube------- David Long , 9/11 Eyewitness
-
The hole itself does not represent the entirety of the crash site. Not all of the aircraft and its contents ended up in that hole after the explosive results of the impact had settled, nor would it be expected to.
Tim We do see a hole identified as the main crash site, but virtually nothing is there Yes material and bodies could no doubt be thrown a good distance from the site, but you would certainly expect the majority of wreckage to be at the site imo
-
They say a jetliner actually went through the Pentagon E Ring , and then through D Ring and ended up making a hole through C Ring !!! The two , said to be jetliners , cut into the Twin Towers like a knife through butter and of course through all the ruble at ground Zero a man came up to a detective and handed him a passport and then ran off. The FBI agent Dan Coleman explains that the passport was that of one of the supposed 19 hijackers whose name was Satam Al Suqami.
911blogger.com/news/2001-11-14/fbi-agent-dan-coleman-explains-how-passport-911-hijacker
Captain Jim Ingledue, shift safety officer of the Virginia Beach Fire Dept, said Monday he found amidst the rubble at the Pentagon , two days after 9/11, the perfectly clean and unblemished California ID card of Suzanne Calley, 42, one of the alleged victims killed aboard Flight 77 .
-
They say a jetliner actually went through the Pentagon E Ring , and then through D Ring and ended up making a hole through C Ring !!! The two , said to be jetliners , cut into the Twin Towers like a knife through butter and of course through all the ruble at ground Zero a man came up to a detective and handed him a passport and then ran off. The FBI agent Dan Coleman explains that the passport was that of one of the supposed 19 hijackers whose name was Satam Al Suqami.
911blogger.com/news/2001-11-14/fbi-agent-dan-coleman-explains-how-passport-911-hijacker
Captain Jim Ingledue, shift safety officer of the Virginia Beach Fire Dept, said Monday he found amidst the rubble at the Pentagon , two days after 9/11, the perfectly clean and unblemished California ID card of Suzanne Calley, 42, one of the alleged victims killed aboard Flight 77 .
Indeed the final exit hole of the C ring seems hard to explain since nothing appears to have exited said hole
-
Tim
I'm having a hard time finding where the 2.3 Trillion dollars could be accounted for. The DOD had until last year (2017) to be audit ready . The DOD has never been audited unless they made their deadline last year. I think when you have 2.3 Trillion dollars unaccounted for then you don't have a clue where your money has gone or what it was used for. Penn Square Bank tried this same type of accounting several years ago and a lot of people lost their ASS . I've been hearing this debunked excuse for a long time so I don't think we will be closing this inquiry anytime soon . The pentagon did not have to worry about cooking the books ! They had never been audited ...
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-rumsfeld-says-2-3-trillion-missing-from-the-pentagon.t165/
"The money was not missing, just not tracked to acceptable accounting standards. Eventually the accountants sorted out how it was spent and they updated their records."
-
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-rumsfeld-says-2-3-trillion-missing-from-the-pentagon.t165/
"The money was not missing, just not tracked to acceptable accounting standards. Eventually the accountants sorted out how it was spent and they updated their records."
Tim I do not find your link very compelling It seems like we are to believe it is all just a lack of understanding somehow and almost suggesting something like it is impossible for money to go missing period This isn't an issue that I am very interested in and its only significance here is whether it had significance as a big problem worth hiding Whether Rumsfeld was wrong about it is not the point in my opinion
Nonetheless
http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/29-trillion-dollars-missing-from-pentagon-trump-calls-for-audit/
-
All they saw at Shanksville Pennsylvania was a hole in the ground. The Coroner of that county left after 20 minutes . No bodies , no blood , no plane.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b89_1378392429
-
Tim I do not find your link very compelling It seems like we are to believe it is all just a lack of understanding somehow and almost suggesting something like it is impossible for money to go missing period This isn't an issue that I am very interested in and its only significance here is whether it had significance as a big problem worth hiding Whether Rumsfeld was wrong about it is not the point in my opinion
Nonetheless
http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/29-trillion-dollars-missing-from-pentagon-trump-calls-for-audit/
Matt, where is the compelling evidence that 2.3 Trillion dollars was ever missing?
