Timeline

[slugmancs]

I'm new here and I have always had this question: Why don't the "truthers" put forth a timeline of what the believe?

Any time I have posed this question to one of them they tell me that if they can prove one thing wrong then 9/11 must be an inside job. At first I thought this response was one of the crazier ones but that seems to be the concensus. My second question is:

How can ONE part of such a long report being wrong prove 9/11 is an inside job?

 

[Alareth]

I'm new here and I have always had this question: Why don't the "truthers" put forth a timeline of what the believe?

Any time I have posed this question to one of them they tell me that if they can prove one thing wrong then 9/11 must be an inside job. At first I thought this response was one of the crazier ones but that seems to be the concensus. My second question is:

How can ONE part of such a long report being wrong prove 9/11 is an inside job?

Creating a timeline would require finding at least two troofers that can agree on a single conspiracy.

 

[Gravy]

Welcome, slugmancs.

My favorite challenge to the 9/11 deniers comes from Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone:

I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter.

And without that, all the rest of it is bosh and bunkum, on the order of the "sonar evidence" proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster. If you can't put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you're doing is jerking off -- and it's not like no one's ever done that on the Internet before.

Alareth is right on. Just look at the Loose Change forum today, and at Screw Loose Change's report on NY911truth. They're at each other's throats.

 

[The Doc]

9/11 Truth does not have a thesis.

Not one person in 9/11 truth could explain what they think happened before and during 9/11 in a conspiracy sense. All they ever say is "I don't know... but I just know that the official version is wrong". Yet somehow they place the blame on certain people. Confusing to me.

 

[firecoins]

I will put foward a thesis for the truthers.

Al Qeida terrorists working for the CIA hijacked 4 jets and landed them safely in an airport with a NASA hanger. 4 fake airlines replaced them with mysterious laser guided pods on them that direct NASA controlled laser beams. These planes did not actually crash into the WTC or Pentagon but illusions of the planes did. The collisions coincided with the actual trigger of laser beams. The laser beams were not enough. So the WTC 1, 2 & 7 were rigged to explode by black ops demo teams in FDNY uniforms. Bush and his gang of merry Jews were behind the thing.

All the terrorists are alive in Saudi Arabia. Flight 11 was found in pristine condition under an assumed identity as Elvis's private jet on loan to John Travolta and the Scientologists.

 

[tonicblue]

Why must a completely new and correct timeline be produced to show that the official one is false?

I understand that the NORAD timeline changed seceral times and that Lee Hamilton at one stage wanted to press charges against officials he felt decieved him.

Here's an analogy; If an innocent man is convicted of a crime, new evidence will see him released. That new evidence may simply be a contradiction of the evidence against him, not necessarily an entirely new solution of the crime. It's like satying that the man we know is innocent must stay in prison until we find the guilty man.

 

[Mobyseven]

Why must a completely new and correct timeline be produced to show that the official one is false?

I understand that the NORAD timeline changed seceral times and that Lee Hamilton at one stage wanted to press charges against officials he felt decieved him.

Here's an analogy; If an innocent man is convicted of a crime, new evidence will see him released. That new evidence may simply be a contradiction of the evidence against him, not necessarily an entirely new solution of the crime. It's like satying that the man we know is innocent must stay in prison until we find the guilty man.

But the truth movement isn't just claiming that Al Quaeda is not behind the attacks.

They are making claims as to guilty parties involved in the attack.

So if you have some evidence that contradicts the idea that Al Quaeda was involved, let us see it.

But as the truth movement also claims they know who some of the guilty parties are, they should be able to provide at least a basic coherent timeline.

 

[Rawkarma]

Here's an analogy; If an innocent man is convicted of a crime, new evidence will see him released. That new evidence may simply be a contradiction of the evidence against him, not necessarily an entirely new solution of the crime. It's like satying that the man we know is innocent must stay in prison until we find the guilty man.

If you must wander off down that intellectual cul-de-sac, consider this:

You only need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to confict someone of a crime. You'd think the Cters would find that easily attainable with the amount of evidence they claim to possess.

