Link to where I've ever said this. Notice how truthers always resort to personal attacks when they have no evidence to present?
Why do you expect responses? You rarely give responses and when you do, they don't address the points you've been asked. I asked you if there were any actionable pieces of intelligence. The clear answer is no. Here was your nonsense response that does nothing to address the question: So you think the US should have gone off on any and all info it received to unilaterally wipe out threats without due process or even finding out the facts? Wow.
Why... to refute the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims of truthers of course. If it weren't for truthers, I wouldn't have researched this topic NEARLY as much. I've researched each of the truther claims through the years. Not one has been able to stand up to the evidence. Now, over a decade later, truthers are in such a sorry state that they can't even give a single piece of real evidence and KNOW they have no evidence.
Exactly. So who is really swallowing the bull(*)(*)(*)(*), GT and Jango? Have either of you researched any of the ridiculous truther claims to see if they are true or do you just blindly accept them because they fit your mindset that the government is evil?
yes.... ive been loking for 11 yars for a photo of a 757 "flight77" hitting the pentagon....no luck. ive been looking for a photo of flight93 sticking up out of the crater in shanksville...no luck ive been looking for photos of the 47 floor RAGING INFERNO! that took out the wtc7...no luck.. i mean... government agencies are "telling" me what happened...but they lie..... soo....
Thank you for proving once again the only evidence you will accept is a photograph while dismissing all other evidence. Photographs can't lie? Wow.
Some people need to become better students of logical thought processes. In the scientific method, the record of observation(s) is/are not limited to whether or not a photograph of the observation(s) exist(s). There are many other ways in which observations can be verified. Once could, for instance, interview witnesses of the event. Once could, for instance, view written documentation, or physical evidence relevant to the event. One could, for instance, study and test the physical evidence to test a hypothesis formed to explain these observations. One could then, for instance, examine the results of the tests to verify or contradict the hypothesis so that a valid conclusion can be reached. This paraphrased statement: I have not seen a photograph of an aircraft hitting a building. The government lies. Therefor no aircraft hit the building, and nothing follows. Is the opposite of a reasoned method to conclude that no aircraft hit a building.
There are videos out there, I am sure that they are just not what you would like them to be. The main reason why you don't see flight 93 sticking up out of the crater in shanksville is because Wylie Coyote wasn't flying it at the Road Runner, and the plane wasn't made by Acme. In the real world when you smash a plane into the ground at 600+ mph it all but disintegrates. All the passengers, but one I believe, were identified via DNA, they found pieces of the plane, etc. Unless you can find me a source for this unfounded statement I don't remember anyone saying that the entire building was, literally, on fire. I know of dozens if not hundreds of trained firefighters stating that the building was an fully involved, that there were at least a dozen floors raging (but not all 47), and that it was going to come down. According to truthers though, the firefighters were in on it. Government agencies aren't telling you, specifically, anything. They paid for research conducted by hundreds of trained professionals in the fields that they researched. They released documentation that provided the best possible explanation as to what happened. The fact is that NO ONE can know every slight detail as to what happened on that horrible day. In fact, I would be MORE convinced of a conspiracy if they DID have every answer. The events that transpired have NEVER been seen before and it's doubtful they'll ever happen again. Just because you aren't finding the answers you want, doesn't mean the correct answers aren't out there. All it means is you have blinders on, and will only accept one possible explanation. You need that explanation to be that the government was behind it all because you've invested too much into the theory. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
It doesn't matter Plague311. GT has been shown the evidence. He doesn't like the evidence, so he demands evidence he knows nobody has. Does it matter to him that his demands are pure nonsense? No. It is an irrational rationalization that can be summed up as "they can't show me the evidence I claim will convince me, therefore what they claim didn't happen". It doesn't matter to GT that there is other evidence. It doesn't matter to GT that he can't explain what happened and has zero evidence to back up his claims. He feels that since he is simply denying the truth that he doesn't have to present evidence. Yes, I realize that is also an irrational rationalization. There is only one truth and one can only arrive at that truth via the evidence. We claim the truth is that 19 hijackers hijacked 4 planes, flew two into the WTC 1 & 2 towers, one into the Pentagon and one crashed in Shanksville. We have tons of evidence to support that claim. Truthers have zero evidence that refutes our evidence. GT believes just denying the truth somehow makes his truth "real". It doesn't. Toddlers use the same technique. They go "Nuh uh" to everything that is said no matter how silly or blatantly false the claim is.