BTW, I don't find the blog article that you linked to very compelling.
-
Matt, where is the compelling evidence that 2.3 Trillion dollars was ever missing?
BTW, I don't find the blog article that you linked to very compelling.
Tim As I said in terms of the context we are looking at in regard to 9/11 all that matters is that was Rumsfeld's statement and it was potentially rather newsworthy. Maybe that is all I should say on the issue
Catherine Austin Fitz is at least a person of some status
-
I was just thinking about the idea of wings breaking off of the plane at impact with the facade and then supposedly following the rest of the plane threw the hole. The problem I am having is if the wings do not penetrate and they break off their forward momentum would seem to be near zero at that point If they snapped, and they had to snap to become near parallel with the path of the fuselage they have lost forward momentum It seems pretty obvious in my mind they should be laying outside the facade Also since the right wing hits first it seems unlikely that the pull created on the rest of the plane from the right wing break off would have altered the course of the remaining portion of the plane considerably to the right
-
No jet hit the Pentagon !
-
I just recently checked out Barbara Honeggers hew You Tube presentation on the Pentagon Lots of stuff I had never heard about I recently joined what seems to be the best Truther group Facebook page and had a long debate with someone there He of course broke down into name calling and that I was brainwashed etc I suppose I play a bit of a game in such debates to get these people to crack, but they virtually breakdown Also you continuously see the I can't answer your question but you need to read a report that has the answers phenomenon I leave the link for you if your interested
In this debate the big blue tarp that I remember seeing on the TV on 9/11 and thinking it seemed a bit odd along with the line of people picking up evidence But you put that together and it make more sense that they likely snuck out plane parts with this tarp and pony show I was very slow to become truly suspicious of any kind of conspiracy at first Even after I believed in the conspiracy and then first heard about the demolition theory, I was no way, that's crazy In retrospect I know am amazed I would have ever believed those buildings came down the way they did
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2204686781/permalink/10155343797881782/?comment_id=10155357038841782&reply_comment_id=10155359130436782¬if_id=1528329921095205¬if_t=group_comment_mention&ref=notif
http://www.rense.com/general70/tarp.htm
-
Matt , thanks for turning me on to Barbara Honeggers video . A lot of very important material from the Pentagon on 9/11 was brought out by her . People don't want to believe in certain things that happened back on 9/11 but there are so many lies about what happened that day. Thanks Matt , Great Video !
-
Mike Your Welcome It's nice to have an intelligent person somebody interested in it
-
This is just FWIW; I'm not saying this is so, I am saying it's in the news.
Iran Admits To Facilitating 9/11 Terror Attacks
Adam Kredo
BY: June 8, 2018 6:03 pm
Iranian officials, in a first, have admitted to facilitating the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. by secretly aiding the free travel of al Qaeda operatives who eventually went on to fly commercial airliners into the Twin Towers in New York City, according to new remarks from a senior Iranian official.
Mohammad-Javad Larijani, an international affairs assistant in the Iran's judiciary, disclosed in Farsi-language remarks broadcast on Iran's state-controlled television that Iranian intelligence officials secretly helped provide the al Qaeda attackers with passage and gave them refuge in the Islamic Republic, according to an English translation published by Al Arabiya.
"Our government agreed not to stamp the passports of some of them because they were on transit flights for two hours, and they were resuming their flights without having their passports stamped. However their movements were under the complete supervision of the Iranian intelligence," Larijani was quoted as saying.
Read more at: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-admits-facilitating-9-11-terror-attacks/
FWIW as well, a US court found Iran guilty of being behind 911:
http://www.iran911case.com/
-
Looks like that settles it, Iran aided 911. Case closed.
I am actually being a bit disingenuous here, I didn't mean to be.
Okay, we've known for years, that most of the hijackers travelled through Iran in the previous 18 months, ballpark figure, all except 1 hijacker. The Iranians did not stamp the Saudi passports, it sounds like for some reason, they don't stamp any Saudi passports. So, there is a bit of backtracking and research that needs to be done. I didn't mean to stifle any conversation on this.
