FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Guest David Guyatt]

But Evan, you do have to admit that the misrepresentation suffered by Charles must have been purposeful? One simply cannot accidentally truncate a sentence like that - because it's adulterated nuance was used in a purposeful manner to imply an altogether different meaning to the original full sentence.

Implicit in that action, therefore, is knowing deceit. In my Thesaurus, the word "deceit" which is acceptable on the forum, is synonymous with the word "lying" - as well as: "untruthfulness, duplicity, cheating, dishonesty, insincere, mendacious..." and many others besides. I believe all these words form part of what is acceptable usage on the forum. The word "lie" and "xxxx" are simply shorter words and more direct.

If it flies, quacks, waddles, and eats well with organges, call it a Duck.

David

Edit = added punctuation mark.

Edited November 17, 2007 by David Guyatt

[William Kelly]

But Evan, you do have to admit that the misrepresentation suffered by Charles must have been purposeful? One simply cannot accidentally truncate a sentence like that - because it's adulterated nuance was used in a purposeful manner to imply an altogether different meaning to the original full sentence.

Implicit in that action, therefore, is knowing deceit. In my Thesaurus, the word "deceit" which is acceptable on the forum is synonymous with the word "lying" - as well as: "untruthfulness, duplicity, cheating, dishonesty, insincere, mendacious..." and many others besides. I believe all these words form part of what is acceptable usage on the forum. The word "lie" and "xxxx" are simply shorter words and more direct.

If it flies, quacks, waddles, and eats well with organges, call it a Duck.

David

What does this BS have to do with Defense Histoirans Documenting the 9/11 Attacks again?

If it looks like BS and smells like BS it's probably BS and better left unsaid.

If it's not on topic take it somewhere else.

BK

[William Kelly]

Defense Historians Document 9/11 Pentagon Attack

By Samantha L. Quigley

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7, 2007 – Nearly six years after a terrorist-controlled plane slammed into the Pentagon, killing 184 people aboard the plane and in the building, Defense Department historians have published a book on the incident and its aftermath.

"Pentagon 9/11" is a narrative history based on a multitude of information sources, including 1,300 oral histories gathered in the immediate aftermath of the attack. The book became available this week through the U.S. Government Bookstore at

http://bookstore.gpo.gov

and also through commercial vendors.

"It's the first scholarly study of what happened at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001," said Randy Papadopoulos, a historian with the Naval Historical Center, who co-authored the book. "The 9/11 Commission Report, very rigorously researched, doesn't really talk about the Pentagon very much and what happened here."

Thanks to intensive interviewing in the aftermath of the attack conducted by personnel in Defense Department history offices, Papadopoulos said historians know more about what happened during the Pentagon attack than they do about what happened at the World Trade Center....

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=47355

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0160783283/1n9867a-20

Does anybody else want to discuss these Pentagon historians and their report?

Or do we have to have this other crap carry on endlessly?

BK

[Evan Burton]

But Evan, you do have to admit that the misrepresentation suffered by Charles must have been purposeful? One simply cannot accidentally truncate a sentence like that - because it's adulterated nuance was used in a purposeful manner to imply an altogether different meaning to the original full sentence.

No, I don't.

Charles' original statement was:

Assuming for the sake of argument -- and man, it pains me to do so -- that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event, as well as the absurd official conspiracy theory and the feds' refusal to release video records of the hit, be explained by the use of an above-top-secret "esoteric" anti-aircraft weapon deployed in the District?

Len subsequent quoted:

the near total absence of damage to the building

IMO Len was arguing that damage to the building was far from being a "total absence" and was indeed consistent - or explainable - by the attack. It would have been better to quote the whole sentence / paragraph, but there is a dispute as to the level of damage. I also disagree with statement "...that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event...". I believe the damage is consistent with the aircraft striking the building.

Anyway, I do not believe that it was a deliberate attempt to alter the meaning of Charles' statement. A correction has been made, and I believe that should be the end of the matter.

Edited November 17, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Charles Drago]

But Evan, you do have to admit that the misrepresentation suffered by Charles must have been purposeful? One simply cannot accidentally truncate a sentence like that - because it's adulterated nuance was used in a purposeful manner to imply an altogether different meaning to the original full sentence.

No, I don't.

Charles' original statement was:

Assuming for the sake of argument -- and man, it pains me to do so -- that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event, as well as the absurd official conspiracy theory and the feds' refusal to release video records of the hit, be explained by the use of an above-top-secret "esoteric" anti-aircraft weapon deployed in the District?

