5 minutes that destroys the official version[W:228]

[NWO_Spook]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

So, you were ALREADY accusing the government of some sort of coverup within a day?

Congratulations on waiting until the evidence came to light.

As far as the video. If you believe it ACCURATELY represents the "official story" you are sadly mistaken. What is worse you refuse to learn.

The video is a PARODY. Nothing more.

As we watched the event unfold, I remember telling my friend that al-Qaeda had finally done it-long before the commentators mentioned AQ. It was fairly obvious when one becomes familiar with the AQ campaign leading up to 9/11. I could have been wrong, but the historical context guaranteed it was a safe bet.

 

[Mark F]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

As we watched the event unfold, I remember telling my friend that al-Qaeda had finally done it-long before the commentators mentioned AQ. It was fairly obvious when one becomes familiar with the AQ campaign leading up to 9/11. I could have been wrong, but the historical context guaranteed it was a safe bet.

The list of culprits with the motive, means and opportunity was an exceptionally short one.

 

[Mark F]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

The first minute is so hotly contested because the debunkers never made it past that point... Too much reality for them to handle is my guess.




That was the initial claim at least... And if you asked 20 people on the street what they were told the hijackers were armed with, the answers would be a mix of either box cutters or don't know.



The answer to both questions is no? That's your final answer?



Oh, so we went from a definite "no" to a definite "don't know" in 0.2 seconds.



I'm aware of most of this, but no sources to show what you were referring to specifically.

CNN.com - 9/11 panel: Hijackers may have had utility knives - Jan. 27, 2004

But, regardless, it's not demonstrably false. Unlike your claim.

It was part of the original narrative however, and it doesn't REALLY change anything of the story.

So, let's call this one inconclusive at best.



http://youtu.be/dUj2905unnw

That's the one you were talking about... However, your definite claim of no is dubious at best because the videos show osama bin laden getting younger and younger over the years as he kept making taunting videos.

So, not having the side by side videos, I couldn't blame a person for deciding to recant on a position taken and seeing videos of what seems is lookalikes.

Quote mining my statements to remove pertinent information and proper context is not going to help your case.

The video says it was "19 men armed with box cutters". The video is supposed to be exposing how the official story is wrong. But 19 men with box cutters isn't the official story and what evidence we do have shows that while there may have been box cutters that was far from the only weapon in the hijackers arsenal - chemical spray, knives, guns and bombs are all mentioned.

The purpose of the video IMHO is to make the viewer believe the hijackers were armed only with trivial weapons - a lie by omission and a lie by innuendo - with the intent to get the viewer to believe taking over the plane with such meager weapons is unlikely. It certainly seems to work as I can't tell you how many times I have seen the hijackers couldn't take over the planes with just box cutters fallacy play out on internet forums.

Thanks for the link that says the hijackers may have had 2 Leatherman utility knives rather than box cutters though. It only helps my case.

When you decide to offer a genuine rebuttal to #2 we can address that then. The video says OBL was on dialysis. Nothing you have presented addresses that.

Also, nothing you have presented addresses the claim in the video that OBL was operating out of a "cave fortress" when he planned 9/11.

As I said last night I wasn't going to hold my breath for your reply. The video is misleading, and I would argue deliberately so about the weapons used by the hijackers, and also in its claims that OBL was on dialysis and that he planned 9/11 from a "cave fortress" - claims which have no foundation in evidence.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

If say the NIST engaged in "hyperbole for effect" as you call it, would you be so forgiving?

mark this is not an "official report", and they did engage in drama for effect.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

Ya, I remember telling people on sept 11 by noon (was working nights at the time, and that was the time I woke up) that if they had the culprit named within the day that the person named was more than likely the scapegoat rather than the actual culprit, otherwise it was a reaction to us policies around the world... So, ya... I'm not not new to this either, although the process of accepting what was told went from violently opposed to the suggestion, then absolute disbelief, then willingness to listen, then those that would listen could be swayed, and now, it's pretty much just debunkers that will come up with anything to maintain their position regardless if it disputes other claims made or whatever...

