Political Crossfire Forums

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: paulmarkj wrote: What does being a CT/debunker have to do with being patriotic/unpatriotic? There is no logic there.
Nothing whatever. In the CT's mind, they like to pretend that they're warriors for justice, and everyone else is a mindless sheep who can't help but bleat government propaganda. This is a theme they pick up from their CT sources, who provide it as a means to shield their potential subscribers from the notion that, *gasp*, people might consider their theories and find them wanting.

If history should have TAUGHT US ANYTHING, IT IS TO QUESTION EVERYTHING the government tells us.

If the education system should have taught us anything, it is to question everything and then use ALL the facts at hand to come to a logical conclusion.

The government says WTC7 fell due to structural damage and fire. Firefighters on the scene confirm that the building suffered massive damage and had very large fires. They were convinced the building was going to collapse on their own and was not worth the risk of trying to save. The NIST has a logical explanation for the collapse. Video tape with audio close to the collapse has no audio record of explosives going off.

The government says WTC 1 and 2 fell due to structural damage and fire. Firefighters in and around WTC 1 and 2 do not believe they heard explosive charges going off in the towers immediately before and during the collapse. Seismic evidence from several sources do not show explosive charges going off. Investigations found no residue of explosives. Cleanup workers who have dealt with buildings brought down by controlled demolition didn't see any signs of controlled demolition. The structural engineer who designed the building says the building fell exactly as one would expect once a collapse was started and didn't need explosives to start / continue the collapse.

The government says flight 77 flew into the Pentagon. They pulled pieces of flight 77 out of the Pentagon and matched the DNA. Hundreds of witnesses saw a large, two engined commercial airliner slam into the building.

The government says flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. Local rescue workers say the plane crashed their. Numerous witnesses say the plane crashed there. NTSB says the plane crashed there. DNA evidence says the plane crashed there.

In every single instance you have an expert third party corroborating the government's version. Questioning the government is fine. It is good. It is your patriotic duty. Ignoring the evidence in order to keep questions alive based on lies, misinformation and non-expert opinion is, imho, being childish and intellectually dishonest.

Well, it is easy to take the government's word and the word of government witnsesses as gospel, but if you had done this for either TWA 800, or the OKC bombing, you would have been mislead. Numerous people risked their careers to prove coverups of both of these tragedies, something that hasn't happened with 911.

Sorry. Don't buy it. First off, they weren't "government witnesses". Nice way to try and pawn them off as unreliable or tainted, but your attempt is as transparent as cellophane. Firefighters are now "government witnesses" when they lost 300 of their own? Give me a break. You'll have to do much better than this garbage to try and prove the witnesses should not be believed.

Norrin Radd wrote: I don't blame people for not wanting to come forward, since the history of whistlblowers is one of punishment and most of the time what they had to tell us never reaches the people. The Ron Brown whistlblowers are a textbook case of what happens to whistleblowers.
Yet we've had whistleblowers for numerous government projects that the government was actively trying to keep hidden. Things such as the phone record lists, Abu Graib, etc. etc. Your claim that there are no whistle blowers because they are all afraid rings as hollow as claiming firefighters and witnesses on the highway are all government witnesses.

If I had proof of a 9/11 coverup, I would expose it asap because of the scope of the crime and what all is involved. I can't be the only one in the United States that feels this way no matter what you claim.

Norrin Radd wrote: Maybe the government's story concerning the collapse of the towers and building 7 is correct. Maybe a commercial airliner did fly into the Pentagon. Maybe the hijckers had no connection to the US government, or factions thereof.

However.............

It would be very difficult to convince me that the most powerful military in the world was not capable of protecting the Pentagon 34 minutes after we knew we were under attack. It would be difficult to convince me that something, or someone, didn't prevent our military from doing their job.
Even when you have your facts wrong? When you start with bad facts you end up with bad assumptions. NORAD was informed of flight 77 at 9:24. Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon at 9:37. That isn't 34 minutes. That is barely more than 10.

The interceptors took off at 9:30, but did not arrive in Washington in time to shoot down Flight 77 even if that were possible. By 9:30, flight 77 was over Washington DC. What causes more damage, an airliner crashing into a building or shooting down an airliner over a populated area?

