Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Jack White

Recommended Posts

Hi Craig....

I had hoped that this thread could be free from name-calling, Oh well!!!

Rather than make vague generalizations, give me an alternative take on my

last post, or indeed, any of the points I have raised. As I have said I dont

know enough about photo/video analysis to make valid points,my speciality

is in interpretation of behavior. ESPECIALLY CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

Regards Steve..

There was no name calling Steven. The views you have put forth in this thread are not original, they have been around in many forms since 9/11. I'm not slamming you , just pointing out the obvious.

Heres what we are dealing with here, and you even allude to it in your post. GWB did not respond on 9/11 as you might have expected him to react.

In other words, your positon stems from "I think he should have acted and reacted this way and he didnt". Based on your "interpretatiuon" of his actions you have now spawned this huge yarn.

Now clearly thats your right and you can think what you will but its based on pretty shaky ground.

Thars the problem with whats called research into most ct's. And its the reason I usually avoid the most of the JFK discussions, because its mostly nothing more than a jumble of opinion based on the thinest of thread. Clearly there are a lot of folks who enjoy the trip back in time. More power to them. I just dont take it seriously.

On GWB's actions on the morning of 9/11, I'm not going to say he did anything right or wrong nor if he met my expectations. I do so because I'm not inside his head and I'm not privy to the actions and planning of the SS. He did what he did. Attempting to read some sinister plot into his actions is beyond reason.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Stephen Turner

Thank you Craig.

In other words you have no idea why Bush etc behaved in this extraordinary

fashion..Do you belive that codes of conduct are in place for S/S agents

regarding threats to the Presidents life? or do you belive that they make it up as

they go along..And please answer this, how did Bush know how many planes

were "Jacked", where they were headed Etc, How did the S/S know that their

Presidents life was not in any danger. It's really not good enough to say, I

dont know, but nothing sinister happened anyway,cause all you C/Ts are nut's

Oh by the way, I shall never claim you are just parrotting the Neo-Cons ;)

Edited by Stephen Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Craig.

In other words you have no idea why Bush etc behaved in this extraordinary

fashion..Do you belive that codes of conduct are in place for S/S agents

regarding threats to the Presidents life? or do you belive that they make it up as

they go along..And please answer this, how did Bush know how many planes

were "Jacked", where they were headed Etc, How did the S/S know that their

Presidents life was not in any danger. It's really not good enough to say, I

dont know, but nothing sinister happened anyway,cause all you C/Ts are nut's

Oh by the way, I shall never claim you are just parrotting the Neo-Cons ;)

Of course I don't know and neither do you. Thats the point. Was it exraordinary and by who's standards? Yours? They dont count. Neither do mine. Unless you were there and WORKING as a SS agent on that day, your points are just speculation.

And of course its good enough to say "I dont know" because its true. You dont know either yet you are making grand charges based on nothing more than your unfounded expectations.

Lets cut to the chase. You are charging the President of the United States with willingly allowing (or even being part of the plan) thousands of people to die. Based on what? His actions on that morning did not meet your expectations? Sorry Steven but that is nuts.

BTW, you can call me anything you like, my skin is pretty thick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Craig.

How do you belive evidence is weighed, is it only good in your book if the

police catch the murderer standing over the body, gun in hand, saying"I did

it, its a fair cop" And do I belive that those bodygaurds would have left bush

in that school if they felt his life was in danger,not for a minute my friend.

And I dont belive any reasonable person would either. Bush talks about seeing

the first plane hit the tower,and assumes it's pilot error, the next thing he is told by Card, is that America is under attack. Yet he asks no questions, gives no

orders, in short acts nothing like a leader. The least youve got here is a

complete incompetant runing your country. I am sorry but this behavior just does

not make sense, nor does removing the Bin laden family before any questions

could be asked, such as Do you know where ossama is. But when you've

bankrolled Junior for all the empty holes he drilled in Texas in the 70s, I guess

youre owed a favour or two. My belife (& yes it is only my belife) Is that the

administration knew exactly what was coming their way,and did nothing to

prevent it, for the political, & strategic advantages it would give them. They

desired a "New Pearl Harbour"& by God they got one. As to your assertion

that we cant say because we were not there, that is exactly what happens in Law Courts every day of the week is'nt it? People will either find what I say worthy of

further study, or they wont, end of story.