Look, I realize that you've kept mostly quiet on the subject of the video, so, that's why I said if we can accept the concession that this is flipping the burden from those making claims against the video onto me (which I've been supporting my positions far more than those trying to dispute it.

Bottom line, if bin Laden DID live past 2007, it's only because the U.S. Allowed it to happen... And they only would allow it to happen if he remained a U.S. asset until his death... Whenever that actually happened.

I was up early that morning, but I too found it so very strange that the government, at least POTUS, knew and proclaimed before the day was over who had done it and why. I also found it very strange how the towers collapsed so quickly, just like CD, and of course it was very obvious that there was no wrecked airliner at Shanksville. Those were the 3 elements that made me wonder about the story.

Nonetheless, like a good sheep, I believed the story for about 4 years. :3oops:

 

[Mark F]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

I was up early that morning, but I too found it so very strange that the government, at least POTUS, knew and proclaimed before the day was over who had done it and why. I also found it very strange how the towers collapsed so quickly, just like CD, and of course it was very obvious that there was no wrecked airliner at Shanksville. Those were the 3 elements that made me wonder about the story.

Nonetheless, like a good sheep, I believed the story for about 4 years. :3oops:

This is the statement President Bush made on the evening of 9/11/2001.

It does not mention Osama bin Laden.

CNN.com - Text of Bush's address - September 11, 2001

Regardless, the suspect list for an act like this is incredibly tiny. Not at all difficult for anyone who can think to narrow down the list of likely culprits in a very, very short period of time. There is only one organization that had a track record of consistently more brazen and sophisticated attacks against the U.S. and American interests with information that they were planning more. That you find it strange says more about you than it does reality.

 

[Mark F]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

mark this is not an "official report", and they did engage in drama for effect.

The video does indeed engage in hyperbole for effect - except the effect is to misinform and mislead.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

So, you were ALREADY accusing the government of some sort of coverup within a day?

Congratulations on waiting until the evidence came to light.

As far as the video. If you believe it ACCURATELY represents the "official story" you are sadly mistaken. What is worse you refuse to learn.

The video is a PARODY. Nothing more.

A) the EVIDENCE was the speed with which they named bin laden... Real investigations take time.

B) I'm still waiting for you to show me this whole pile of glaring inaccuracies, because between the 3 of you claiming over 150 different lies from just the first minute, have managed to stumble on 1 (singular) glaring inaccuracy.

C) no, it's YOURS that refuses o learn, since I've countered every point made with facts and sources.., it's only the truly delusional that believe their opinions to trump facts.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

As we watched the event unfold, I remember telling my friend that al-Qaeda had finally done it-long before the commentators mentioned AQ. It was fairly obvious when one becomes familiar with the AQ campaign leading up to 9/11. I could have been wrong, but the historical context guaranteed it was a safe bet.

Ya, you because you already knew of Alquaeda being a U.S. asset... Historical context and all.

 

[BmanMcfly]

The video does indeed engage in hyperbole for effect - except the effect is to misinform and mislead.

No, it's the official story to mislead people from examining the evidence.

I notice you all have completely given up on trying to dispute the facts and are now, AS I PREDICTED no less, diverting from the subject and hoping nobody noticed.

Well... I'll accept the concession. The video was shockingly factual with only minor hyperbole and exaggeration that did not change anything significant from the actual official story that we are intended to believe while demonstrating the facts that show that story to be little better than a child's fairy tale, like how you tell children of Santa Claus.

If you could have addressed it factually, you would have done so, and we are almost 300 posts in with 1 clear inaccuracy highlighted out of everything claimed.

 

[Mark F]

No, it's the official story to mislead people from examining the evidence.

I notice you all have completely given up on trying to dispute the facts and are now, AS I PREDICTED no less, diverting from the subject and hoping nobody noticed.

