the Truthers

I kinda like my new 'pet name'... but being a 'truther', wouldn't that deem my opposition 'liars'... ;)

(Maybe you should think this one through.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

the Truthers

I kinda like my new 'pet name'... but being a 'truther', wouldn't that deem my opposition 'liars'... ;)

(Maybe you should think this one through.)

Jeffrey, I've been thinking the same thing.

---

the Truthers

I kinda like my new 'pet name'... but being a 'truther', wouldn't that deem my opposition 'liars'... ;)

(Maybe you should think this one through.)

That's funny. Perhaps I should use "Half Truthers" as I did with the Pilots org, as it's clear that they are not interested in telling people the truth. I used the word because that's how they describe themselves ("Blah for 9/11 Truth", etc), not because it's a statement on the veracity of what they say. Apologies for any confusion caused.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Perhaps I should use "Half Truthers"

THAT would then deem us equals with the official story tellers... ;)

(Follow the links.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

114 min
Last Minute Productions

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-751298171535560228


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

114 min
Last Minute Productions

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-751298171535560228


.

And this proves what exactly? That there are other people that makes the same claims as the ones you've already posted? That Charlie Sheen is a subscriber to the Half Truth movement? That snippets of conversations and documents can make it seem that still others support the Half Truth movement (e.g. the family members with unanswered questions, what were those questions, watching this won't find out).

Well done MrGray, another 2 hour video and another sidestep. Oh, and the video again makes the "pull" claim that you said we'd get back to 4 weeks ago now. It's not just about the word, the implication is that Silverstein was a party to the demolition as a result of his using it. If the words not an alternative for controlled demolition by explosive, where does that leave Silverstein's involvement?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

That Charlie Sheen is a subscriber to the Half Truth movement?

Charlie Sheen works for the government? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

114 min
Last Minute Productions

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-751298171535560228


.

And this proves what exactly? That there are other people that makes the same claims as the ones you've already posted? That Charlie Sheen is a subscriber to the Half Truth movement? That snippets of conversations and documents can make it seem that still others support the Half Truth movement (e.g. the family members with unanswered questions, what were those questions, watching this won't find out).

Well done MrGray, another 2 hour video and another sidestep. Oh, and the video again makes the "pull" claim that you said we'd get back to 4 weeks ago now. It's not just about the word, the implication is that Silverstein was a party to the demolition as a result of his using it. If the words not an alternative for controlled demolition by explosive, where does that leave Silverstein's involvement?

Just more data for the machine,

This one used many more media broadcasts and political figures. Senators, congressmen, journalists, plus a few victim family members, witnesses, and celebs that many people seem to fixate on. This video shows the cover up of data from reputable persons directly involved in the official inquiry.

Can ya smell it?


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

114 min
Last Minute Productions

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-751298171535560228


.

And this proves what exactly? That there are other people that makes the same claims as the ones you've already posted? That Charlie Sheen is a subscriber to the Half Truth movement? That snippets of conversations and documents can make it seem that still others support the Half Truth movement (e.g. the family members with unanswered questions, what were those questions, watching this won't find out).

Well done MrGray, another 2 hour video and another sidestep. Oh, and the video again makes the "pull" claim that you said we'd get back to 4 weeks ago now. It's not just about the word, the implication is that Silverstein was a party to the demolition as a result of his using it. If the words not an alternative for controlled demolition by explosive, where does that leave Silverstein's involvement?

Just more data for the machine,

This one used many more media broadcasts and political figures. Senators, congressmen, journalists, plus a few victim family members, witnesses, and celebs that many people seem to fixate on. This video shows the cover up of data from reputable persons directly involved in the official inquiry.

Can ya smell it?

See my earlier post on whether we've been told the whole truth. I'm with the family members and the politicians, but (aside from one or two) the quotes used in this do not specifically support the Half Truthers. It's telling that Abu Graib and other matters are included, the producer apparently has a beef with the current Administration, but fear not only 150 days, 7 hours and 14 mins to go ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It's telling that Abu Graib and other matters are included, the producer apparently has a beef with the current Administration, but fear not only 150 days, 7 hours and 14 mins to go ...

Apologies if I got your hopes up, my backwardsbush was incorrectly set, seems it's a little over 169 days ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It's telling that Abu Graib and other matters are included, the producer apparently has a beef with the current Administration, but fear not only 150 days, 7 hours and 14 mins to go ...