Edited by Stephen Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig.

How do you belive evidence  is weighed, is it only good in your book if the

police catch the murderer standing over the body, gun in hand, saying"I did

it, its a fair cop" And do I belive that those bodygaurds would have left bush

in that school if they felt his life was in danger,not for a minute my friend.

And I dont belive any reasonable person would either. Bush talks about seeing

the first plane hit the tower,and assumes it's pilot error, the next thing he is told by Card, is that America is under attack. Yet he asks no questions, gives no

orders, in short acts nothing like a leader. The least youve got here is a

complete incompetant runing your country. I am sorry but this behavior just does

not make sense, nor does removing the Bin laden family before any questions

could be asked, such as Do you know where ossama is. But when you've

bankrolled Junior for all the empty holes he drilled in Texas in the 70s, I guess

youre owed a favior or two.

Bring me some evidence and then we can weigh it. What you and others are offering here is not evidence but rather personal expectations that have not been met. Its baseless speculation not evidence.

Your post is a ramble again based on nothing other than it does not fit your expectations. And your changing the subject does nothing other than reinforce your ct behavior.

You are sure welcome to your views. I dont find them convincing. You want to know why many think that ct's are nuts, just look at your post. See why I usually refrain from taking part in these discussions?

Thanks but I think I end this now. Its going nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Bye Bye Craig..

I see what Jack means about personel attacks, As I said in my last post, others

will either find merit in what I have to say, or they won't. but I maintain, if the

standard of evidence required by Craig were to be transfered to the criminal

justice system, no case would ever make it to court. I and many others

belive that Bush and those around him, know much more about 9-11 than will

ever be admitted, or sought,by the main stream media. As for not living up to

my expectations, Just whose expectations did Shrub live up to that day?He sits

with a far away look on his face while his country is attacked. and then runs away

like a coward. Guess thats par for the course with this particular draft dodger.

Much more tomorrow........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bye Bye Craig..

I see what Jack means about personel attacks, As I said in my last post, others

will either find merit in what I have to say, or they won't. but I maintain, if the

standard of evidence required by Craig were to be transfered to the criminal

justice system, no case would ever make it to court. I and many others

belive that Bush and those around him, know much more about 9-11 than will

ever be admitted, or sought,by the main stream media. As for not living up to

my expectations, Just whose expectations did Shrub live up to that day?He sits

with a far away look on his face while his country is attacked. and then runs away

like a coward. Guess thats par for the course with this particular draft dodger.

Much more tomorrow........

Personal attack? Are you kidding? How about dealing honestly with the point at hand which is your expectations have not been met and you call that evidence.

You would consider your unmet expectations as solid enough evidence to take to court? I wonder if you would feel that way if it were used against you?

You are standing an a weak wooden leg and the saw is working its way through and you have to gall to call your stance being undermined a personal attack? Now you have met MY expectations of the typical CT.

You have no problems waging a personal attack on GWB, (just look at your quotes here in this thread) and then you complain when your line of logic is exposed to be faulty. Sheesh. The sword cuts both ways Steven.

Who's expectations did GWB live up to that day. For one, enough American voters to retun him to office.

Bye Bye Steven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Turner wrote:

Bye Bye Craig..

I see what Jack means about personel attacks,

dgh01: Yes, Jack certainly has had his share, unfortunately -- I wouldn't worry a whole-hell-of-a-lot about it though Stephen. Lamson and the "gang" carry a lot of baggage wherever they go. Something about "preserving the history of Dealey Plaza Events, that day in Nov '63... anything, any subject, ANYWHERE, contrary to 'Lone Neuter' JFK assassination PARTY line 'disinfo', has to be met headon. Especially when it comes to Nov 22nd '63 Dealey Plaza events, on film, motion or photo...

As to your thread topic: we have so many vocal 'patriots' in the USofA these day's -- damn shame most of them never saw "active military duty status"! Majority of these flag wavers are GOPer's (Grand Ole Party = Republicans) to boot!

