Comments Posted By bolinger
Displaying 1 To 9 Of 9 Comments

9/11 TRUTHERS GUT PUNCHED BY HISTORY CHANNEL

Back to the usual MO I see. Ridicule and keep asking the same question and eventually they'll go away. Apparently wanting a trial for a crime is now a religious belief. Not accepting the word of officials and those who repeat their words are the thoughts of someone thinking up hair-brained scenarios.

Since you keep asking me questions which I have already said I don't know, let's see if you can be as honest.

Do you think there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to merit a trial or not?

If you think there is sufficient circumstantial evidence you must agree that a trial is needed.

If you do not think there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, you are therefore relying solely on the statements and explanations posited by government officials and other esteemed personages.

If, as I suspect, you will maintain the latter option, you really haven't a leg to stand on. You have chosen to believe what the official story says, I haven’t. How far does that get us? Not very.

Can you not see the glaring shortfall in your argument. If you believe and trust the word of officials like Maj. Douglas Martin on whose unofficial explanations you have chosen to rely, who is to say that what he says isn't simply what he wants you to believe as opposed to what the truth might be? Is there not even the slightest hint of a conflict of interest here. Same goes for all things said out of court while not under oath.

You accuse me of religious thinking. What is religious thinking other than relying on the testimony of revered individuals, past or present. No, I think the argument for religion is firmly lodged at your door, not mine.

Finally, I don't have to come up with a scenario in which the four planes may or may not be tracked. I am a member of the jury. I listen, I evaluate and I assess. You, on the other hand, have assumed the role of defense attorney and in the absence of a judge and some witnesses, you have decided to turn on the jury. How absurd.

Comment Posted By bolinger On 15.09.2007 @ 16:24

Again, this isn't about how I would find the plane or how you would find it, or even what an official says while not under oath. None of it matters because there is no risk of perjury. It matters not one jot what anyone says out of court on matters where a crime has clearly been committed and people have died. It might as well be filed under folk lore and forgotten about.

The evidence for and against must be tested in a court of law and what ever the truth is, it certainly has a greater chance of coming out than it will ever have otherwise.

The failure to intercept is but one facet that needs to be explained and tested. This is how the system of trying someone for an alleged crime works. An accusation is made and the prosecution gathers all its evidence to support the accusation. The defense is then given access to the evidence and allowed to prepare a rebuttal.

In the course of this, lots of things come out because lots of witnesses are called. I don't pretend to know the details of how things work in the military, nor am I an expert on air defenses and I certainly cannot say that I am acquainted in any way with the details of the day to day running of military organizations. But looking at it from a citizen's point of view, I have come to realize that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to merit a trial of some sort.

Not withstanding some individuals who inevitably will always use any event or disaster for profit, by far, the majority of those representing the aptly named "truth movement" are after just that; the truth. The best way to ensure that this comes out is through a trial and as I've said before, I do not think one will be permitted simply because the power to stop it rests with those who will be among the accused.

Comment Posted By bolinger On 15.09.2007 @ 15:30

There you go again, explaining it all away almost as if you were there among the decision makers and the responsibility bearers on that day. Were you? If not, all you have is their say so that everything happened just the way they say it did. Please listen to yourself as I paraphrase some of #363:

- Only 14 fighter jets on alert for 48 states.
- No computer system alarmed NORAD of missing planes
- ATC had to use the phone to inform NORAD
- NORAD's radar was looking outward and not inward

In general, it was simply too difficult to identify and intercept any one of the planes, even the one that hit the Pentagon 1 hour and 20 minutes after the first attack on the twin towers.

You just repeat and repeat and repeat the same old tired explanations offered by the very same officials whose organizations would go under scrutiny if this went to trial. Let me post here a very relevant excerpt from the American Law Register of October 1868 regarding circumstantial evidence in case people didn't bother to go to the link on post #350:

"Heinous crimes are usually committed in secret, and the proof, therefore, is necessarily circumstantial. Evidence so precarious in its nature should indeed be closely scrutinized."

Even back in 1868, people of intelligence and common sense had the foresight to put circumstantial evidence in its proper perspective instead of dismissing it out of hand as we do today. Why do we do this? Because that is how it has been broadcast to us by our present educators. Circumstantial evidence is not worthy of scrutiny and therefore there is no case to answer in a court of law. Of course, there are cases for which there isn't sufficient evidence to try (circumstantial or otherwise) but 911 is not one of them. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence and I don't believe even the most hardened denier can deny that.

So you see, I'm not really here to play ping pong with argument and counter-argument regarding the particulars of 911. I purposely only touched on two issues in my first post #349 as an example of questions that would be asked if the case ever went to trial. No doubt there would be expert witnesses on both sides telling us how and why things happened the way they did.

Simply repeating the official version of events and using explanations already heard and noted isn't really what any of this is about. In the final analysis, one has to reach a decision and say one way or the other whether or not there is sufficient circumstantial evidence for this to go to trial. I say that there is, and on the basis of what I have seen and heard from both sides of the argument I would vote to convict if I was sitting on that jury. However, that is not the same as saying I have heard everything. There may indeed be evidence that totally acquits the government of any wrong doing just as there may be evidence that you haven't yet heard which proves the government to be guilty.