Now some decent analysis is rolling in:
https://nypost.com/2018/06/09/iran-admits-it-protected-al-qaeda-terrorists-before-9-11/
https://ijr.com/2018/06/1101744-iran-admission-helped-911-hijackers/
https://www.justsecurity.org/57338/trump-administration-claim-congress-authorized-force-iran-analysis-existing-statutory-authority-proposals/
-
Indira Singh discusses the P tech software that was used by the FAA before 9/11 and it's interesting connections to middle eastern terrorists
https://www.blubrry.com/corbettreport/35506726/ptech-and-the-911-software/
-
Matt , One of the biggest smoking guns of 9/11 was the way World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed almost straight down in its own footing . NIST made some statements that were just ridiculous about the office fires playing a part in builing 7 falling along with what they said about 1 column that supposedly weakened the structure . The Engineers and Architects have let themselves be heard about what can and can't happen to a Steel & Concrete building . Until 9/11/2001 , not one Steel & Concrete building ever collapsed due to fire . On 9/11 , World Trade Centers 1 , 2, and 7 all collapsed .
-
Matt , One of the biggest smoking guns of 9/11 was the way World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed almost straight down in its own footing . NIST made some statements that were just ridiculous about the office fires playing a part in building 7 falling along with what they said about 1 column that supposedly weakened the structure . The Engineers and Architects have let themselves be heard about what can and can't happen to a Steel & Concrete building . Until 9/11/2001 , not one Steel & Concrete building ever collapsed due to fire . On 9/11 , World Trade Centers 1 , 2, and 7 all collapsed .
Mike,
Did they ask William Binney (before he realized he'd been duped by British hacker Tim Leonard -- aka "Adam Carter") his opinion on whether or not it was an "inside job"?
-- MWT ;)
PS The Kremlin loves you for all of the "tinfoil hat conspiracy theories" you wittingly or unwittingly spread.
-
Matt , One of the biggest smoking guns of 9/11 was the way World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed at free fall speed almost straight down in its own footing . NIST made some statements that were just ridiculous about the office fires playing a part in builing 7 falling along with what they said about 1 column that supposedly weakened the structure . The Engineers and Architects have let themselves be heard about what can and can't happen to a Steel & Concrete building . Until 9/11/2001 , not one Steel & Concrete building ever collapsed due to fire . On 9/11 , World Trade Centers 1 , 2, and 7 all collapsed .
Hi Mike Good to see you hear. Quite a bit happening with 9/11
https://www.ae911truth.org/news/544-building-7-study-to-be-released-september-3-i-need-your-help-to-spread-it-far-and-wide
https://www.ae911truth.org/news/506-grand-jury-to-hear-9-11-evidence-an-interview-with-the-lawyers-who-made-it-happen
https://www.ae911truth.org/news/540-new-york-area-fire-commissioners-make-history-call-for-new-9-11-investigation
-
Mike,
Did they ask William Binney (before he realized he'd been duped by British hacker Tim Leonard -- aka "Adam Carter") his opinion on whether or not it was an "inside job"?
-- MWT ;)
PS The Kremlin loves you for all of the "tinfoil hat conspiracy theories" you wittingly or unwittingly spread.
So says the institutionally inured
-
So says the institutionally inured
Matt.
The only "institution" I'm accustomed to (having lived there voluntarily for many years) and can therefore "handle" is the JFK Assassination Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theory Nuthouse, founded by Mark "Fellow Traveler, At Best" Lane and Jim "Mobbed-Up" Garrison, artistically memorialized in Oliver "I Like Putin And My Son Works For RT" Stone's 1991 film JFK.
-- MWT ;)
-
Matt.
The only "institution" I'm accustomed to (having lived there voluntarily for many years) and can therefore "handle" is the JFK Assassination Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theory Nuthouse, founded by Mark "Fellow Traveler, At Best" Lane and Jim "Mobbed-Up" Garrison, artistically memorialized in Oliver "I Like Putin And My Son Works For RT" Stone's 1991 film JFK.
-- MWT ;)
The same old, tired responses, .......... over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
-
The same old, tired responses, [..........] over and over and over and over [.........] and over again.