Well... I'll accept the concession. The video was shockingly factual with only minor hyperbole and exaggeration that did not change anything significant from the actual official story that we are intended to believe while demonstrating the facts that show that story to be little better than a child's fairy tale, like how you tell children of Santa Claus.

If you could have addressed it factually, you would have done so, and we are almost 300 posts in with 1 clear inaccuracy highlighted out of everything claimed.

The facts are your video claims the hijackers used "box cutters" to take the planes. The available evidence of their weapons and tactics, while not exhaustive indicates other weapons were used - chemical spray, knives, firearms and bombs are all mentioned by the folks who were actually there. The video misrepresents the weapons/tactics used deliberately to mislead the viewer.

The video states Osama bin Laden was "on dialysis" (implying he was too ill to plan 9/11). There is no evidence OBL was ever on dialysis, it is not part of the official story and you skirted around it rather than addressing the issue directly.

The video states OBL while planning 9/11 was operating from a "cave fortress" (implying he is a cave man and therefore to primitive and stupid to plan 9/11) a claim for which there is also no evidence and is not part of the official story. You skirted this one too, deciding to get into an irrelevant derail over semantics between "cave" and "tunnel" AFTER 9/11 (hint for the record: tunnels are created by skilled engineers, caves are made with no human involvement).

22 words, 4 claims presented, 1 correct (the date of the attack) and 3 demonstrably false and misleading on several levels each. Where is the 90% of this video that is correct?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

A) the EVIDENCE was the speed with which they named bin laden... Real investigations take time.

And the REAL investigations show?

You know they have theses things called COMPUTERS.....

B) I'm still waiting for you to show me this whole pile of glaring inaccuracies, because between the 3 of you claiming over 150 different lies from just the first minute, have managed to stumble on 1 (singular) glaring inaccuracy.

Asked and answered...

Example:

As I stated before (and Mark asked again)... "...19 men armed with boxcutters,..."

Is it or is it not the "official story"?

I stated before (and Mark asked again)... "...in a cave..."

Is it or is it not the "official story"?

Just two examples.....

BTW - Still waiting on an intelligent counter theory.

BTW - Still waiting on the "impossible" aspects of the "official story".

BTW - Still waiting on the "assinine" aspects of the "official story".

C) no, it's YOURS that refuses o learn, since I've countered every point made with facts and sources.., it's only the truly delusional that believe their opinions to trump facts.

No, facts trump ignorant claims....

Like the ignorant claims made in the video.

And ignorantr claims about explosives, nukes, shot down airliners, MORAD exercises affecting CIVILIAN RADAR, etc.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

Ya, you because you already knew of Alquaeda being a U.S. asset... Historical context and all.

Speaking of claims without EVIDENCE......

 

[BmanMcfly]

The facts are your video claims the hijackers used "box cutters" to take the planes. The available evidence of their weapons and tactics, while not exhaustive indicates other weapons were used - chemical spray, knives, firearms and bombs are all mentioned by the folks who were actually there. The video misrepresents the weapons/tactics used deliberately to mislead the viewer.

The video states Osama bin Laden was "on dialysis" (implying he was too ill to plan 9/11). There is no evidence OBL was ever on dialysis, it is not part of the official story and you skirted around it rather than addressing the issue directly.

The video states OBL while planning 9/11 was operating from a "cave fortress" (implying he is a cave man and therefore to primitive and stupid to plan 9/11) a claim for which there is also no evidence and is not part of the official story. You skirted this one too, deciding to get into an irrelevant derail over semantics between "cave" and "tunnel" AFTER 9/11 (hint for the record: tunnels are created by skilled engineers, caves are made with no human involvement).

22 words, 4 claims presented, 1 correct (the date of the attack) and 3 demonstrably false and misleading on several levels each. Where is the 90% of this video that is correct?