Len subsequent quoted:

the near total absence of damage to the building

IMO Len was arguing that damage to the building was far from being a "total absence" and was indeed consistent - or explainable - by the attack. It would have been better to quote the whole sentence / paragraph, but there is a dispute as to the level of damage. I also disagree with statement "...that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event...". I believe the damage is consistent with the aircraft striking the building.

Anyway, I do not believe that it was a deliberate attempt to alter the meaning of Charles' statement. A correction has been made, and I believe that should be the end of the matter.

Evan,

With all due respect:

Nonsense!

Colby wasn't "arguing" anything. He was purposefully misquoting me not by changing my words, but by truncating them in order to change their meaning and, as a result, impugn my own truthfulness and perhaps even sanity.

For how could a truthful, sane person argue that the Pentagon did not sustain damage? Which is what Colby claimed that I maintain.

The smoking gun? If, as you claim, Colby was merely arguing that damage to the Pentagon "was indeed consistent - or explainable - by the attack," then why on earth would he have removed the tail end of my original post -- "consistent with such an event" -- which stands unequivocally as the portion of my sentence most directly relevant to his alleged point?

The only plausible -- and just barely so -- explanation for Colby's omission other than a conscious effort on his part to deceive (and you know what that would make him!) is what I like to term "cognitive impairment."

Which I don't buy for as long as it takes a reasonable person to understand Colby for what he is.

I'd like to address Bill Kelly's not unreasonable and appropriately impassioned plea for an end to this exchange.

Bill, this is not about me or even Colby. It is about the penetration of this Forum by agents provocateurs tasked with undermining our shared efforts in support of their masters' grander strategies to keep us mired in argument and to corrupt history by creating the illusion of a level playing field for their knowlingly false points of view.

They must be exposed, or by definition they win.

Charles Drago

[Craig Lamson]

But Evan, you do have to admit that the misrepresentation suffered by Charles must have been purposeful? One simply cannot accidentally truncate a sentence like that - because it's adulterated nuance was used in a purposeful manner to imply an altogether different meaning to the original full sentence.

No, I don't.

Charles' original statement was:

Assuming for the sake of argument -- and man, it pains me to do so -- that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event, as well as the absurd official conspiracy theory and the feds' refusal to release video records of the hit, be explained by the use of an above-top-secret "esoteric" anti-aircraft weapon deployed in the District?

Len subsequent quoted:

the near total absence of damage to the building

IMO Len was arguing that damage to the building was far from being a "total absence" and was indeed consistent - or explainable - by the attack. It would have been better to quote the whole sentence / paragraph, but there is a dispute as to the level of damage. I also disagree with statement "...that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event...". I believe the damage is consistent with the aircraft striking the building.

Anyway, I do not believe that it was a deliberate attempt to alter the meaning of Charles' statement. A correction has been made, and I believe that should be the end of the matter.

Evan,

With all due respect:

Nonsense!

Colby wasn't "arguing" anything. He was purposefully misquoting me not by changing my words, but by truncating them in order to change their meaning and, as a result, impugn my own truthfulness and perhaps even sanity.

For how could a truthful, sane person argue that the Pentagon did not sustain damage? Which is what Colby claimed that I maintain.

The smoking gun? If, as you claim, Colby was merely arguing that damage to the Pentagon "was indeed consistent - or explainable - by the attack," then why on earth would he have removed the tail end of my original post -- "consistent with such an event" -- which stands unequivocally as the portion of my sentence most directly relevant to his alleged point?

The only plausible -- and just barely so -- explanation for Colby's omission other than a conscious effort on his part to deceive (and you know what that would make him!) is what I like to term "cognitive impairment."

Which I don't buy for as long as it takes a reasonable person to understand Colby for what he is.

I'd like to address Bill Kelly's not unreasonable and appropriately impassioned plea for an end to this exchange.

Bill, this is not about me or even Colby. It is about the penetration of this Forum by agents provocateurs tasked with undermining our shared efforts in support of their masters' grander strategies to keep us mired in argument and to corrupt history by creating the illusion of a level playing field for their knowlingly false points of view.

They must be exposed, or by definition they win.

Charles Drago

Good god Drago, you are paranoia rum amuck. How could he have changed the true meaning of your words....they were posted in full in your own post?

And of course we have YOU..the person who is making claims as if they were true, when in truth you have no idea of the real facts, only hearsay.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11595

A rather enlightening display to be sure, one that really shows YOUR true colors. And those colors are not nice, bright and pretty.