The very fact that no such trial will ever be permitted take place simply because those under scrutiny have the power to veto it, does not bode well for the government.

Oh but you will immediately say, "We can't put the government on trial for every conspiracy theory!" No. Not EVERY conspiracy theory. But 911 isn't just any old conspiracy theory. The event itself and the aftermath affected many thousands of people directly by the appalling loss of life, and indirectly by ensuing wars and liberty consuming laws. These are undeniable facts, however you dress it.

Comment Posted By bolinger On 15.09.2007 @ 13:11

I am astounded by the depth of idiocy of the replies that keep coming back. You're all desperately lost at sea. If a plane takes off from within internal airports, it is impossible for it to be intercepted. What a dumb answer. What do you think people would say if the head of US air forces stood up and said that planes cannot or will not be intercepted if they originate from internal airports. Why? Oh it's so difficult. All they have to do is turn off the transponder. Just listen to yourself.

You still don't get it, do you? If a case was being prepared to challenge the so called "incompetence" of that day and the case was based on circumstance evidence, these are exactly the sort of questions that would be asked. The implications and the conclusions are left to the jury to decide. And as I said before in my posts, based on the circumstantial evidence and the huge number of coincidences, if I was sitting among the 12 in that jury, I would convict.

It's no good picking out excerpts from what I've said and trying to explain them away as if your explanations are somehow made valid simply because you can come up with them. Any one can come up with an explanation for anything. The way it seems to me is that the truthers are trying to get to the truth and you're trying to get to the truthers. How stupid is that?

There is no black and white absolute certainty. The events and explanations surrounding the events of 911 are controversial to say the least. As I said before, and I think we have all conceded that there is circumstantial evidence to put it through the judiciary but you seem to labour under the false impression that if one can come up with an explanation of any sort, it must be the right one. That is up to the jury to decide not you.

At this precise moment in time, the trial is being conducted not in a court of law (where it should be) but among the general public not only in the US but around the world. Films have been made, books have been written, documentaries have been commissioned and almost the entire world and his wife now has a view on this subject.

So please don't come all high and mighty thinking you're doing people a service attacking the truthers because all you're doing is satisfying your own little appetites for shit mongering.

Comment Posted By bolinger On 15.09.2007 @ 03:55

Reply to #352:
Please understand the point I was making. Since when has it become necessary in statute law that only the person holding the gun can be deemed as responsible? What about the person who pays the assassin or provides shelter or aids and abets? I am not implying this is the case. My point was that we know Dick Cheney had sole responsibility that day for the air defense of the country. He could be forgiven for missing the first plane, but 1 hour and 20 minutes later, we are told another plane hit the Pentagon. The political terminology is "collective responsibility". The accusation is that there was enough time and information to intercept at least two of the four planes. But none were.

Reply to #353.
The point was really about intercepting the planes before they reached their intended targets. If this was achieved, it might not have been necessary to fire upon them but simply to flank them as they progressed. Then and only then, when it became obvious as to what was going to happen, would the option of air to air missiles be considered. I cannot cite an actual shooting down of a commercial aircraft but there are instances where military aircraft have intercepted planes with which radio contact was lost. The FAA regulations are clear on this. If radio contact is lost, one must assume an emergency. Here are some links to those interception stories.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-104016519.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article610890.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/27/njet27.xml

It proves that if a single plane can be intercepted, two out of 4 should be a lot easier. But we are told that all available fighters were too far away, there was confusion, there were military exercises mimicking exactly the events of the day, etc. etc. When coupled with all the other facets of the remarkable turn of events, it really does become the most incredible story - possibly in US history. One at least to my mind that requires greater scrutiny by officials and experts on both sides of the argument than has hitherto been the case.

Comment Posted By bolinger On 14.09.2007 @ 16:16

Apologies for duplicate posting of 349 and 350. 350 is spell checked and has a conclusion.

Comment Posted By bolinger On 14.09.2007 @ 13:06

Replying to #347 and #348.

How well it suits the agenda of those who wish to cling to timid but
politically correct ideals about how the government is totally innocent and had nothing to do with it. I'd say that if we're arguing about faith, you are much farther in on that side of the fence than I am. How quaintly Troll puts it saying "I did not argue that the government was uninvolved..". No, you did not argue this but you damn well believe it, don't you: because if you believed otherwise you would say so and you wouldn't be wasting your time in futile exchanges. Your only option is to say that you don't know, but then that would be a lie. So don't put faith on my side of the court when you are embracing it on yours.

I hope you're good enough to understand that comparing the issues surrounding 911 to trivia such as boogers is about the level to which the angry misguided patriot will stoop in order to counter a serious point. Still, never mind, little things please little minds.

But let's forget faith. Let's use intelligence instead, a novel concept among you faithful I know, but let's give it a try.

If the US government was to go on trial for an alleged cover up regarding the events of 911, here are at least TWO of the answered questions they would have to address.