Michael,
That's really, really impressive! Did they teach you how to do that in your rhetoric class?
Is that what you always do when you realize you've been severely beaten in a "debate"?
Beaten ... Like a rented mule!
Actually, I can imagine that a "I KNOW IN MY HEART OF HEARTS THAT THE EVIL, EVIL CIA AND THE DEEP STATE KILLED KENNEDY!" conspiracy theorist like you would tire very, very quickly indeed of what I have to say.
You and Jumbo Duh, et al.
By the way, have you finished that letter to Newman and Scott yet? (You are gonna "set 'em straight," aren't you?)
Ready for more deconstruction of Bagley's obit?
Wanna pull an "all nighter"?
-- MWT ;)
PS Do check out the very last thing in the video, won't you?:
Peter Dale Scott to John Newman: "I absolutely believe you that Nosenko was sent to discredit Golitsyn."
Cheers!
PPS Isn't it time for you to post that memo by Howard J. Osborn, again, or some more grossly over-enlarged pages from John L. Hart's The Monster Plot Report?
LOL
-
Michael,
That's really, really impressive! Did you learn that technique in your rhetoric class? (sarcasm) Is that what you always do when you realize you've been beaten on a "debate"?
Actually, I can imagine that a "I Know In My Heart Of Hearts That The Evil, Evil, Evil CIA and THE DEEP STATE Killed Kennedy!" CTer like you would tire very, very quickly indeed of what I have to say.
You and Jumbo Duh, et al.
By the way, have you finished that letter to Newman and Scott yet? (You're gonna "set 'em straight," right?)
Ready for more deconstruction of Bagley's obit?
Wanna pull an "all nighter"?
-- MWT ;)
PS Do check out the very last thing in the video, won't you?:
(Peter Dale Scott to John Newman) -- "I absolutely believe you that Nosenko was sent to discredit Golitsyn."
Cheers!
PPS Isn't it time for you to post that memo by Howard J. Osborn, again, or some more pages from John L. Hart's "The Monster Plot Report"?
LOL
The same old, tired responses, .......... over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
-
The same old, tired responses, .......... over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Michael,
I guess you're just tired of losing, huh.
How's that letter coming along, btw? You're gonna set 'em straight, right? Atta boy!
-- MWT ;)
PS Funny (in a sad sad sad kind of way), but your modern poetry "graphics" perfectly describes how you and so many Americans were so thoroughly inundated (over and over and over and over and over again) by Ruskie propaganda over the years, much of it being unwittingly(?) spread by the likes of James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio and Jefferson "Intellectually Dishonest" Morley, ... et al.
sad sad sad sad Sad Sad Sad ....
Cheers!
PPS Osborn? Hart? Osborn? Hart? Osborn? Hart? Osborn ..... ?
-
Mike,
Did they ask William Binney (before he realized he'd been duped by British hacker Tim Leonard -- aka "Adam Carter") his opinion on whether or not it was an "inside job"?
-- MWT ;)
PS The Kremlin loves you for all of the "tinfoil hat conspiracy theories" you wittingly or unwittingly spread.
Citation for Leonard's duping of Binney?
-
Matt.
The only "institution" I'm accustomed to (having lived there voluntarily for many years)
-- MWT ;)
A man without an island? Problems with somnambulism perhaps?
-
A man without an island? Problems with somnambulism perhaps?
... is the paranoiac fantasy world you don't even know you're stuck in.
-- MWT ;)
PS Somnambulism? Isn't that something like Salmonella?
(Boy, that'll keep you up at night, rummaging though the thesaurus... )
PPS Why don't you just google (all at the same time) "william binney" "tim leonard" ?
Hmm?
-
9/11 Conspiracy Theories
https://www.popularmechanics.com/9-11-conspiracy-theories/
-
9/11 Conspiracy Theories
https://www.popularmechanics.com/9-11-conspiracy-theories/
Gee I guess most of approached Popular Mechanics with any kin of relevance about 15 years ago. You need to catch up with the times
-
... is the paranoiac fantasy world you don't even know you're stuck in.
-- MWT ;)
PS Somnambulism? Isn't that something like Salmonella?