Norrin Radd wrote: If you choose to belive that NORAD and our military are inept bunglers, then that is your choice, but I know better.
Were mistakes made? Yes. Are they inept bunglers? No. That again is your characterization of what you think others think. It wasn't NORAD's job to patrol civilian airspace or to be on guard against attacks from within civilian airspace. It was their job on 9/11 to protect the US from outside threats. This has since changed.

Norrin Radd wrote: There are many so called coincidences that are just oo numerous to simply dismiss. If the government has nothing to hide, then it should release all the video related to teh Pentagon attack. Is this too much to ask? What possible National Security issues would be risked by this action? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to put the Pentagon aspect to rest?
Yes, I've seen the so called list of coincidences. Most of those "coincidences" are such a stretch that one wonders how even a die hard CTer can call it a coincidence.

And once again, releasing the Pentagon videos would do NOTHING to quell conspiracy theorists such as yourself. If the pictures showed conclusive proof they would be called forgeries. We both know this to be true. Sitting their and blowing smoke up our collective rear ends by trying to convince us it would put the Pentagon aspect to rest is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at rationalizing the ignoring all the evidence you already have in favor of claiming there is better evidence.

Norrin Radd wrote: Researching TWA 800 and the OKC bombing proved to me that the government is capable of monumental lies. It covered up two tragedies where hundreds of Americans lost their lives. So why should I believe them this time?
Using two unproven conspiracies to prove a third is ludicrous. You are building your theories on sand. It is no wonder they can't stand up to inspection.

NORAD had drills on hijacked airliners.

Or is this USA Today article wrong?

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

////////

The 2nd plane hit the trade center 34 minutes before the Pentagon was hit.

That was 34 minutes NORAD had to protect D.C.

As far as OKC and TWA 800 go, they are both obvious coverups.

Of course they are only obvious to people who are willing to do the research and to people who are capable of recognizing the truth when they see it.

Maybe someday you will realize that most of what you believe is a lie.

Maybe someday you will stop allowing the government to tell you what to think.

[Patriot911]

Norrin Radd wrote: NORAD had drills on hijacked airliners.

Or is this USA Today article wrong?

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

So whats your point? That NORAD practices different scenarios? You think the only excercises they ever did was this one? :roll:

Norrin Radd wrote: The 2nd plane hit the trade center 34 minutes before the Pentagon was hit.

That was 34 minutes NORAD had to protect D.C.
Thank you for proving you are irrational in your accusations. NORAD had no way of knowing that Washington DC was in trouble even after the second plane hit. Or were they suppose to launch every fighter they had just in case? The drill (which you so conveniently proved they did) was that the FAA notifies NORAD when there is a hijacking and then NORAD takes care of it. Why is it you wanted everyone on that day to throw the rule book out the window and just do whatever they wanted?

Norrin Radd wrote: As far as OKC and TWA 800 go, they are both obvious coverups.
Look, just because you claim they are doesn't make it so. The vast majority of people believe you are wrong. Why did McVeigh go to his death if the truth was a cover up? He had full access to the media. McNichols is also alive and in prison. Why isn't he talking about the coverup?

Sorry, but your suspicions are not enough proof for me or most people to claim OKC or TWA800 were coverups, much less use these two events as the foundation of proof to believe 9/11 was a coverup as well.

Norrin Radd wrote: Of course they are only obvious to people who are willing to do the research and to people who are capable of recognizing the truth when they see it.
There goes that ego of yours. You believe if people aren't as gullible.... I mean as "smart" as you when they read conspiracies that they are somehow inferior.

Norrin Radd wrote: Maybe someday you will realize that most of what you believe is a lie.
What I believe is based on the facts, not a bunch of suspicions, lies and misinformation. As the facts change, what I believe changes. This is in stark contrast to how you live which is you hold on to your precious theories as truth regardless of the evidence provided.

Norrin Radd wrote: Maybe someday you will stop allowing the government to tell you what to think.
Maybe some day you will grow up and get over that stupid overused line. I don't allow the government to tell me what to think. That is just a lameassed insult you wish to throw around to stroke your own ego.

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote:
Thank you for proving you are irrational in your accusations. NORAD had no way of knowing that Washington DC was in trouble even after the second plane hit. Or were they suppose to launch every fighter they had just in case? The drill (which you so conveniently proved they did) was that the FAA notifies NORAD when there is a hijacking and then NORAD takes care of it. Why is it you wanted everyone on that day to throw the rule book out the window and just do whatever they wanted?