Apologies if I got your hopes up, my backwardsbush was incorrectly set, seems it's a little over 169 days ...

Unless "W" implements the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, (H.R.5122), after a second, larger, staged attack.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

It's telling that Abu Graib and other matters are included, the producer apparently has a beef with the current Administration, but fear not only 150 days, 7 hours and 14 mins to go ...

Apologies if I got your hopes up, my backwardsbush was incorrectly set, seems it's a little over 169 days ...

Unless "W" implements the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, (H.R.5122), after a second, larger, staged attack.


.

Well, apart from presupposing that there was a first, smaller, staged attack, this act does not and cannot overturn Consitution mandated term limits. GWB will shortly complete his 2nd full term, so cannot remain in office no matter what this Act says.

With luck this act will be taken to the Supreme Court by a Governor and overturned as an infringement on State rights.

Now where were we on these "anomalies" of yours? Anything more on Silverstein's connection if any? Or does this rest solely on the use of the word "pull" in one interview?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Your gripping that Silverstein point pretty hard,

Must mean something.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

“The only thing standing between us and a dictatorship is the good character of the President and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it”... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Your gripping that Silverstein point pretty hard,

Must mean something.


.

It's used in pretty much all of the Half Truthers theories, I just wondered if there's anything else to it. If it's based solely on his using one word twice in an interview, and that word does not have the meaning the Half Truthers believe it does, then it's not exactly damning. Oh, I know about the insurance thing, but come on, it was a condition of his purchase that he have that, which, I'd say, is pretty sensible on the part of his lenders given the previous attack on the WTC.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss other matters did you read the info on the plane that hit WTC 2? See the video on another BBC error during 9/11? Read how the Pilots may have made an error on their interpretation of the processed data from the FDR? In your time away from here I've been busy ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

“The only thing standing between us and a dictatorship is the good character of the President and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it”... ;)

Indeed. But that's true of pretty much anywhere. The UK suspended elections during WWII, while the US kept them. That was probably a greater test of the public's willingness to go down that route than 9/11.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Your gripping that Silverstein point pretty hard,

Must mean something.


.

It's used in pretty much all of the Half Truthers theories, I just wondered if there's anything else to it. If it's based solely on his using one word twice in an interview, and that word does not have the meaning the Half Truthers believe it does, then it's not exactly damning. Oh, I know about the insurance thing, but come on, it was a condition of his purchase that he have that, which, I'd say, is pretty sensible on the part of his lenders given the previous attack on the WTC.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss other matters did you read the info on the plane that hit WTC 2? See the video on another BBC error during 9/11? Read how the Pilots may have made an error on their interpretation of the processed data from the FDR? In your time away from here I've been busy ...

I'm running behind on the data you posted but will have a look hopefully tonight so I can respond.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Does this really look like a shadow under the right, (Starboard), side of the fuselage?

Close-up video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN-0K7OhDzQ

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Does this really look like a shadow under the right, (Starboard), side of the fuselage?

Close-up video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN-0K7OhDzQ

Um, not, but this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCVwuf_AMFs&feature=related which appears to use the same source video, makes the same effect look like the result of the plane moving out from under a shadow (presumably of the smoke from WTC 1) and catching a reflection of the sun where the wing meets the fuselage.

The contrast has been stripped away so much from the image in the link you posted that the "bright light bloom" looks very much like an appendage. Now why would the poster of this clip not provide details of the source and additional processing undertaken to make the image look as it does?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Does this really look like a shadow under the right, (Starboard), side of the fuselage?

Close-up video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN-0K7OhDzQ

Um, not, but this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCVwuf_AMFs&feature=related which appears to use the same source video, makes the same effect look like the result of the plane moving out from under a shadow (presumably of the smoke from WTC 1) and catching a reflection of the sun where the wing meets the fuselage.

The contrast has been stripped away so much from the image in the link you posted that the "bright light bloom" looks very much like an appendage. Now why would the poster of this clip not provide details of the source and additional processing undertaken to make the image look as it does?

Sounds like the swamp gas reflecting the light from Venus ploy to me. The light "bloom" looks identical to an object roughly the size of one of the engines, with matching shading.

The video clip was zoomed, losing resolution as well as contrast. Yet the anomaly remains. Just as it was in the original non-zoomed clip. Maybe I just have better eye sight than some. 1MOA.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss