The Major Mistakes

[jsut_peopel]

Prove it: or is that just a "statement of faith?"

Get your own house in order.

Uh-huh. Well theres a fella out of his depth without a flotation device

I can swim just fine thanks. Do you want to prove any of the things you wrote in your screed up there? or are they just "statements of faith?"

[aggle-rithm]

That reply was some well deserved mockery of critics trying to bait members into declaring "its a conspiracy" over the fact that the date of the small plane crash in new York (10/11/06) is the symbolic reverse of 9/11 and that its an interesting co-incidence!

Thats why I call critics co-incidence theorists. The number of co-incidences required to defend the offical story are enormous...the co-incidences required for the freak failure of so much of the structure all at the same time, for example

Gosh how hard was that!

Unless I am to conclude you are so wrapped up in your internal dialogue you didnt even notice?

Why would I notice? I can't even find where that quote came from. It certainly wasn't an answer to my question.

Its you who appears to be "losing it" dear Aggle Rythm: as your pathetic attempts to claim pyroclastic flow is not associated with controlled demolition show

Can you find ANY pre-911 source that defines a pyroclastic flow as anything other than a geological phenomenon? Sure, it's been used to describe the dust cloud from the tower collapse, but only by conspiracy theorists, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps, in time, this common mis-use of the term will result in its meaning being changed to accommodate the usage. This is the way languages commonly evolve.

Equally pathetic is your failure to acknowledge the obvious whitewash of the 9/11 commission and your aparent delusion that it "asked the tough questions": together with the implied insult into the integrity of the Jersy Girls, without which even that flawed investigation would undoubtably been denied the public

You have claimed that the 9/11 commission did not ask the tough questions. What are these tough questions? "Press for Truth" doesn't say what they are, only that they exist.

I can only conclude that you have not studied the material you claim to be able to refute

You'll be needing one of these:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/11-Commission-R ... F8&s=books

Come back when you've done some work

How much of a kickback do you get from the sale of this book? (Because, you know, if money is involved, it means you're evil and are hiding the truth...)

[aggle-rithm]

You'll be needing one of these:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/11-Commission-R ... F8&s=books

Come back when you've done some work

Here's the book description from the Amazon site:

With US political leaders - Democrat and Republican alike - embracing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and an eager media receiving the Commission's 567 page report as the whole story, everyone who cares about the fate of American democracy will want to know something about what those pages actually say.
The Commission's account, has made an impression with its size, its endnotes, its detail, its narrative finesse. Yet under the magnifying glass of eminent theologian David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor (a book that explores questions that reporters, eyewitnesses, and political observers have raised about the 9/11 attacks), the report appears much shabbier. In fact, there are holes in the places where detail ought to be abundant: Is it possible that Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld has given three different stories of what he was doing the morning of September 11, and that the Commission combines two of them and ignores eyewitness reports to the contrary? Is it possible that the man in charge of the military that day, Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, saw the first tower hit on TV, and then went into a meeting, where he remained unaware of what was happening for the next 40 minutes? Is it possible, as the Commission reports, that the FA!
A did not inform the military that the fourth aeroplane appeared to have been hijacked, contrary to both common sense and the word of FAA employees?

David Ray Griffin's critique of the Commission's report makes clear that America's highest leaders have told tales that wear extremely thin when held up to the light of other eyewitness reports, research, and the dictates of common sense, and that the Commission charged with the task of investigating all of the facts surrounding 9/11 has succeeded in obscuring, rather than unearthing, the truth.

Is this an accurate description? Anything major left out? Because the questions asked here don't appear to be very substantive.

[John White]

Maybe you dont read?

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... istortions

Heaven forfend I should be alledged to be making a profit!

And with that, this thread reveals the real major mistake:

That of JREF critics arguing against what they hav'nt even researched

[chek]

You'll be needing one of these:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/11-Commission-R ... F8&s=books

Come back when you've done some work

Here's the book description from the Amazon site:

With US political leaders - Democrat and Republican alike - embracing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and an eager media receiving the Commission's 567 page report as the whole story, everyone who cares about the fate of American democracy will want to know something about what those pages actually say.
The Commission's account, has made an impression with its size, its endnotes, its detail, its narrative finesse. Yet under the magnifying glass of eminent theologian David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor (a book that explores questions that reporters, eyewitnesses, and political observers have raised about the 9/11 attacks), the report appears much shabbier. In fact, there are holes in the places where detail ought to be abundant: Is it possible that Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld has given three different stories of what he was doing the morning of September 11, and that the Commission combines two of them and ignores eyewitness reports to the contrary? Is it possible that the man in charge of the military that day, Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, saw the first tower hit on TV, and then went into a meeting, where he remained unaware of what was happening for the next 40 minutes? Is it possible, as the Commission reports, that the FA!
A did not inform the military that the fourth aeroplane appeared to have been hijacked, contrary to both common sense and the word of FAA employees?

David Ray Griffin's critique of the Commission's report makes clear that America's highest leaders have told tales that wear extremely thin when held up to the light of other eyewitness reports, research, and the dictates of common sense, and that the Commission charged with the task of investigating all of the facts surrounding 9/11 has succeeded in obscuring, rather than unearthing, the truth.

Is this an accurate description? Anything major left out? Because the questions asked here don't appear to be very substantive.

AR, just out of interest and not in a confrontational way, are you really saying that you can see nothing untoward even in that short description from Amazon?
I can't tell if you're being flippant or if that's what you really mean.

[aggle-rithm]

AR, just out of interest and not in a confrontational way, are you really saying that you can see nothing untoward even in that short description from Amazon?
I can't tell if you're being flippant or if that's what you really mean.

There may be something untoward about them, but I couldn't say without more evidence. Either way, if these are the "tough questions" everyone is complaining the 9/11 Commission didn't answer, I don't see what the big deal is.

[aggle-rithm]

That of JREF critics arguing against what they hav'nt even researched

I commented only on the book description I found on Amazon, on the assumption that the description would summarize the major points made in the book. I made it clear that this was an assumption, and I asked if this was indeed an accurate description of the book. In no way did I make any assumptions about the content of the book itself.

Therefore I have not made any argument against anything I haven't researched.

[chek]

AR, just out of interest and not in a confrontational way, are you really saying that you can see nothing untoward even in that short description from Amazon?
I can't tell if you're being flippant or if that's what you really mean.

There may be something untoward about them, but I couldn't say without more evidence. Either way, if these are the "tough questions" everyone is complaining the 9/11 Commission didn't answer, I don't see what the big deal is.

Well, don't forget that's only the Amazon blurb of a small portion, but you might find the book itself to have more substance as it goes into far greater detail in what may be termed perjoratively called by some 'a cover-up'.
Not that I'm biased, you understand.

[aggle-rithm]

Well, don't forget that's only the Amazon blurb of a small portion, but you might find the book itself to have more substance as it goes into far greater detail in what may be termed perjoratively called by some 'a cover-up'.
Not that I'm biased, you understand.

That's why I asked if this was an accurate summary of the book. It doesn't seem logical to summarize it by bringing up only minor points and leaving out the good stuff.

[chek]

Well, don't forget that's only the Amazon blurb of a small portion, but you might find the book itself to have more substance as it goes into far greater detail in what may be termed perjoratively called by some 'a cover-up'.
Not that I'm biased, you understand.

That's why I asked if this was an accurate summary of the book. It doesn't seem logical to summarize it by bringing up only minor points and leaving out the good stuff.

If you can bear to set aside 59 minutes of time,
DRG talks about a range of the issues himself here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 567284154e