As soon as the 2nd plane hit the WTC, every person I KNOW KNEW WE WERE UNDER ATTACK. I guess NORAD isn't capable of common sense.

Anyone who is capable of common sense knows that there was plenty of time to have had fighters protecting D.C.

This is COMMON SENSE, ever hear of it?

As for TWA 800, the first person on the scene was a National Guard helicopter pilot who was in the air at the time. Major Meyer said he saw 3, or 4 explosions before the fuel tank blew.

The CIA animation was a joke, as was the NTSB animation and not a single thinking person believes either one.

The CIA animation was based on the statement of Mike Wire, a eyewitness, but Mr. Wire said the animation bore NO RESEMBLAnce TO WHAT HE SAW.

Retired Navy Commander Bill Donaldson presented a 110 page report to Congress, proving a coverup. He spent the last 5 years of his life proving this coverup.

Jim and Liz Sanders also helped prove a coverup, risking both of their careers to do so. Terry Stacy risked his career helping to prove a coverup and Hank Hughes also risked his career by telling the truth in his testimony that FBI agents were seen removing evidence from the hangar at 3:00 A.M. Mr. Hughes also testified that he saw the FBI altering evidence.

The FBI did not even have jurisdiction, as the investigation should have been performed by the NTSB.

The testimony of Hank Hughes which states the FBI removed evidence at 3:00 A.M. was REMOVED FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

The FAA notified the White House that it appeared that an object merged with TWA 800 before it's demise. The radar data from the FAA shortly disappeared.

WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW?

ARE YOU CAPABLE OF COMMON SENSE????????????????????????

[johnflesh]

paulmarkj wrote: I don't see the logic in:

johnflesh wrote: Theorist and debunkers are one in the same. Neither has the truth in their hands or there would be:
1. no conspiracy threads, ever.

If I know the thruth about something doews not stop someone else making up a lie.

johnflesh wrote:
Theorists and debunkers are extremist. Honestly though, IMO, they are needed as to keep each other, governments, and ideals in check.


(Just as an aside: If ideals are kept in check by conspiracy theorists, then God help us all. There are many CT I know who want to be rid of the current authorities and replace them with God know what - I have no doubt there will be plenty of 'honest' men to fill the vacuum.)

johnflesh wrote:
Debunkers spend most of their time in conspiracy forums after claiming through word association, screen names, and the like; to be patriotic.

What does being a CT/debunker have to do with being patriotic/unpatriotic? There is no logic there.

I have no idea what being patriotic has to do with sitting in Conspiracy Threads talking to theorists, but those who sit and debunk often claim that they are patriotic and that is the reason they are..... sitting in Conspiracy Threads debunking. Which has zero logic. I am sure they have better things to do with their time?? Or I guess not. So you are right there is no logic to it, but it is what happens.

Yes I'd agree leaving it in the SOUL HANDS of theorist to keep everything in check would be something that would make me say, God help us all, too. But again you miss the point. (you must be really short because things are flying right over your head...)

It isn't that theorist are keeping everything in check, it is the debate, the research of conspiracy theorist AND debunkers that keep it in check. Fortunatly for us all, they aren't the only ones doing so.

And..

If you know the truth about something, it is almost your duty to do one of two things:
Tell the world, or keep it to yourself. Discretion is needed in order to make the proper choice. But ultimatly, when you tell the world, you must be ready for debate, to be called names like CT, and to provide evidence that your 'truth' is not just your point of view. If you cannot provide evidence of your truth, rationally and descriptive naming all sources and providing proper links (not just URLs .. lol) then your truth is nothing but your point of view.


A word: If you are going to go tit for tat on my lines about this, please understand what I write before replying, helps in the long run of having to spell it out for you.