Have you seen any photos depicting what truthers tell you happened? Have you seen any photos depicting what Alex Jones tells you happened?
The clear answer is not no - the Phoenix Memo is an example of your strict litmus test. The point of my post, much to your dislike, thus wrong, was to show that WE DO NOT OPERATE STRICTLY ON AN 'ACTIONABLE' BASIS. The history of our foreign policy illustrates that point clearly, which I mentioned in my first post (#386). So I am having to waste my time, re-hashing points that are undeniably true. Our government should have taken the threats at face-value. They had been warned. They knew that the '93 bombing was just the beginning, because it had not succeeded in its overall goal, nor had US aid or support to Israel stopped or US presence in Middle Eastern countries. When the new threats started coming in, and you've got the two Fatwas, then the embassy attacks, then the USS Cole...and you get past the millennium and learn that they held back from doing an attack...special forces should have been tasked with fact-finding missions. Our IC should have been gung-ho about this as there was a clear indicator, in released documents, that showed a buildup. How exactly they missed it I don't know, they haven't released the analysts notes yet.
Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The Phoenix memo did not outline the attack time or place. Should it have been acted on? Yes, in my opinion. Is it a sign of malfeasance? No. So give an example. Yes, we know you hate the US and its foreign policy. Get over it already. We know. Your whining about foreign policy is pointless in this context. They knew there was a build up, and we did retaliate in limited fashion. Not enough for me, but I'm not the one who was in charge. Funny how someone who whines about our crappy foreign policy wanted us to go off and do some highly illegal stuff just because. Talk about hypocritical! So how does the fact we didn't send out hit squads prove that 9/11 was a government job?
Yeah, what the hell?? Sounds like you're making the case that it WAS Bin Laden and al Qaeda. The rest is just Monday Morning Quarterbacking, 20/20 Hindsight and all the rest. You don't think those analysts who "missed it" don't live with that nightmare EVERY DAY? You think they "missed it" on purpose to help out their corrupt buddies in the corrupt government? You don't think they would HAVE GIVEN ANYTHING to be able to stop the bastards before they struck? Read the Commission Report. It talks about the agency turf wars and funding fights and paints a pretty clear picture of how and why they would have "missed it".
Then you must not be paying very much attention to the gif. The buildings in the gif are all different heights. If objects move through a different DISTANCE in the same amount of TIME what does that say about their VELOCITY? VELOCITY = DISTANCE / TIME. Do you need assistance with the algebra necessary to figure this out?
That's really funny that neither of those gifs have sound. Mostly because the twoofers never want you to know that there were no charges going off, no bangs, no pop pop pop of the charges cutting the steel. That's the best held truther lie when it comes to building 7. They'll show you gifs all day of a thousand demolitions that look "similiar" to WTC 7 coming down. However, none of them have any sound because they know it would flush their case down the toilet. Another quick things truthers can never answer, and by all means I hope the resident truthers try, it's always entertaining. Why would they bring the building down? How could they have POSSIBLY known that building 7 was going to be hit by WTC 1? What explosives in the entire world can live through the impact of a falling building AND fires on multiple floors? What demolition has ever taken place that they wait to bring down after the building has been on fire for 5+ hours? It just doesn't make any sense, but I guess that adds to the mystery. Also, truthers, if you're going to bust out the "they took it down to cover up the government information in building 7"...you can save it. All the information at that time was backed up several servers. The only information lost in building 7 was some random meaningless paper documentation. Give something better or save your typing skills
Yes, I get that. But how do we get around three buildings collapsing. Which had never happened before, right?
Why do you have a problem "getting around" three buildings collapsing for the first time? It was the first time hijacked planes had been used as weapons by flying them into buildings. It was the first time a 47 story building had another building's debris fall on it, start numerous fires and no efforts were made to fight the fire for numerous hours. It was the first time ANY high rise structure was subjected to the unique combination of a high speed impact by a plane and the resultant fires. Why do you refuse to believe a collapse is possible when one abuses a massive structure like a 110 or 47 story tower far beyond what they were designed to take?
