Michael Hardner

CA, It seems that rescue operations, and investigations were going on at the same time, then. It doesn't seem untoward that there would have been confusion in such a state of affairs. If your complaint is that we don't know who specifically said "clear that pile of girders and take it away, there may be survivors there" then the answer is probably that we don't have any kind of institution in place to ask those questions, ie. that is challenging the official story. If NBC decided to do a news segment on this issue, they would have three minutes to cover it, and it still wouldn't be believed because they're viewed as an organ of the state. We need a new kind of institution that would live on the web, to marshall information on these types of things, present FAQs, etc. Snopes.com does this for urban legends today, and it's an invaluable service. I would welcome such an institution, because it could represent a responsible and neutral point of view, and eliminate irresponsible and disorganized attacks on the truth. I'll even add - from BOTH sides.

A simple " I don't remember " would suffice. Or you could just explain what you mean: "The "officials" processed the scene, then ordered it cleared and THEN the investigators were allowed in to investigate. " I didn't read all of the links off the main site, I'll admit. The articles that I've read have shown me that all of the evidence in favour of an inside job is hearsay, or distorted. But let's continue.

Could you provide a source for super hot pools of metal there for months afterward ?

There is also that little matter of the temperatures going up, hence the name Global WARMING, but I think it's more comforting to some to deny what's happening.

What kind of scientist uses the weather from PART of France, in August as proof against global warming ? It's not called France warming. I'm not one to accuse people of ambition (there was another thread started about Bono, in that regard today) but we never heard of this person when he believed in global warming, as he was only one of thousands, right ?

Point out where that is, please. If you mean - the official story that there wasn't 'inside involvement', then I'd say because the alternative is too fantastic, and the evidence presented so far amounts to little quirks and anomalies that happen all the time. Look at how big a deal people make over Silverstein's comments about 'pulling them'. That was one little quirk of a phrase he used, and they try to build an entire plot around that. I read about how fires were burning until December, about how there were ongoing rescue operations as well. I also can appreciate the chaos that was happening at the scene, so I don't expect every decision made to be traceable or even understandable. The truthers try to build every little anomaly into a plot. Why linger on every little detail, every little misspoken word, every strange picture ? They should just come out and accuse the president of murdering his own people, that's what they're saying. It's pretty disgusting, actually. Or incompetance maybe. But still not a plot.

I'm really flummoxed as to why so many of these posts complaining about racism against whites have such bad spelling.

99% ? I wish I could prove you wrong, but as you've stated you've NEVER been proved wrong !

The officials processed the scene, then ordered it cleared. What's the big mystery ? Unnamed people everywhere affect your life in every respect, so I expect you should stay indoors from now on. Maybe this will assauge your fears somewhat: Some descriptions of the FEMA investigation... 911 Myths

Not at all. Do you expect organizations to record and publish the thousands of decisions made when something like this happens ? I'm sure if you researched it, you could find out the rationale for steps taken - at a high level. But what are you looking for - a name ?

Mike, I don't think you read everything in the thread. You're confusing what gets coverage and what is 'fair'. There are lots of liberals that would be outraged if a complaint failed, me being one of them. Then you add to your post with an ad hominem fallacy. By the way, you're right that I for one have never proved you wrong. That's partly because you never responded to my challenge about the number of truck drivers in India with a university degree ? Do you remember that one ?

That doesn't change what I wrote. A decision was made - you can research who made it if you like. But it's probably as difficult to track down the source of that decision as any. That doesn't make it an 'inside job'.

Morris - are you saying that 3 or 4% doesn't meet the threshold of exclusively Muslim ?

CA: Who knows ? Walk down the street and take a look around. You're looking at hundreds of decision made by faceless people you don't know. Street sign locations, traffic lights, road paving... Somebody made a decision to delegate a decision, then that decision was delegated and eventually it landed on sombody's desk. There's nothing any more mysterious about it than any other decision, except this decision has more attention on it because it involved a high-profile terrorist attack.

I'd like to see the numbers on that as well. Also, let's not confuse what people pay attention to with what is fair vs unfair. The mall tenants might have a valid case, and they can persue that. The question of fairness is how the case gets resolved, not what coverage it gets.

Side note for Auguste... Then you don't know the story of Richard Park the South Korean born player who, while living in Southern California, begged his father to let him move to Canada to play hockey. Richard eventually made the OHL, in that very Canadian city of Belleville - playing for the Bulls. He was drafted by the Penguins, I believe and is currently with the Isles.

Some of us do. A really good manager could repurpose government to achieve amazing things and still cut taxes. The problem is that politicians aren't really good managers - they aren't managers at all. And when they need management done, they turn to the senior civil service.

Bin Laden was a suspect in the early stages, but it wasn't sealed until they got his confession on tape. I remember reading interviews with intelligence personnel who speculated that the group acted independently.

Google 'benjamin chertoff' and you will have to wade though about 70% of the pages that insist he's Michael Chertoff's cousin. This has been adamantly denied over and over again, yet it's still out there. So who is suppressing the truth ? It's a lot harder to squelch a rumour than it is to start one.

The document you posted is an offsite individual who has major problems with the 'truthers'. His contention is that they have accused the head of the NYFD of being 'in' on the conspiracy. I didn't see anything resembling lies in his paper, although I admit I didn't read the whole thing. Much of it seems to make sense, such as "why would a building slated for 'controlled demolition' be set afire for several hours first ?".

I don't think the landlord's action will stand if a complaint is filed. At that point, most of this thread will become moot.

Charles, They carted it away and sold it for scrap.

Sorry, but Auguste is correct. It's far more often to hear even Conservatives to say that Canada is a Liberal country than to hear Liberals accept that Canadians can be against things such as multiculturalism and gay marriage.

911myths.com on the Chertoff angle Chertoff says:

That story has been addressed on 911myths.com. What do you think of that explanation ?