An open message to Killtown from an Old Friend of the Forum

[hellaeon]

Im constantly reminded of that you tube or google video of the guy sitting down in the cafe, using a texta to write the loose change title on a heap of DVDs. Sad sad sad.

I agree with the earlier post - CTers are scum. Im tired of them. Even now with so much information showing the pile of ***** that is loose change we still have those who cling on to the idiocy. Some I would pity due to mental illness, but others such as dylan, persist even though they are shown to be completely and utterly WRONG.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Right on, my friend. There is no excuse for their behavior.

 

[Gravy]

Bump for Killtown

 

[ghost707]

The folks at Boeing must roll their eyes at CTers thinking: how can people be so unaware of basic physics?

 

[Checkmite]

Perhaps more than rolling their eyes. Ever ask a WWII vet who happened to have the misfortune of helping liberate a concentration camp how he feels about Holocaust deniers? I've personally spoken with two such men.

This whole 9-11 business is the same product in a different package.

 

[Polaris]

I agree with TK0001.

Honestly, i'm thinking of going on the offensive against them. As in, making a site showing the relationship to nazi thing. Give them some of their own poison, stoop to their level.

*grrr*

No bas*** ever won a war by dying for his country, after all.

 

[Gravy]

I see that Killtown's back. What's your reply to Mr. Bidlack, Killtown?

 

[JohnM307]

Killtown must never have seen a construction site if he thinks this gravel is evidence of a cover up.

Hey, he's being sarcastic of course. Gravel as an attempt to cover up the fantastic ability of a lawn to withstand and repel the ugly remains of an airplane crash.

The point, of course, is that the plane didn't touch the ground before hitting the Pentagon -- despite numerous eyewitnesses saying otherwise. One witness even claimed that the airplane cartwheeled into the building -- or was that the Time reporter's elaboration?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,174655-4,00.html

This is one clue on the reliability of eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack.

I think that it's perfectly fair to use ridicule as a tactic against a ridiculous theory. The Colonel's open letter is unfortunately one example out of numerous where victims of the attack jump on one who suggests that they may have got the story wrong.

 

[qarnos]

This is one clue on the reliability of eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack.

Here is an interesting article regards eyewitness reliability in air crashes:

For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing By MATTHEW L. WALD

www-psych [dot] stanford [dot] edu/~bigopp/witness.html

A few snippets:

HUNDREDS of people watched the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 near Kennedy International Airport in New York on Nov. 12, and in the course of 93 seconds they apparently saw hundreds of different things.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, which announced this month that it had gathered 349 eyewitness accounts through interviews or written statements, 52 percent said they saw a fire while the plane was in the air. The largest number (22 percent) said the fire was in the fuselage, but a majority cited other locations, including the left engine, the right engine, the left wing, the right wing or an unspecified engine or wing.

As a result, the safety board generally doesn't place much value on eyewitness reports if data and voice recorders are available. For many investigators, the only infallible witness is a twisted piece of metal.

There are other well-known cases of witness error, including the crash of a Lauda Air Boeing 767 near Bangkok in May 1991. Witnesses said they heard a bomb and saw the plane fall in flames, but it turned out to be a mechanical problem.

 

[Gravy]

I think that it's perfectly fair to use ridicule as a tactic against a ridiculous theory. The Colonel's open letter is unfortunately one example out of numerous where victims of the attack jump on one who suggests that they may have got the story wrong.

Your suggestion that the Pentagon no-planers don't deserve to be castigated by survivors of the attack is irresponsible, and, in the context of this thread, disgusting. If Hal Bidlack's word isn't good enough for you, PM me and I'll provide you with evidence from many sources. Have a great day.

 

[gumboot]

Joe Foss had his Medal of Honor (in his bag) confiscated at an airport (IIRC, in Arizona.) as being a sharp object.

That's just...I can't believe...I mean...Speechless. I'm actually speechless.

I'm trying to imagine a local airport confiscating a Victoria Cross off a veteran. I actually can't conceive of it. I feel ill.

What ever happened to math, science, eye witness testimony, factual evidence, expert opinion...have these become worthless to the 20 something generation.

Only to some of us...

On a side note... the other night I had a gathering of my twenty-something friends at a birthday BBQ. I mentioned I had recently seen "United 93" which immediately led into a bit of a CT discussion. One guy there is fairly rabidly anti-American, NWO, a bit pro-anarchy, etc... I'd paint him as a neck-deep CTer.

Within about 2 minutes my responses demolished all consideration of a conspiracy and everyone there accepted 9/11 occured basically as the official story claims.

I was very proud of my friends.

-Andrew

 

[JohnM307]

Your suggestion that the Pentagon no-planers don't deserve to be castigated by survivors of the attack is irresponsible, and, in the context of this thread, disgusting. If Hal Bidlack's word isn't good enough for you, PM me and I'll provide you with evidence from many sources. Have a great day.

Please, don't confuse no-planers with those who recognize that something flew in and hit the Pentagon, but think it was not AA Flight 77. Is Hal Bidlack in a position to personally know that the object hitting the Pentagon was Flight 77? If not, his word isn't good enough for me.

For example, did he recognize the aircraft pieces that he held in his hand as unambiguously belonging to AA Flight 77?

And is it really pro-victim to shout down those who are trying to tell the truth as they know it about 9/11? Perhaps the 9/11 victims are being used by those who would cover up 9/11, or who would exploit 9/11 for their own ends -- concentration camps, aggressive war, and so forth.

Remember how the Bush Administration kept poking the 9/11 victims in the eye by opposing investigation of 9/11?

 

[Ducky]

Please, don't confuse no-planers with those who recognize that something flew in and hit the Pentagon, but think it was not AA Flight 77. Is Hal Bidlack in a position to personally know that the object hitting the Pentagon was Flight 77? If not, his word isn't good enough for me.