[NAB]

Norrin,
I just thought I'd relate a little anecdotal story I heard yesterday concerning Ron Brown's death. I was in Zagreb on business and when I was returning to the airport early in the moring (Saturday) my driver was relating an interesting story to me and I instantly thought of you. He brought up that crash in relation to a comment I had on the high amount of fog and hoping my flight wasn't delayed. He said Croatia has a very good flight record except for the Brown crash. He used to be a driver for A.P. and Rueters reporters back during the war and would take them down to the more dangerous areas. He was in Dubrovnik at the time with these reporters and they heard about the crash. This group of reporters were the first on the crash scene to get photographs. It had hit the side of a mountain, and this guy started talking about the "theories" surrounding this crash. One of the things that evidentially got toungues wagging was the apparent suicide of the air traffic controller soon after the event. The guy had many personal problems, but the fact that it occurred after the crash made it look suspicious. The bit of the story I found interesting was in relation to the airport itself. Evidentially it has a history of very high cross winds (which the local pilots are familar with), and this is the likely cause of the crash. The pilot of Brown's plane was not familar with the region and the high winds. The plane got off course due to the winds and hit the side of the mountain. This was merely a story I heard from a guy who is from the region, and this story basically came out of the blue by starting a conversation on air safety in Croatia. Sorry I don't have a link or anything, but I thought it was interesting.

[Norrin Radd]

NAB wrote: Norrin,
I just thought I'd relate a little anecdotal story I heard yesterday concerning Ron Brown's death. I was in Zagreb on business and when I was returning to the airport early in the moring (Saturday) my driver was relating an interesting story to me and I instantly thought of you. He brought up that crash in relation to a comment I had on the high amount of fog and hoping my flight wasn't delayed. He said Croatia has a very good flight record except for the Brown crash. He used to be a driver for A.P. and Rueters reporters back during the war and would take them down to the more dangerous areas. He was in Dubrovnik at the time with these reporters and they heard about the crash. This group of reporters were the first on the crash scene to get photographs. It had hit the side of a mountain, and this guy started talking about the "theories" surrounding this crash. One of the things that evidentially got toungues wagging was the apparent suicide of the air traffic controller soon after the event. The guy had many personal problems, but the fact that it occurred after the crash made it look suspicious. The bit of the story I found interesting was in relation to the airport itself. Evidentially it has a history of very high cross winds (which the local pilots are familar with), and this is the likely cause of the crash. The pilot of Brown's plane was not familar with the region and the high winds. The plane got off course due to the winds and hit the side of the mountain. This was merely a story I heard from a guy who is from the region, and this story basically came out of the blue by starting a conversation on air safety in Croatia. Sorry I don't have a link or anything, but I thought it was interesting.

I always enjoy hearing accounts from people on any topics I post about.

I do not know if there was any foul play in Ron Brown's death, or not, but what I do know is.............
that 4 sepearte whistlblowers came forward, all of whom were in the room when Brown's body was examined. All came forward, one at a time, to say they weren't sure they agreed with the chief medical examiners findings and that there was a round hole in Brown's head which was the size of a .45 caliber bullet. (No autopsy was done, just a final exam) These whistlebowers claims were reported by the AP and the mass media even picked up a few of their stories, but no mass media outlets I saw covered ALL 4 WHISTLBLOWERS.

The whistlblowers were later punished and the story died a quick death in the mass media. To learn about the punishment of the whistleblowers you must go to NEWSMAX, or WND.

I shouldn't have to go to alternative sites to learn what happened to 4 brave people who risked their careers to do what they believed was right.

The only mass media site I could find that covered the punishment was the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/1/31/173313

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14430

[Patriot911]

Norrin Radd wrote: Patriot911 wrote:
Thank you for proving you are irrational in your accusations. NORAD had no way of knowing that Washington DC was in trouble even after the second plane hit. Or were they suppose to launch every fighter they had just in case? The drill (which you so conveniently proved they did) was that the FAA notifies NORAD when there is a hijacking and then NORAD takes care of it. Why is it you wanted everyone on that day to throw the rule book out the window and just do whatever they wanted?



As soon as the 2nd plane hit the WTC, every person I KNOW KNEW WE WERE UNDER ATTACK. I guess NORAD isn't capable of common sense.
So NORAD was suddenly suppose to know about every plane that was hijacked? Or were they suppose to just start shooting down every commercial airliner they suspected?

Norrin Radd wrote: Anyone who is capable of common sense knows that there was plenty of time to have had fighters protecting D.C.

This is COMMON SENSE, ever hear of it?
Hindsight is 20/20. NORAD and the FAA followed the rules and procedures. NORAD isn't suppose to shut down civilian airspace just because some guy thinks it is common sense.