Yes, and you skipped the one where I went over the next few claims you tried to make and showed how those were part of the narrative that could never be proven either way... You skipped it to change the subject, actually the ending sentence of that post.

So, ya, the fact that you maintain the opinions in the face of the evidence, well, that's the definition of delusion.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

Speaking of claims without EVIDENCE......

You remember that video of Hillary Clinton admitting that this was done? No, selective memory, I know...

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

You remember that video of Hillary Clinton admitting that this was done? No, selective memory, I know...

Transcript?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Well, the debunkers are no longer interested in supporting their opinions or countering the facts raised, so... Let's just conclude the video was far closer to accurate than they will admit.
/thread

 

[Fledermaus]

Yes, and you skipped the one where I went over the next few claims you tried to make and showed how those were part of the narrative that could never be proven either way... You skipped it to change the subject, actually the ending sentence of that post.

So, ya, the fact that you maintain the opinions in the face of the evidence, well, that's the definition of delusion.

So, you present a parody video which has demonstrable inaccuracies and believe it is an accurate appraisal of the "official story".

You maintain the opinions in the face of the evidence, well, that's the definition of delusion.

 

[Fledermaus]

Well, the debunkers are no longer interested in supporting their opinions or countering the facts raised, so... Let's just conclude the video was far closer to accurate than they will admit.
/thread

Only if you ignore the vast majority of what Mark and I have posted.......

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

BmanMcFly,,

On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters (where is this in the "official story"?) directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress (where is this in the "official story"?) halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed (where is this in the "official story"?) the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour (where is this in the "official story"?) without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, (where is this in the "official story"?) while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna (where is this in the "official story"?) was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn(where is this in the "official story"?) to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars(where is this in the "official story"?) that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

 

[gamolon]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

So, the "lies" of the video are just slight exaggeration, or parody...

Funny how you admit that there are "slight exaggerations" and that this is a "parody" yet turn around and say:

The video is an accurate representation of the official story exaggerated for effect.

How can anything that contains exaggerations while also being labeled a parody, be considered accurate?

:roll:

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

Funny how you admit that there are "slight exaggerations" and that this is a "parody" yet turn around and say:


How can anything that contains exaggerations while also being labeled a parody, be considered accurate?

:roll:

Representation; as in a description or portrayal of the reality.

synonyms: likeness, portrayal

There is no inconsistency in those statements. Why? The map is not the territory, the map is a representation of the territory.

Edit : more evidence that the thread has meet its purpose Fled has given up on all pretext of honest discussion and has entered full game playing mode.

 

[gamolon]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

Representation; as in a description or portrayal of the reality.

synonyms: likeness, portrayal

There is no inconsistency in those statements. Why? The map is not the territory, the map is a representation of the territory.

Edit : more evidence that the thread has meet its purpose Fled has given up on all pretext of honest discussion and has entered full game playing mode.

Answer a question for me.

Why did the author of that video make reference to only box cutters and not mention knives and the threat of bombs being on board? Is that an exaggeration on his part?

 

[gamolon]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

There is no inconsistency in those statements.

Really?

So Osama was going through dialysis while in a cave as he directly directed the attacks on the morning of 9/11? Those are the facts Bman?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: 5 minutes that destroys the official version

Representation; as in a description or portrayal of the reality.

synonyms: likeness, portrayal

There is no inconsistency in those statements. Why? The map is not the territory, the map is a representation of the territory.

Edit : more evidence that the thread has meet its purpose Fled has given up on all pretext of honest discussion and has entered full game playing mode.

Representation; as in a description or portrayal of the reality.

Note the word REALITY. Intentional distortion is not REALITY. A lie is not REALITY. Hyperbole is not REALITY.

A map of the US that shows the area of state of Maine larger than area for the state of Texas not would not be considered and ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF REALITY.

And, more accusation of dishonesty.....

WHERE HAVE I BEEN DISHONEST?

Is that all you have?

Is that all anyone gets when debunking your current Claim-O-The-Day?