Hal Bidlack was actually there that day. He actually was on the premises. Where were you?

For example, did he recognize the aircraft pieces that he held in his hand as unambiguously belonging to AA Flight 77?

What evidence do you have that it was not part of that flight?

And is it really pro-victim to shout down those who are trying to tell the truth as they know it about 9/11? Perhaps the 9/11 victims are being used by those who would cover up 9/11, or who would exploit 9/11 for their own ends -- concentration camps, aggressive war, and so forth.

If those that "tell the truth as they see it" see it wrong and act in a way that insults the victims of that day, then yes - shouting down those people is pro-victim.

Remember how the Bush Administration kept poking the 9/11 victims in the eye by opposing investigation of 9/11?

No I don't. I remember the NIST report, and it's very long list of direct sources. Why don't you tell me about this opposition of Bush's? please enlighten us all.

Be prepared for us to fact-check your claims, don't make the same mistake as Christophera.

 

[JohnM307]

Hal Bidlack was actually there that day. He actually was on the premises. Where were you?

What does it matter where I was?

What evidence do you have that it was not part of that flight?

Oh, come on. The question is what positive proof do we have that the plane hitting the Pentagon was AA Flight 77? And one question one might ask is proof that the airplane debris in the Pentagon actually came from Flight 77, and not another plane.

If he has expertize or personal knowledge of that fact, then someone trying to understand what happened would accept his word. On the other hand, if he doesn't have expertize or personal knowledge, then one should not accept his word.

This is just common sense. Asking for proof that the debris wasn't from Flight 77 is like asking for proof that a certain blurry person in a video wasn't Joe M. Schmoe of 2993 Walnut St., Blah VE, 20032.

If those that "tell the truth as they see it" see it wrong and act in a way that insults the victims of that day, then yes - shouting down those people is pro-victim.

It's not pro-victim if they're telling the truth. And what you're doing is shouting them down without first considering whether they're telling the truth.

No I don't. I remember the NIST report, and it's very long list of direct sources. Why don't you tell me about this opposition of Bush's? please enlighten us all.

Oh, you mean like this report that states in its entirety?

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20020123X00103&ntsbno=DCA01MA060&akey=1

Or maybe these reports about specific details, which were released well after then 9/11 Commission's report?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

Funny, you never linked to your specific report.

Be prepared for us to fact-check your claims, don't make the same mistake as Christophera.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm

The 9/11 Commission was formed in November 2002 -- fourteen months after 9/11. It's initial budget was $3 million. Congress provided $11 million more several months later, and then another million was provided later.

The Bush Administration rejected the increase of $11 million. Congress had to do it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,437267,00.html

Bush opposed the commission in May 2002.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/20/national/main522682.shtml

Don't tell me you never heard of the Family Steering Committee or The Jersey Girls who fought for the formation of the independent commission, only to be brushed off by the Bush Administration for a long time until the Bush Administration caved in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_Steering_Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_girls

And then there were numerous complaints about the Bush Administration stonewalling the Commission requests.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/27/bush.911/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland

When were the commissions investigating the two space shuttle disasters formed -- how long after the disasters? What funding were they allocated?

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C16FB3E5C0C738EDDAC0894DA404482
http://cnn.allpolitics.printthis.cl...29/inv.terror.probe/index.html&partnerID=2001

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020204newsweek (A Newsweek article)

"Press the issue, Cheney implied, and you risk being accused of interfering with the mission." The mission being the war on terrorism, and the issue being investigating 9/11.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256 Max Cleland complains that the Bush Administration is playing coverup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_...r_the_Terrorist_Attacks_of_September_11,_2001

Unfortunately, I can't find references right now stating how agents testified for the Joint Inquiry under the eyes and ears of superiors, keeping watch of their testimony.

Overall, the Bush Administration was in cover-up mode about 9/11.

 

[JohnM307]

Here is an interesting article regards eyewitness reliability in air crashes:

For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing By MATTHEW L. WALD

www-psych [dot] stanford [dot] edu/~bigopp/witness.html

A few snippets:

Thank-you for this reply. It's nice to have someone supportive for once.

 

[T.A.M.]

Fundamentally it comes down to this.

Something blew a hole in the Pentagon on 9/11. Officials, along with several investigative bodies have concluded it was AA77. Witnesses confirm this more than they lend credance to any other theory.

For some reason, every Doubter of the official story seems to think they are the head of some organization that is entitled to all of the evidence. Where do they get off. The FBI is the organization responsible for investigating crimes against america, within america. Unless you are part of the FBI, you are actually entitled to jack shaite besides their conclusions based on THEIR investigation.

Face it, you are not going to get "carte blanche" access to "debris lists and itemizations" or "DNA analysis".

It is amusing that all those who doubt the official story state it is the responsibility of those who have "developed" the official story to "prove" it. These people are responsible for the investigations. They have proven it, to those they need to. If you have an "alternative theory" then it is up to YOU to prove your theory correct, or prove your theory "more likely" than theirs. If you are just asking questions, than expect to only get answers that come from the data they have collected...you are not entitled to the data itself.

Do you think that the FBI owes you more than what they have provided. If so, than what? If you think they owe the public an answer to every question, to every inconsistency, you are wrong...full stop.

Expressions like "It just doesn't sound right." or "There are too many inconsistencies" really doesn't matter too much to them, or most people. They investigated the scene, they provided an answer based on the investigation.

I am sick of people "just asking questions". Fine ask your questions, but they are not required to answer, and expect they don't have the time. Unless you plan on taking over as head of the FBI, I suggest you get use to it.

Now if you have a THEORY different from the official one about AA77 and the Pentagon, then lets hear it...then someone here can debate it.

TAM