[Charles Drago]

Good god Drago, you are paranoia rum amuck. How could he have changed the true meaning of your words....they were posted in full in your own post?

Far too many of your ilk remember only the most recent iteration of an argument.

This sad truth explains the reasoning behind the assignment given to you, Colby, Gratz, and Purvis -- among others -- to get the last word.

So .........

Edited November 18, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Len Colby]

But Evan, you do have to admit that the misrepresentation suffered by Charles must have been purposeful? One simply cannot accidentally truncate a sentence like that - because it's adulterated nuance was used in a purposeful manner to imply an altogether different meaning to the original full sentence.

No, I don't.

Charles' original statement was:

Assuming for the sake of argument -- and man, it pains me to do so -- that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event, as well as the absurd official conspiracy theory and the feds' refusal to release video records of the hit, be explained by the use of an above-top-secret "esoteric" anti-aircraft weapon deployed in the District?

Len subsequent quoted:

the near total absence of damage to the building

IMO Len was arguing that damage to the building was far from being a "total absence" and was indeed consistent - or explainable - by the attack. It would have been better to quote the whole sentence / paragraph, but there is a dispute as to the level of damage. I also disagree with statement "...that AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, might the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with such an event...". I believe the damage is consistent with the aircraft striking the building.

Anyway, I do not believe that it was a deliberate attempt to alter the meaning of Charles' statement. A correction has been made, and I believe that should be the end of the matter.

Evan,

With all due respect:

Nonsense!

Colby wasn't "arguing" anything. He was purposefully misquoting me not by changing my words, but by truncating them in order to change their meaning and, as a result, impugn my own truthfulness and perhaps even sanity.

For how could a truthful, sane person argue that the Pentagon did not sustain damage? Which is what Colby claimed that I maintain.

The smoking gun? If, as you claim, Colby was merely arguing that damage to the Pentagon "was indeed consistent - or explainable - by the attack," then why on earth would he have removed the tail end of my original post -- "consistent with such an event" -- which stands unequivocally as the portion of my sentence most directly relevant to his alleged point?

The only plausible -- and just barely so -- explanation for Colby's omission other than a conscious effort on his part to deceive (and you know what that would make him!) is what I like to term "cognitive impairment."

Which I don't buy for as long as it takes a reasonable person to understand Colby for what he is.

I'd like to address Bill Kelly's not unreasonable and appropriately impassioned plea for an end to this exchange.

Bill, this is not about me or even Colby. It is about the penetration of this Forum by agents provocateurs tasked with undermining our shared efforts in support of their masters' grander strategies to keep us mired in argument and to corrupt history by creating the illusion of a level playing field for their knowlingly false points of view.

They must be exposed, or by definition they win.

Charles Drago

Drago and David’s characterization of what transpired are absurd considering as noted various times I quoted Drago in the post that immediately his. This can be contrasted with his deceptive behavior. He wrote I “made a blatant attempt to spread false information about [him] and the much larger and vastly more important issue of what happened to the Pentagon on 9-11” on a different thread on a different part of the forum but omitted the fact that I was asked to make correction by a moderator and acknowledged that I had originally truncated his sentence. Unlike what happened on this thread where presumably everyone read both messages few of the people who read Drago’s would have been aware of the truth. Thus he was guilty of the type of dishonest behavior he accused me of. The question is and always has been whether the hole was consistent with damage from a 757 which my post showed it was. Perhaps instead of hiding behind a smoke screen Drago should try to deal with that question.

His whole declaration was nonesense shall we look at the rest “… the feds' refusal to release video records of the hit, be explained by the use of an above-top-secret "esoteric" anti-aircraft weapon deployed in the District?” The videos an supposed “anti-aircraft weapon” have been discussed elsewhere does he have any evidence to support his claims?

Bill sorry for continuing the derailing of “your” thread but I don’t appreciate being called a xxxx especially when the person making the accusation is “careless with the facts”. I agree the issue doesn’t warrant further discussion, but some people insist on dredging it up

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=127036

[Charles Drago]

His whole declaration was nonesense shall we look at the rest “… the feds' refusal to release video records of the hit, be explained by the use of an above-top-secret "esoteric" anti-aircraft weapon deployed in the District?” The videos an supposed “anti-aircraft weapon” have been discussed elsewhere does he have any evidence to support his claims?

There he/they goes/go again, commiting the same act for the same purpose.

"Colby" is knowlingly misquoting me. "Colby" is knowlingly telling an untruth.