David Healy

As I said in my last post, others

will either find merit in what I have to say, or they won't. but I maintain, if the

standard of evidence required by Craig were to be transfered to the criminal

justice system, no case would ever make it to court. I and many others

belive that Bush and those around him, know much more about 9-11 than will

ever be admitted, or sought,by the main stream media. As for not living up to

my expectations, Just whose expectations did Shrub live up to that day?He sits

with a far away look on his face while his country is attacked. and then runs away

like a coward. Guess thats par for the course with this particular draft dodger.

Much more tomorrow........

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Bye Bye Craig..

You have no problems waging a personal attack on GWB, (just look at your quotes here in this thread) and then you complain when your line of logic is exposed to be faulty. Sheesh. The sword cuts both ways Steven.

Ah,now I get the anger, It's because im attacking Craig's poster boy...

Oh and by the way the names STEPHEN...

Just a simple question..as you find my logic so faulty, lets pick an undisputed

fact. Twice Dubya claims to have seen the first plane hit the tower, not once

but twice. As video footage of this tragedy didnt turn up until the next day,

how does this square with the known facts?? And dont tell me it was the second

plane ,and Georgie got a bit muddled up with his facts. Bush was in the

classroom, listening to the children read when that happened......

Well people its ELECTION day here in merry old England, and hopefully we

can make Bush's best mate Tony BLIAR pay for being a war criminal..Im off

to vote.

Edited by Stephen Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bye Bye Craig..

You have no problems waging a personal attack on GWB, (just look at your quotes here in this thread) and then you complain when your line of logic is exposed to be faulty. Sheesh. The sword cuts both ways Steven.

Ah,now I get the anger, It's because im attacking Craig's poster boy...

Oh and by the way the names STEPHEN...

Just a simple question..as you find my logic so faulty, lets pick an undisputed

fact. Twice Dubya claims to have seen the first plane hit the tower, not once

but twice. As video footage of this tragedy didnt turn up until the next day,

how does this square with the known facts?? And dont tell me it was the second

plane ,and Georgie got a bit muddled up with his facts. Bush was in the

classroom, listening to the children read when that happened......

Hes not my poster boy Stephen, he's the president of my country and you have accused him of murder based on some pretty silly thinking. As an AMERICAN I take offence.

Quite frankly I dont care about his recolllection of the video he saw that day. He was a bit busy and had more than a few important things on his mind. I wonder how well your memory would be if you were in his position.

So like I said eariler I'm done. Go ahead and think what you will using whatever logic you desire. Enjoy your trip to LA LA land.

Blair is a war criminal? Perhaps I've gotten a peek into what makes you tick as well.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Bye Bye Craig..

]

Hes not my poster boy Stephen, he's the president of my country and you have accused him of murder based on some pretty silly thinking. As an AMERICAN I take offence.

Quite frankly I dont care about his recolllection of the video he saw that day. He was a bit busy and had more than a few important things on his mind. I wonder how well your memory would be if you were in his position.

So like I said eariler I'm done. Go ahead and think what you will using whatever logic you desire. Enjoy your trip to LA LA land.

Blair is a war criminal? Perhaps I've gotten a peek into what makes you tick as well.

As an Englihman ,I take offence at having my country dragged into a war for

no bloody reason other than OIL.

I did not claim he SAW A VIDEO, He claimed he saw something TWICE that he

COULD NOT HAVE SEEN..... but you dont care, as you are already there how's

the weather in LA-LA Land.

What else do you call a man who drags his country into a war on nothing but

LIES, soldiers from my country lost their lives because of his toadying to Bush.

So tell me Craig just where are the WMD'S, or is that somthing else you dont

care about!!!

As for your arrogant nonsence about knowing what makes me tick........... :dis

Edited by Stephen Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bye Bye Craig..

]

Hes not my poster boy Stephen, he's the president of my country and you have accused him of murder based on some pretty silly thinking. As an AMERICAN I take offence.

Quite frankly I dont care about his recolllection of the video he saw that day. He was a bit busy and had more than a few important things on his mind. I wonder how well your memory would be if you were in his position.

So like I said eariler I'm done. Go ahead and think what you will using whatever logic you desire. Enjoy your trip to LA LA land.