(Boy, that'll keep you up at night, rummaging though the thesaurus... )
PPS Why don't you just google (all at the same time) "william binney" "tim leonard" ?
Hmm?
Thomas You chose to take the low road of nonsense awhile back, and now you are not even open to new ways of insulting one another. Disappointing
-
Thomas You chose to take the low road of nonsense awhile back, and now you are not even open to new ways of insulting one another. Disappointing
Matt,
Have you googled "william binney" "tim leonard" simultaneously, yet?
(You'll find several articles to choose from.)
-- MWT ;)
-
Thomas You chose to take the low road of nonsense awhile back, and now you are not even open to new ways of insulting one another. Disappointing
Yup. That’s good. Right there; that’s real good.
-
Matt,
Have you googled "william binney" "tim leonard" simultaneously, yet?
(You'll find several articles to choose from.)
-- MWT ;)
Usually prefer someone making a claim at least gives a sentence or two summary of what they are claiming. then one can look to see those points reflected in the links
Against my better judgement I looked at them anyway I looked at them anyway. Nothing there about any connection to Binney any assessment of VIPS main concerns about download speeds etc. Tim Leonard may be some disinfo agent, I have no idea But what the hell is he supposed to do with Binney
-
Yup. That’s good. Right there; that’s real good.
Hey Micheal, I can tell you are all too familiar with this road. I think I see my exit dead ahead. Maybe see you around some day with someone who actually discusses things
-
Got a rebuttal to the rebuttal?
https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/08/opinion-on-the-latest-establishment-attack-launched-against-wikileaks-independent-media/
-
Usually prefer someone making a claim at least gives a sentence or two summary of what they are claiming. then one can look to see those points reflected in the links
Against my better judgement I looked at them anyway I looked at them anyway. Nothing there about any connection to Binney any assessment of VIPS main concerns about download speeds etc. Tim Leonard may be some disinfo agent, I have no idea But what the hell is he supposed to do with Binney
Matt,
Do you identify with the person calling himself restless94110 in this article?
Are you restless94110 ?
LOL
I love some of the comments others made to his little essay, "The Binney Retraction Is Untrue".
Did you read the article when it showed up at the top of your google search "hit list," and all of the other articles it "links" to, as well?
(Didn't think so.)
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180802/07182740351/as-dnc-hacked-itself-conspiracy-theory-collapses-key-backer-claim-exposed-as-uk-troll.shtml
-- MWT ;)
-
Thomas You chose to take the low road of nonsense awhile back, and now you are not even open to new ways of insulting one another. Disappointing
Yup. That’s good. Right there; that’s real good.
Hey Micheal, I can tell you are all too familiar with this road. I think I see my exit dead ahead. Maybe see you around some day with someone who actually discusses things
Yes, I’ll look out for you. If we see them come for Thomas, perhaps we’ll vouch for him, a bit. I wouldn’t want to see them rough him up too much.
-
Thomas, You chose to take the low road of nonsense awhile back ...
Matt,
What "low road of nonsense" are you referring to?
Care to be specific?
Can you, even?
-- MWT ;)
-
Matt,
What "low road of nonsense" are you referring to?
Care to be specific?
Can you, even?
-- MWT ;)
Yo make a good point since their was an implication that at one time you were interested in discussing objective facts instead of your obsession with innuendo and outright slander. So yes in retrospect there was turning to the low road.
-
Matt,
I love some of the comments others made to his little essay, "The Binney Retraction Is Untrue".
-- MWT ;)
You do understand your blanket proclamations are meaningless. Do you even know how to make a true argument with supporting evidence? Here is a clue, it requires more than meaningless proclamations and posting links See ya
-
You do understand your blanket proclamations are meaningless. Do you even know how to make a true argument with supporting evidence? Here is a clue, it requires more than meaningless proclamations and posting links See ya
Matt,
Articles like the one I posted above oftentimes make my arguments for me more effectively and with more authority than I can, and they do it much quicker than I can, too.
Question: Are you afraid to reveal your "sources" on ... anything?
Question: Why do you always run away when you're losing?
-- MWT ;)