"Colby" is trying to be cute insofar as "Colby" accurately types a segment from my original post, but then characterizes it as my "claim."

I MADE NO CLAIMS.

I asked a question.

Anyone with reading comprehension skills above the third grade level would know this.

Which, I suppose, gives "Colby" an "out."

"Colby" may be retarded.

But I don't think that is is the case.

What "Colby" does above is categorically and morally identical to what "Colby" did previously.

"Colby" is not telling the truth. "Colby" knows it.

So what does that make "Colby"?

Charles Drago

[Guest David Guyatt]

His whole declaration was nonesense shall we look at the rest “… the feds' refusal to release video records of the hit, be explained by the use of an above-top-secret "esoteric" anti-aircraft weapon deployed in the District?” The videos an supposed “anti-aircraft weapon” have been discussed elsewhere does he have any evidence to support his claims?

There he/they goes/go again, commiting the same act for the same purpose.

"Colby" is knowlingly misquoting me. "Colby" is knowlingly telling an untruth.

"Colby" is trying to be cute insofar as "Colby" accurately types a segment from my original post, but then characterizes it as my "claim."

I MADE NO CLAIMS.

I asked a question.

Charles, we both know that Len knowlingly misrepresents quotes so he can been seen to demolish the argument he has created and attributed to others.

This is one of his many tricks of the trade.

We both (and others too) also know that your cited (and now mangled and misrepresented post) about esoteric anti aircraft weapons was concerned entirely at asking a theoretical question and bore the usual caveats expected of a person concerned with accuracy.

Len is not concerned with accuracy, veracity or facts (other than those he wants to use). Any trick will do for him.

David

[Charles Drago]

I don’t appreciate being called a xxxx

Which is precisely what I did without using the word.

And what I do yet again, and in the same fashion, in post 126.

But more than just "call" him that, I document what "Colby" has done and continues to do to earn the epithet.

So, dear moderators, thanks to "Colby" you have quite the problem before you.

I didn't use the word. "Colby" did.

I'm simply agreeing with his characterization.

Is that wrong?

Charles Drago

Edited November 20, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Guest David Guyatt]

Grief Len, what a little twister of words you are.

What you actually said about Sibel Edmonds – and I invite all readers to fact check this for themselves so that they can see for themselves, was:

“If you are going to back the notion that her testimony is indicative of foreknowledge you have to reasonably explain how she could know this.”

By which you were clearly implying that I was suggesting she had foreknowledge (your word) and that I would have to explain “how she could know this”. Obviously I had made no such statement.

I’m quite familiar by now with your continuing technique of corrupting the English language, and the pall of confusion you repeatedly try to spread over simple statements you make when they are shown to be opposite the truth.

Having said that I want to now turn to another such lapse of clarity of yours in regard to what you said about Mineta’s memory failure.

Earlier in this thread I asked (post #78):

“And by the way, when you say that Mineta was "confused about the timeframe of events", is that your spin? Or is it Mineta's admission that he may have been fuzzy about it all? In other words did he come over all ancient and bumbling after giving testimony to the Commission, or are you and others simply putting an appropriate slant on what he said?”

I had not, at that point, read the Mineta testimony (or the Education Forum thread discussing this) and merely wanted to know the position – was it an opinion or was it a fact. Simplicity itself. You would have thought.

But apparently not. Len responded on post #81:

“The question is a bit complex do a forum search for post I've made with the keyword 'mineta'”

Complexity for Len is admitting a simple little thing like attributing an opinion as a fact and then when challenged, surrounding it with smoke and mirrors.

So I posted on it again (post # 86):

“PS, and Len, since you are unable to demonstrate any substance to your earlier allegation of Mineta's failing memory (and I know you would've done if you could've done...), I think it only fair and reasonable to assume this is unsubstantiated opinion of the third kind (the unpleasant tarring and feathering variety) and not, as you intended to imply, in any sense factual.”

To which our Len responded (post #91):

“Wrong again, as I said the subject is complex and has already been discussed here. I even gave you simple instructions to find the thread…”

Oh, okay. I’m wrong. Len is right. And he did provide a link that shows he is right. And I read the linked thread. Truly I did. After which I posted the following (post # 93):

“I now know that the comments you earlier made that Mineta “was "confused about the timeframe of events", is, as I suspected, a personal opinion and not a factual statement. I also note that when you had the opportunity to correct this misstatement above you chose not to.”

But in Len’s world nothing is simple and nothing, especially, is straightforward, as witnessed by response to the above in his post # 97:

“He later said he was unsure of the time his recollections conflict at times with what is known to have happened (such as the evacuation of the White House).”