Norrin Radd wrote: As for TWA 800, the first person on the scene was a National Guard helicopter pilot who was in the air at the time. Major Meyer said he saw 3, or 4 explosions before the fuel tank blew.

The CIA animation was a joke, as was the NTSB animation and not a single thinking person believes either one.

The CIA animation was based on the statement of Mike Wire, a eyewitness, but Mr. Wire said the animation bore NO RESEMBLAnce TO WHAT HE SAW.

Retired Navy Commander Bill Donaldson presented a 110 page report to Congress, proving a coverup. He spent the last 5 years of his life proving this coverup.

Jim and Liz Sanders also helped prove a coverup, risking both of their careers to do so. Terry Stacy risked his career helping to prove a coverup and Hank Hughes also risked his career by telling the truth in his testimony that FBI agents were seen removing evidence from the hangar at 3:00 A.M. Mr. Hughes also testified that he saw the FBI altering evidence.

The FBI did not even have jurisdiction, as the investigation should have been performed by the NTSB.

The testimony of Hank Hughes which states the FBI removed evidence at 3:00 A.M. was REMOVED FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

The FAA notified the White House that it appeared that an object merged with TWA 800 before it's demise. The radar data from the FAA shortly disappeared.

WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW?

ARE YOU CAPABLE OF COMMON SENSE????????????????????????

I am perfectly capable of common sense and I use it often. You should try it sometime. It is quite enlightening. ;-)

You're still trying to use two unproven conspiracy theories to prove a third. I realize you have no proof and thus desperate to find ANYTHING to prove 9/11 was a conspiracy. Sad really. Even if you could prove TWA800 and OKC, it still does nothing to prove 9/11.

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Patriot911 wrote:
Thank you for proving you are irrational in your accusations. NORAD had no way of knowing that Washington DC was in trouble even after the second plane hit. Or were they suppose to launch every fighter they had just in case? The drill (which you so conveniently proved they did) was that the FAA notifies NORAD when there is a hijacking and then NORAD takes care of it. Why is it you wanted everyone on that day to throw the rule book out the window and just do whatever they wanted?



As soon as the 2nd plane hit the WTC, every person I KNOW KNEW WE WERE UNDER ATTACK. I guess NORAD isn't capable of common sense.
So NORAD was suddenly suppose to know about every plane that was hijacked? Or were they suppose to just start shooting down every commercial airliner they suspected?

Norrin Radd wrote: Anyone who is capable of common sense knows that there was plenty of time to have had fighters protecting D.C.

This is COMMON SENSE, ever hear of it?
Hindsight is 20/20. NORAD and the FAA followed the rules and procedures. NORAD isn't suppose to shut down civilian airspace just because some guy thinks it is common sense.

Norrin Radd wrote: As for TWA 800, the first person on the scene was a National Guard helicopter pilot who was in the air at the time. Major Meyer said he saw 3, or 4 explosions before the fuel tank blew.

The CIA animation was a joke, as was the NTSB animation and not a single thinking person believes either one.

The CIA animation was based on the statement of Mike Wire, a eyewitness, but Mr. Wire said the animation bore NO RESEMBLAnce TO WHAT HE SAW.

Retired Navy Commander Bill Donaldson presented a 110 page report to Congress, proving a coverup. He spent the last 5 years of his life proving this coverup.

Jim and Liz Sanders also helped prove a coverup, risking both of their careers to do so. Terry Stacy risked his career helping to prove a coverup and Hank Hughes also risked his career by telling the truth in his testimony that FBI agents were seen removing evidence from the hangar at 3:00 A.M. Mr. Hughes also testified that he saw the FBI altering evidence.

The FBI did not even have jurisdiction, as the investigation should have been performed by the NTSB.

The testimony of Hank Hughes which states the FBI removed evidence at 3:00 A.M. was REMOVED FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

The FAA notified the White House that it appeared that an object merged with TWA 800 before it's demise. The radar data from the FAA shortly disappeared.

WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW?

ARE YOU CAPABLE OF COMMON SENSE????????????????????????

