Subscribe: Comments on: 9/11 TRUTHERS GUT PUNCHED BY HISTORY CHANNEL
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/08/21/911-truthers-gut-punched-by-history-channel/feed/
Preview: Comments on: 9/11 TRUTHERS GUT PUNCHED BY HISTORY CHANNEL

Comments on: 9/11 TRUTHERS GUT PUNCHED BY HISTORY CHANNEL



Politics served up with a smile... And a stilletto.



Published: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:26:47 +0000

 



By: Aridog

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:54:08 +0000

# 375 Frank IBC...ref: strikeouts No doubt those dratted "Men in Black" again. /if a sac tag necessary?



By: Frank IBC

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:52:33 +0000

If the US government had done a "controlled demolition", it would have looked a lot like this.



By: Frank IBC

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:46:13 +0000

Ooops, it did it again - text between two successive dashes automatically "striken". Weird.



By: Frank IBC

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:45:05 +0000

Yes, there were a lot of "firsts" on 9/11. -First successful hijacking of a US airliner flying within the borders of the USA since 1979. -First time that boxcutters were used as a hijacking weapon. Boxcutters had been allowed in carry-on luggage up to that point - in my previous job, we carried boxcutters to meetings so that we could unpack our equipment the moment we arrived at the meeting site. -First time more than one plane was hijacked in the same day, let alone the same hour. -First time that a plane itself was used as a weapon. -First time that a jet plane flying near full speed (and well above the recommended speed for the altitude) , and fully loaded with kerosene, was flown into a skyscraper. -First time that the transponders on a commercial airliner were deliberately and maliciously turned off during flight over the USA. -First time that a plane that represented a threat to the citizens of the USA originated within the USA. And many more...



By: Aridog

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:10:05 +0000

Whether or not the 4 blips could have been isolated is merely the first step. Beyond that, there is no legal precedent nor statutory foundation for the US Military to intercept and shoot down a US flag common carrier aircraft originating within the US borders. There are very limited circumstances where the Commander in Chief (..e.g., the President) could order such an action. In this case (there are other legal instances regarding insurrection), it would require confirmed knowledge that the threat originated out side of the US, came across the borders, and was now resident in the US using US carriers by hijack or other proxy. No senior military commander would execute such an order without that assurance. See, it's a unique feature of our military that they not only must follow orders, but they must also be capable of evaluating the legality of those orders. Once you understand the above, 1 to 2 hours time is insufficient to resolve the unprecendented events of 9/11 and proceed to legally shoot down aircraft. Based upon a couple decades of first hand experience, I can suggest to you that the US Military has no standing mission to defend against internal threats.



By: Frank IBC

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:48:36 +0000

You accuse me of religious thinking. What is religious thinking other than relying on the testimony of revered individuals, past or present. No, I think the argument for religion is firmly lodged at your door, not mine.
Sorry, but you do exactly what you are accusing me and others of doing, in reverse - you arbitrarily and totally disregard evidence because it is put forth by people who you "un-revere".



By: Frank IBC

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:44:32 +0000

Why is it so hard to understand the concept that direct evidence can REFUTE circumstantial evidence? And why can't you answer my simple question in #365?



By: Aridog

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:41:14 +0000

Mr Bolinger, sounds to me like you've not only joined the jury but have assumed the role of judge as well. Once upon a time we'd have called that a "Vigilence Committee."



By: bolinger

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:24:23 +0000

Back to the usual MO I see. Ridicule and keep asking the same question and eventually they'll go away. Apparently wanting a trial for a crime is now a religious belief. Not accepting the word of officials and those who repeat their words are the thoughts of someone thinking up hair-brained scenarios. Since you keep asking me questions which I have already said I don't know, let's see if you can be as honest. Do you think there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to merit a trial or not? If you think there is sufficient circumstantial evidence you must agree that a trial is needed. If you do not think there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, you are therefore relying solely on the statements and explanations posited by government officials and other esteemed personages. If, as I suspect, you will maintain the latter option, you really haven't a leg to stand on. You have chosen to believe what the official story says, I haven’t. How far does that get us? Not very. Can you not see the glaring shortfall in your argument. If you believe and trust the word of officials like Maj. Douglas Martin on whose unofficial explanations you have chosen to rely, who is to say that what he says isn't simply what he wants you to believe as opposed to what the truth might be? Is there not even the slightest hint of a conflict of interest here. Same goes for all things said out of court while not under oath. You accuse me of religious thinking. What is religious thinking other than relying on the testimony of revered individuals, past or present. No, I think the argument for religion is firmly lodged at your door, not mine. Finally, I don't have to come up with a scenario in which the four planes may or may not be tracked. I am a member of the jury. I listen, I evaluate and I assess. You, on the other hand, have assumed the role of defense attorney and in the absence of a judge and some witnesses, you have decided to turn on the jury. How absurd.



By: Frank IBC

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:53:39 +0000

If you are going to continue to babble about "failure to intercept", then you had damn well better to come up with a scenario in which you are somehow able to track the four hijacked planes among the other 4500 identical blips.