1. Why was there such gross failure in chain of command on that day.
2. Why did the air defenses fail to take out any of the planes, especially the one that flew into the Pentagon, which incidentally happened 1 hour and 20 minutes after the first plane hit in New York.

Since you like to bring up trivial analogies, here is one for you think about. If I drive a car and cause an accident, for what ever reason, am I not responsible? Do I not have to pay some sort of penalty? Of course. Why then is Dick Cheney still in office? Why is George Bush still in office? Are you really telling me that these men and whoever else was around then, bear absolutely no responsibility for the events of 911?

Given all of that, everything that has been said since 911 on the side of the truthers does in fact amount to innuendo (as you put it), circumstantial evidence and a plethora of coincidences which as you know cannot rationally be explained however remote the probabilities happen to be. Since evidence is the only thing that can possibly stand up in a reasonable court of law and one was to take this to trial, it would be solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. But this need not be a reason to leave it at that: here is an entry in the American Law Register (dated October 1868) regarding circumstantial evidence. Don't fret, it's quite short, but fascinating.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1558-3813(186810%2F11)16%3A12%3C705%3ACUCE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

I'll conclude by saying that if I was one of the 12 in the jury for this case, based on the evidence (circumstantial though it may be) and the staggering number of coincidences, I would convict. That is the basis of my certainty that the government does have evidence hidden, yada yada yo!

Comment Posted By bolinger On 14.09.2007 @ 12:57

Replying to #347 and #348.

How well it suits the agenda of those who wish to cling to timid but
politically correct ideals about how the government is totally innocent and had nothing to do with it. I'd say that if we're arguing about faith, you are much farther in on that side of the fence than I am. How quaintly Troll puts it saying "I did not argue that the government was uninvolved..". No, you did not argue this but you damn well believe it, don't you: because if you believed otherwise you would say so and you wouldn't be wasting your time in futile exchanges. Your only option is to say that you don't know, but then that would be a lie. So don't put faith on my side of the court when you are embracing it on yours.

I hope you're good enough to understand that comparing the issues surrounding 911 to trivia such as boogers is about the level to which the angry misguided patriot will stoop in order to counter a serious point. Still, never mind, little things please little minds.

But let's forget faith. Let's use intelligence instead, a novel concept among you faithful I know, but let's give it a try.

If the US government was to go on trial for an alleged cover up regarding the events of 911, here are at least TWO of the answered questions they would have to address.

1. Why was there such gross failure in chain of command on that day.
2. Why did the air defenses fail to take out any of the planes, espcially the one that flew into the Pentagon, which incidentally happened 1 hour and 20 minutes after the first plane hit in New York.

Since you like to bring up trivial analogies, here is one for you think about. If I drive a car and cause an accident, for what ever reason, am I not responsible? Do I not have to pay some sort of penalty? Of course. Why then is Dick Cheney still in office? Why is George Bush still in office? Are you really telling me that these men and whoever else was around then, bear absolutely no responsibility for the events of 911?

Given all of that, everything that has been said since 911 on the side of the truthers does in fact amount to innuendo (as you put it), circumstancial evidence and a plethora of coincidences which as you know cannot rationally be explained however remote the probabilities happen to be. Since evidence is the only thing that can possibly stand up in a reasonable court of law and one was to take this to trial, it would be solely on the basis of circumstancial evidence. But this need not be a reason to leave it at that: here is an entry in the Americal Law Register (dated October 1868) regarding circumstancial evidence. Don't fret, it's quite short, but fascinating.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1558-3813(186810%2F11)16%3A12%3C705%3ACUCE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

Comment Posted By bolinger On 14.09.2007 @ 12:50

Talk about missing the forest for the tree. When will all these gormless deniers get it into their thick sculls that it doesn't matter whether there was controlled explosions or not. It doesn't matter at what temperature steel melts. These are all just pedantries which help to cloud the real issue.

The real question is, did the US government cause it or allow it? This question applies to all the events of that day, not just the twin towers. This cannot be answered by concentrating on one event only. One thing is for certain. The official 911 report is not going to be revisitied by any government body however lacking it is believed to be by however many people. The fact that a very great number of people believe there should be a much more thorough investigation (one that omits nothing and answers all unanswered questions) doesn't seem to bother the present administration and I doubt it will even be entertained by any future one.

You can argue till you go blue in the face but nothing will be resolved. The deniers will go on denying and the truthers will go on believing that the goverment had something to do with it .

One thing I am certain about is that the government definitely does have evidence hidden away deep in its top-secret vaults that proves one way or the other exactly what happened and why (and please don't repeat the cock and bull story about how Osama Bin Laden did it all; it really is beyond the pale). But I don't believe the're ready to share it with the rest of us.

Needless to say, unless there is something close to a miracle, such information will not be allowed to surface. The only question is why. And that my friends is where lies the linchpin to this and a great deal else besides.

Comment Posted By bolinger On 13.09.2007 @ 12:13


 


 


Pages (1) : [1]


«« Back To Stats Page