I am perfectly capable of common sense and I use it often. You should try it sometime. It is quite enlightening. ;-)

You're still trying to use two unproven conspiracy theories to prove a third. I realize you have no proof and thus desperate to find ANYTHING to prove 9/11 was a conspiracy. Sad really. Even if you could prove TWA800 and OKC, it still does nothing to prove 9/11.

So tell me Patriot911, do you believe any conspiracies are proven?

Let me guess, the only PROVEN conspiracies are ones that the goverment admits to???

Do you believe a single government conspiracy that hasn't been admitted to?

[Patriot911]

Norrin Radd wrote: So tell me Patriot911, do you believe any conspiracies are proven?

Let me guess, the only PROVEN conspiracies are ones that the goverment admits to???

Do you believe a single government conspiracy that hasn't been admitted to?

Ah the quintessential Norrin Radd defense. Run and hide while throwing up a smoke screen of other conspiracies. Can't defend the obvious fallacies of your "NORAD should have thrown the rules and procedures out the window in favor of "common sense" as seen in hindsight"?

Yes, I believe the government lies. How many times do I have to say that before you quit pretending like I never have? Your condescending air of superiority because you believe almost every conspiracy theory out there is laughable. You think you are so well informed. I think you're completely gullible because you seem to swallow EVERYTHING the people who dream up conspiracies send your way. Of course when you are confronted with the facts you throw out a bunch more unproven conspiracy theories as "proof" other conspiracy theories happen. :roll: We're not dealing with the laws of nature here where every time you throw up the apple it comes back down.

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: So tell me Patriot911, do you believe any conspiracies are proven?

Let me guess, the only PROVEN conspiracies are ones that the goverment admits to???

Do you believe a single government conspiracy that hasn't been admitted to?

Ah the quintessential Norrin Radd defense. Run and hide while throwing up a smoke screen of other conspiracies. Can't defend the obvious fallacies of your "NORAD should have thrown the rules and procedures out the window in favor of "common sense" as seen in hindsight"?

Yes, I believe the government lies. How many times do I have to say that before you quit pretending like I never have? Your condescending air of superiority because you believe almost every conspiracy theory out there is laughable. You think you are so well informed. I think you're completely gullible because you seem to swallow EVERYTHING the people who dream up conspiracies send your way. Of course when you are confronted with the facts you throw out a bunch more unproven conspiracy theories as "proof" other conspiracy theories happen. :roll: We're not dealing with the laws of nature here where every time you throw up the apple it comes back down.

Obvious fallacies??????

Get a flipping grip.

I know most of the people I have talked to also have trouble believing that at the time of the 911 attacks the Pentagon was able to be hit by a hijacked airliner 40 minutes after the 2nd tower was hit.

8:45 a.m. (all times are EDT): A hijacked passenger jet, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston, Massachusetts, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center, tearing a gaping hole in the building and setting it afire.

9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center and explodes. Both buildings are burning.

9:17 a.m.: The Federal Aviation Administration shuts down all New York City area airports.

9:21 a.m.: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey orders all bridges and tunnels in the New York area closed.

9:30 a.m.: President Bush, speaking in Sarasota, Florida, says the country has suffered an "apparent terrorist attack."

9:40 a.m.: The FAA halts all flight operations at U.S. airports, the first time in U.S. history that air traffic nationwide has been halted.

9:43 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, sending up a huge plume of smoke. Evacuation begins immediately.

////////

You can believe what you want, but it smells fishy to me that the Pentagon was vulnerable with this much advance warning.

And you are the one who is ducking the questions.

It seems you are unwilling to name one coverup you belive has happened that the gvoernment hasn't admitted to.

I can only assume you would have denied our invovlement in the coup of Iran until our government admitted invovlement.

I can only assume you denied actual biological agents were ever intentionally sprayed on our soldiers, until the government recently admitted it.

I can only assume that you believe everything the government tells you since you refuse to tell me anything which would me lead to believe you were able to think for yourself.

[Patriot911]

Norrin Radd wrote: Obvious fallacies??????

Get a flipping grip.

I know most of the people I have talked to also have trouble believing that at the time of the 911 attacks the Pentagon was able to be hit by a hijacked airliner 40 minutes after the 2nd tower was hit.

8:45 a.m. (all times are EDT): A hijacked passenger jet, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston, Massachusetts, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center, tearing a gaping hole in the building and setting it afire.