Blair is a war criminal? Perhaps I've gotten a peek into what makes you tick as well.

As an Englihman ,I take offence at having my country dragged into a war for

no bloody reason other than OIL.

I did not claim he SAW A VIDEO, He claimed he saw something TWICE that he

COULD NOT HAVE SEEN..... but you dont care, as you are already there how's

the weather in LA-LA Land.

What else do you call a man who drags his country into a war on nothing but

LIES, soldiers from my country lost their lives because of his toadying to Bush.

So tell me Craig just where are the WMD'S, or is that somthing else you dont

care about!!!

As for your arrogant nonsence about knowing what makes me tick........... :dis

Why Stephen, what a wonderful edit, again affirming MY expectations of standard CT behavior LOL! Cant stay on topic to save your soul.

I remember 9/11 pretty well. I was in my car driving to work listening to news radio when the first tower was hit. I remember thinking at the time, was the weather bad in NY or was the pilot really that bad. Now after all of this I could say I heard the first tower being hit. And it would be a true statement. Not a very discriptive statement but true.

I got to my studio within miniutes of the first tower strike and my wife and I quickly turned on the tv. The coverage was a mess, with cuts from live shots to tape. I saw the first available footage of the tower on fire. I could have easily made the statement "I saw a plane hit the tower" Again it would be a true statement but not a very discriptive one. Later the second plane hit and the coverage got even more confusing. More live footage, more taped reruns of the first tower fire, more taped reruns of the actual second building strike, all along with live comentary that was even more cofusing than the video. I was just an onlooker, and other than emotion I had no part to play in the events yet confusion was everywhere. I can only imagine what it might have been like to be the commander in chief and president of the US at a time like this. I'm clearly not in a position to second guess, and in hindsight, the actions of the President. It seems you think you can. I say bunk. Thats what puts you in LALA land.

Thats the fallicy of your logic, if we can even call it that. You are applying your personal, hindsight expectations to a situation where you were not even present nor in any position of power. And from this faulty logic you have concluded that the President or the US government was behind the attacks. Sorry Steven that makes you a WOO WOO.

Do I care aabout how my nation responded in this emergency? Sure. Am I going to try and second guess the actions of a great many HUMAN BEINGS in a time of crisis? NO! Is it important to look closely at our response and look for ways to make it better. You bet. Thats what I care about. Not the sillyness of a bunch of internet wackos who have decided that they can devine the motives and assign blame by applying their personal expectations to a past event.

Thats why arguments like yours are worthless. There can be no conclusion. Only continued speculation and finger pointing. You cant test your argument nor offer any concrete proof. Thats why it the perfect platform for a CT. And thats why its worthless.

So prattle on. I'm sure you will soon parrot all the other worthless 9/11 CT claims. I'm not interested.

If you want to debate the Iraq war, start another thread. Otherwise try and stay on topic...if you can...its not the expected behavior for a CT.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Craig..

How many goodbye's is that. as you appear unable to end this I will, or we

are just going to end up insulting each other. And although it's hard to tell

from my last few post's ,I find that kind of behavior pointless.

Yes I shall continue to post on 9-11, if you want the last word on this,

it's all yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Asyou ask, I shall start a thread on the Iraq war..

It will be on the "History Debates"Threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Reading back over Craig's postings( In cold blood) He makes some good points.

First hand eye witness testimony is often inacurate,muddled, etc. I remember

watching as the terrible events unfolded, and it was impossible to keep up

with what was happening. So yes, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 many

missleading reports were given, its human nature.But I still find GWB's

comments problematic. Firstly,of all the muddled reports given that day,nobody

else claimed to witness the FIRST strike live on tv,probably for a very good

reason,it was'nt broadcast. Secondly,whilst it would be fair to say that remarks

made by GWB on the day were given under stress, the comments I refer to

were made weeks later, and not given under duress. WE must then accept that

Mr Bush is simply "Telling it like it is" & therefore did witness the first strike.

The problem now of course is, how did he witness it,at the time of the strike,

8-46, Mr bush was on the John Ringling causeway, not at the school, so my

question is, under what circumstances did Mr Bush witness the first strike....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...