The problem here is: there is no evidence to support this, thus making the conspiracy theories of 9/11 bull. Where is this fabled evidence to suggest, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the official account is false and the government is lying?

 

[beachnut]

Why must a completely new and correct timeline be produced to show that the official one is false?

I understand that the NORAD timeline changed seceral times and that Lee Hamilton at one stage wanted to press charges against officials he felt decieved him.

Here's an analogy; If an innocent man is convicted of a crime, new evidence will see him released. That new evidence may simply be a contradiction of the evidence against him, not necessarily an entirely new solution of the crime. It's like satying that the man we know is innocent must stay in prison until we find the guilty man.

Still you have no facts. Just throw in some stuff about NORAD, think you made a point and then what?

You should stick to debunking the insane truthers. You are the best at debunking the idiot insane ones. I have seen you debunk and you did a good job debunking the Beam Weapon and the No Plane stuff.

You need to study and just debunk truthers, you will do much better then even thinking any woo stuff is true. Hint, I was in the air Force, we did not Stand Down and we did not intercept planes over the continental US as standard procedure, it was the exception. Ask NORAD.

Example is Payne Stewarts plane was not responding to ATC controllers. They asked for an Air Force jet, not NORAD to go see what was up. The intercept was 80 minutes after the controller lost control of Stewart's plane. This was how it worked over the US on domestic flights.

Flights coming from Overseas were different, if the pilot or anyone messed up our Jets from NORAD would beat feet to the airliner and ID it before it was a threat. I have to say no matter how much anyone messes up the time line for NORAD, it has no bearing on 9/11. It is just a truther thing, worthless statement, that has no bearing on 9/11. Unless you can point to some facts that the NORAD stuff has anything to do with anything.

 

[The Doc]

Saying the official story surrounding the World Trade Centers is false would be showing in some way that the NIST report into the World Trade Center collapse is faulty, and that the building could not have collapsed due to the way NIST said it did.

However, 9/11 truthers go way further. They say it was a controlled demolition, and that George W Bush was responsible. To do that, there better be a timeline that explains how that is possible.

So far I have seen none. The only reason I can think of is that the truthers did compile one, read it, realized how stupid it was, and decided against releasing it.

 

[Gravy]

I understand that the NORAD timeline changed seceral times and that Lee Hamilton at one stage wanted to press charges against officials he felt decieved him.

Hamilton was understandably angry. The NORAD officials apparently were very poorly informed when they testified. That testimony (both from NORAD and the FAA) was referred to the agencies' Inspector Generals for further investigation. No deliberate attempt to deceive was found, but that doesn't excuse the incorrect testimony.

What is most important in terms of conspiracist claims? The actual timeline, as verified by recordings and by participant accounts, confirms that NORAD had no chance to shoot down any of the hijacked planes.

tonicblue: when you make a claim about a subject as serious as this, try to include the whole story.

 

[tonicblue]

Hamilton was understandably angry. The NORAD officials apparently were very poorly informed when they testified. That testimony (both from NORAD and the FAA) was referred to the agencies' Inspector Generals for further investigation. No deliberate attempt to deceive was found, but that doesn't excuse the incorrect testimony.

What is most important in terms of conspiracist claims? The actual timeline, as verified by recordings and by participant accounts, confirms that NORAD had no chance to shoot down any of the hijacked planes.

tonicblue: when you make a claim about a subject as serious as this, try to include the whole story.

Having recently watched some archive footage, there was something very interesting reported on the evening of 911. A pentogon reporter, based there full time, comes on the air and says that a top pentagon official personally confirmed to him that no planes were scrambled until the pentagon was hit. There are simply too many inconsiastencies and story changes.

 

[Mr.D]

Why must a completely new and correct timeline be produced to show that the official one is false?

One step at a time. How about producing a timeline that's self-consistent. THEN let's see if it's correct or not.