9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center and explodes. Both buildings are burning.

9:17 a.m.: The Federal Aviation Administration shuts down all New York City area airports.

9:21 a.m.: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey orders all bridges and tunnels in the New York area closed.

9:30 a.m.: President Bush, speaking in Sarasota, Florida, says the country has suffered an "apparent terrorist attack."

9:40 a.m.: The FAA halts all flight operations at U.S. airports, the first time in U.S. history that air traffic nationwide has been halted.

9:43 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, sending up a huge plume of smoke. Evacuation begins immediately.

////////

You can believe what you want, but it smells fishy to me that the Pentagon was vulnerable with this much advance warning.

And you are the one who is ducking the questions.

It seems you are unwilling to name one coverup you belive has happened that the gvoernment hasn't admitted to.

I can only assume you would have denied our invovlement in the coup of Iran until our government admitted invovlement.

I can only assume you denied actual biological agents were ever intentionally sprayed on our soldiers, until the government recently admitted it.

I can only assume that you believe everything the government tells you since you refuse to tell me anything which would me lead to believe you were able to think for yourself.
You know what they say..... when you assume you make an ass out of you and.... well, just you.

You've failed miserably to explain how NORAD should have known that Washington was in danger. They use to rely on the FAA to tell them what was going on inside the US. This is clearly documented all over the place. Yet for some reason you want us all to believe they should have broken the rules and protocols and done whatever NORAD wanted just because you say so. I think it is you that needs to get a grip.

As for fallacies, show me the procedures that say NORAD should put up a fighter cover over Washington DC in the event of hijackers taking over planes inside the US and attacking NYC. Don't bother looking. We BOTH know these procedures don't exist. Thus your whole pathetic point of NORAD should have broken the set procedures and gone with what YOU think they should have done is completely pointless.

Let me ask you this. When terrorists set off a bomb in the WTC in '93, did they evacuate DC or set up fighter cover? We knew we were under attack.

As for things the government hasn't admitted to that I believe they are lying about:

Roswell
Area 51
The Aurora project
The tuskeegee project

As for thinking I believe everything the government "tells me" despite all my admissions that I believe the government lies, well, that just shows how intellectually dishonest you really are. Someone tells you point blank they believe X and you blatantly lie your butt off and say they believe Y. How do you live with yourself falsely accusing people of things when they just told you in the post before what they truly believe?

Just goes to show everyone just what kind of person you really are. Sad really.....

[Wizard From Oz]

[/quote]Roswell
Area 51
Quote:

Help me out - whats the conspiracy at Roswell?

[Patriot911]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: Roswell
Area 51


Help me out - whats the conspiracy at Roswell?
That the government has evidence of extra terrestrial life.

As for Area 51, the government denies it although it is very obviously there.

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Obvious fallacies??????

Get a flipping grip.

I know most of the people I have talked to also have trouble believing that at the time of the 911 attacks the Pentagon was able to be hit by a hijacked airliner 40 minutes after the 2nd tower was hit.

8:45 a.m. (all times are EDT): A hijacked passenger jet, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston, Massachusetts, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center, tearing a gaping hole in the building and setting it afire.

9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center and explodes. Both buildings are burning.

9:17 a.m.: The Federal Aviation Administration shuts down all New York City area airports.

9:21 a.m.: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey orders all bridges and tunnels in the New York area closed.

9:30 a.m.: President Bush, speaking in Sarasota, Florida, says the country has suffered an "apparent terrorist attack."

9:40 a.m.: The FAA halts all flight operations at U.S. airports, the first time in U.S. history that air traffic nationwide has been halted.

9:43 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, sending up a huge plume of smoke. Evacuation begins immediately.

////////

You can believe what you want, but it smells fishy to me that the Pentagon was vulnerable with this much advance warning.

And you are the one who is ducking the questions.

It seems you are unwilling to name one coverup you belive has happened that the gvoernment hasn't admitted to.

I can only assume you would have denied our invovlement in the coup of Iran until our government admitted invovlement.

I can only assume you denied actual biological agents were ever intentionally sprayed on our soldiers, until the government recently admitted it.

I can only assume that you believe everything the government tells you since you refuse to tell me anything which would me lead to believe you were able to think for yourself.
You know what they say..... when you assume you make an ass out of you and.... well, just you.