And:

“You’ve failed to show that I made any misstatements in need of correction.”

Oh, okay. That’s straightforward enough. All we need to do it locate where Mineta said what Len attributed to him and scrutinise it for accuracy. By now though, we have learned to fact check anything and everything Len says because we think he has a naughty, slippery way with words and facts. I’m absolutely sure his intention is to say it exactly like it is, but somewhere along the neural pathways, his fingertips takeover and things begin to go haywire. And what comes out is well, not how it is.

So, again, I asked Len to provide a citation for his statement of fact (post # 99):

“I’d be obliged if you would be kind enough to post a citation I can check for your comment that Mineta… “later said he was unsure of the time his recollections conflict at times with what is known to have happened (such as the evacuation of the White House).” I just want to be sure of the context of what you say he said is what he actually said. Thanks.”

Simple enough I hear you say, but I have to shock you by providing Len’s answer to this question (post # 100):

“See the cited thread with citations. Thanks.”

That clears that up then.

Having read the cited thread once already (supposing it is the cited thread Len has in mind?), I took Len’s advice and read it again – with citations. The problem is that there is no factual statement wherein Mineta states what Len has attributed to him. It’s looks to me to be a bit like the case we witnessed earlier in this thread when Len set out to mangle Charles Drago’s words so they would misrepresent what Charles actually said.

I can say that on the cited thread opinions flow more fully than the Ganges in flood, but nowhere can I read a factual statement that resolved the question I posed at the beginning of this exchange, namely:

“And by the way, when you say that Mineta was "confused about the timeframe of events", is that your spin? Or is it Mineta's admission that he may have been fuzzy about it all?

So Len, please now finally provide a precise quote and a precise location/citation that clearly and demonstrably supports your above statement -- which everyone here can toodle off and fact check for themselves. That’s all I’m simply asking for.

If you wouldn’t mind that is.

David

PS: Len, I very much like the quote you provide at the foot of your posts by Ted Bundy:

“More than ever, I am convinced of my innocence”

To which I would now observe:

“More than ever I am unconvinced of yours.”

Again:

So Len, please now finally provide a precise quote and a precise location/citation that clearly and demonstrably supports your above statement -- which everyone here can toodle off and fact check for themselves. That’s all I’m simply asking for.

[William Kelly]

Got it. Pentagon 9/11.

Defense Studies Series - Alfred Goldberg, Sarandis Papadopoulos, Diane Putney, Nancy Berlage, Reecca Welch - Historical Office - Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Official U.S. Government edition.

Goldberg writes the Preface, while the book, a glossy paperback, with plenty of graphics and pictures, has a very readable narrative, and a few things I didn't know before.

Like the Naval Operations Center was knocked out completely - had to be established outside the Pentagon?

I thought they said the section hit was being renovated and wasn't being used.

That the Air Force Operations General was chairing his first meeting at the time?

That Rumsfield and others ignored the Continuity of Government procedures to go to the COG base?

That the FBI set up a perimiter, declared it a crime scene and tried to control the area?

That all rescue and fire fighers were ordered back for 25 minutes when another incoming hijacked flight was reported?

Will read the book and then report on it when I'm finshed.

Also got a call back from Goldberg and talked with him on the phone.

BK

[Jack White]

Got it. Pentagon 9/11.

Defense Studies Series - Alfred Goldberg, Sarandis Papadopoulos, Diane Putney, Nancy Berlage, Reecca Welch - Historical Office - Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Official U.S. Government edition.

Goldberg writes the Preface, while the book, a glossy paperback, with plenty of graphics and pictures, has a very readable narrative, and a few things I didn't know before.

Like the Naval Operations Center was knocked out completely - had to be established outside the Pentagon?

I thought they said the section hit was being renovated and wasn't being used.

That the Air Force Operations General was chairing his first meeting at the time?

That Rumsfield and others ignored the Continuity of Government procedures to go to the COG base?

That the FBI set up a perimiter, declared it a crime scene and tried to control the area?

That all rescue and fire fighers were ordered back for 25 minutes when another incoming hijacked flight was reported?

Will read the book and then report on it when I'm finshed.

Also got a call back from Goldberg and talked with him on the phone.

BK

Bill...glad to see that you are catching up on the facts.

Jack

[Len Colby]

I thought they said the section hit was being renovated and wasn't being used.

You’re in error about that part Bill. The section that was hit had recently been renovated and still had less people working in it than other parts. No biggie

Len