I understand that the NORAD timeline changed seceral times

I don't know about you, but if all the individuals involved in a world-changing chaotic and traumatic event that involved several large bureaucratic organizations with poor communications between them, at least two time zones and mutiple geographic locations with widely broadcast mainstream media reporting miscommunicated reports and false rumors somehow quickly came up with a completely coherent and consistent timeline that never had to be corrected, I would call that suspicious.

 

[Rawkarma]

Having recently watched some archive footage, there was something very interesting reported on the evening of 911. A pentogon reporter, based there full time, comes on the air and says that a top pentagon official personally confirmed to him that no planes were scrambled until the pentagon was hit. There are simply too many inconsiastencies and story changes.

A Pentagon reporter? Do you have a name?

Top Pentagon official? Do you have a name?

 

[tonicblue]

A Pentagon reporter? Do you have a name?

Top Pentagon official? Do you have a name?

Unfortunately, I didn't realise the significance of this until after I watched it. It was in ABC coverage and no doubt it will be spotted by the people scouring the archives and posted. I wish I had cut out that section, but I don't know how to do that anyway.

 

[beachnut]

Having recently watched some archive footage, there was something very interesting reported on the evening of 911. A pentogon reporter, based there full time, comes on the air and says that a top pentagon official personally confirmed to him that no planes were scrambled until the pentagon was hit. There are simply too many inconsiastencies and story changes.

The Pentagon does not control the jets, nor would they know at the time what NORAD was doing. The Langley jets took off at 9:30. Oops the news guy is wrong. But they were not after anyone, took off no where to go. NORAD was not ready to intecept domestic hijackings before 9/11. Plus this would not even be any use either for the truth movement. Why, would it mean anything?

 

[sleahead]

Here's an analogy; If an innocent man is convicted of a crime, new evidence will see him released. That new evidence may simply be a contradiction of the evidence against him, not necessarily an entirely new solution of the crime. It's like satying that the man we know is innocent must stay in prison until we find the guilty man.

I would suggest that that the USG, or members thereof, have already been tried and convicted in the Court of Troof. By your analogy, we need to show only one thing wrong in the Troof Movement's case to acquit the USG. I would argue their case has been shown to be flawed over and over again. Why does the the Troof Movement's conviction still stand?

 

[Gravy]

Having recently watched some archive footage, there was something very interesting reported on the evening of 911. A pentogon reporter, based there full time, comes on the air and says that a top pentagon official personally confirmed to him that no planes were scrambled until the pentagon was hit. There are simply too many inconsiastencies and story changes.

tonic, you are clearly new to these topics. Here is my offer to you:

If you can provide evidence that F-15 fighter aircraft, piloted by Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy and Maj. Daniel Nash, were not scrambled and did not take off from Otis ANGB for New York at approximately 8:52 AM on September 11, 2001, I will quit my 9/11 debunking activities forever.

Fair enough?

I'm going to ask this of you again: If you make a claim about a matter as serious as this, will you try to include all the facts?

Please answer "Yes" or "No."

 

[tonicblue]

tonic, you are clearly new to these topics. Here is my offer to you:

If you can provide evidence that F-15 fighter aircraft, piloted by Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy and Maj. Daniel Nash, were not scrambled and did not take off from Otis ANGB for New York at approximately 8:52 AM on September 11, 2001, I will quit my 9/11 debunking activities forever.

Fair enough?

I'm going to ask this of you again: If you make a claim about a matter as serious as this, will you try to include all the facts?

Please answer "Yes" or "No."

How is what I posted above not evidence? I cannot provide you the conclusive documented evidence you would like but that doesn't mean that they definitely took off.

When governments cover things up they tend to lie and fabricate evidence. I wonder how you think a civilian, like myself, can defeat this and obtain the evidence they may have fabricated.

The answer to your question is no. If I wish to make a point, I will not add every other piece of information that may be related. This is a discussion board and if you want to object to things I add then feel free to do so.

 

[Gravy]

This isn't fantasy camp. Real planes with real pilots were scrambled on 9/11. You can easily confirm that.

Will you, tonicblue?

Yes or no?

If your answer is no, exactly what are you afraid of?