You've failed miserably to explain how NORAD should have known that Washington was in danger. They use to rely on the FAA to tell them what was going on inside the US. This is clearly documented all over the place. Yet for some reason you want us all to believe they should have broken the rules and protocols and done whatever NORAD wanted just because you say so. I think it is you that needs to get a grip.

As for fallacies, show me the procedures that say NORAD should put up a fighter cover over Washington DC in the event of hijackers taking over planes inside the US and attacking NYC. Don't bother looking. We BOTH know these procedures don't exist. Thus your whole pathetic point of NORAD should have broken the set procedures and gone with what YOU think they should have done is completely pointless.

Let me ask you this. When terrorists set off a bomb in the WTC in '93, did they evacuate DC or set up fighter cover? We knew we were under attack.

As for things the government hasn't admitted to that I believe they are lying about:

Roswell
Area 51
The Aurora project
The tuskeegee project

As for thinking I believe everything the government "tells me" despite all my admissions that I believe the government lies, well, that just shows how intellectually dishonest you really are. Someone tells you point blank they believe X and you blatantly lie your butt off and say they believe Y. How do you live with yourself falsely accusing people of things when they just told you in the post before what they truly believe?

Just goes to show everyone just what kind of person you really are. Sad really.....

You are free to belive what you want, but comparing a bombing to what happened on 911 is a little like comparing Heidi Klum to Janet Reno.

So you believe the government covered up Roswell. What do you think really happened? Do you think a spaceship crashed there? Did we recover alien bodies?

Area 51 is a given, as is Aurora, of course they have covered up secret projects, that's why they are called secret projects.

Maybe you could be a little more vague on what you actually belive. No wait, you couldn't be more vague, it is impossible.

As to Tuskeegee, this just goes to show how little you know. The government has admitted what it did and paid compensation to the families. I asked you about coverups the government HASN'T ADMITTED TO.

Jeesh.

[Norrin Radd]

Patriot911 wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: Roswell
Area 51


Help me out - whats the conspiracy at Roswell?
That the government has evidence of extra terrestrial life.

As for Area 51, the government denies it although it is very obviously there.

So, you believe the government has evidence of E.T.?

And you make fun of conspiracy theorists?

Unflippingbelievable.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: So you believe the government covered up Roswell. What do you think really happened? Do you think a spaceship crashed there? Did we recover alien bodies?


Yes

Heat sheild experiement

No

No

[Norrin Radd]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: So you believe the government covered up Roswell. What do you think really happened? Do you think a spaceship crashed there? Did we recover alien bodies?


Yes

Heat sheild experiement

No

No

My questions were to Patriot, but thanks for playing.

ED, what parting gifts do we have for our contestant?

[Wizard From Oz]

Well Roswell is an interesting case. And why I asked Patriot for clarification as to what conspiracy he was actually refering to

The chain of events

Government creates conspiracy by saying it was a UFO

Then retracts that for a weather balloon

Which was a cover for balloon operated nuclear test detectors

Which was a cover for heat shield experiements.

Now we are full circle to UFOs again.

[letsgooilers]

Norrin Radd wrote: Patriot911 wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: Roswell
Area 51


Help me out - whats the conspiracy at Roswell?
That the government has evidence of extra terrestrial life.

As for Area 51, the government denies it although it is very obviously there.

So, you believe the government has evidence of E.T.?

And you make fun of conspiracy theorists?

Unflippingbelievable.

strawman argument.

He's clearly not saying there's evidence of E.T., but rather, that area 51 exists for whatever purpose.

Nice try to ridicule your opponent though.

[Norrin Radd]

letsgooilers wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: Patriot911 wrote: MG1962 wrote: Quote: Roswell
Area 51


Help me out - whats the conspiracy at Roswell?
That the government has evidence of extra terrestrial life.

As for Area 51, the government denies it although it is very obviously there.

So, you believe the government has evidence of E.T.?

And you make fun of conspiracy theorists?

Unflippingbelievable.

strawman argument.

He's clearly not saying there's evidence of E.T., but rather, that area 51 exists for whatever purpose.

Nice try to ridicule your opponent though.

I made the quote in bold that is relevant.

He CLEARLY states the government does have evidence of ET.

Nice try to deny what was said though.