How NORAD Radar Screens Displayed False Tracks All Through the 9/11 Attacks (shoestring)

[Raphael Weber]

I've found this article and find it very interesting. Though I'm not extremely familiar with the issues surrounding the air defense I'd be happy to know what your opinion is on this article.
Thanks!

Military personnel responsible for defending U.S. airspace had false tracks displayed on their radar screens throughout the entire duration of the 9/11 attacks, as part of the simulation for a training exercise being conducted that day. Technicians at NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) were still receiving the simulated radar information around the time the third attack, on the Pentagon, took place. Those at NORAD's operations center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, were still receiving it several minutes after United Airlines Flight 93 apparently crashed in rural Pennsylvania.
No one has investigated why false tracks continued being injected onto NORAD radar screens long after the U.S. military was alerted to the real-world crisis taking place that morning. And yet we surely need to know more about these simulated "inputs" and what effect they had on the military's ability to respond to the 9/11 attacks.
NEADS TECHNICIANS TOLD TO TURN OFF 'SIM SWITCHES'
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 took place in airspace that was the responsibility of NEADS, based in Rome, New York. NEADS was therefore responsible for trying to coordinate the military's response to the hijackings. And yet, in the middle of it all, at 9:30 a.m. that morning a member of staff on the NEADS operations floor complained about simulated material that was appearing on the NEADS radar screens. He said: "You know what, let's get rid of this goddamn sim. Turn your sim switches off. Let's get rid of that crap." Four minutes later, Technical Sergeant Jeffrey Richmond gave an instruction to the NEADS surveillance technicians, "All surveillance, turn off your sim switches." (A "sim switch" presumably allows a technician to either display or turn off any simulated material on their radar screen.)]

More here: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-12/lets-get-rid-goddamn-sim-how-norad-radar-screens-displayed-false-tracks-all-through-911-attacks

[LARED]

1. To me it sounds like much ado about nothing,

Especially since this seems to be an effort to prop up no planes nonsense.

[Raphael Weber]

2. As far as I understand it

it proves that in fact there have been inputs.
that NEADS was hindered by the inputs
and that the inputs were on the screen until after the last hijacked plane crashed.
Where you get the idea that the article supports no plane is beyound me.

In sum, we need to determine the extent to which the U.S. military was hindered in its ability to respond on 9/11 as a result of its radar scopes receiving simulated information throughout the terrorist attacks.

[LARED]

6. The article supports no planes

because that would be one of the reason to inject inputs to fool NEADS into thinking there were planes.

The only other reason is to hinder a response, but no where is there any evidence sims inputs hindered anything is a substantive way.

[Raphael Weber]

51. Hypothesis

"The article supports no planes. because that would be one of the reason to inject inputs to fool NEADS into thinking there were planes."

Sorry, this is real nonsense.
Normally I do see this kind of pure speculation more on the sceptic's side ...

The article deals with inserts for the simple reason that there have been inserts.
Based on the NORAD tapes.
Do you challenge the proof?

[ryan_cats]

67. Read for comprehension

From:LARED post 6, The article supports no planes

"The article supports no planes. because that would be one of the reason to inject inputs to fool NEADS into thinking there were planes."

If they had to inject fake radar tracks into the ATC system, that means that they didn't have actual planes to track or else, why the sim ones? OR, was their purpose to show the non existent planes to clutter up the screens? The only problem with that, is that their screens are already cluttered enough; I don't see how they can pick 'their' plane out of the hundreds of blips on the screen. Maybe AZcat, isn't he an ATC? If not, my apologies, can explain it.

The final reason I can think of, is that they really were training that morning, and guess what, that was nothing out of the ordinary.

What page of the 9/11 Commission Report was that quote from? Oh that's right, it's from the completely neutral http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-12/lets-get-rid-godd... I think one of the MIB got to them, linky noworki.

[Ghost in the Machine]

68. See post #53

Do you have something to say about linking to that "completely neutral" 911myths.com, or are you going to stay in typical OCT blathering mode and call out someone from the "truther" side while completely ignoring someone from your own side using biased links? :shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

69. How is 911myths "biased"...

Ghost?

[Ghost in the Machine]

70. In the same way 911blogger is, according to ryan_cats

Thats what he meant by his "completely neutral" barb and to pretend otherwise is just intellectually dishonest...

[SDuderstadt]

71. Wrong, Ghost...

in order to show that 911myths is "biased", you'd need to demonstrate how Mike Williams has skewed anything.

Your complaint is like claiming Snopes is "biased" because it debunks urban legends.

[Ghost in the Machine]

75. Yeah, you're always right and everyone else is always wrong.. right?

Your link leads off its second paragraph with "Our take"...

Did you ever stop to think that their "take" might be wrong? Of course you didn't because it comfirms your view of the subject... the person writing that for that site doesn't seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer to begin with. He seems to have a penchant for using his own opinion as fact..

Your link actually provides a little excerpt that reinforces my thoughts about switched planes, with the hijacked planes being sent out over the ocean and being shot down in one of the live fire exercises:

"At the Federal Aviation Administration's command center in Herndon, Va., Delta Flight 1989 joins a growing list of suspicious jets. Some of their flight numbers will be scrawled on a white dry-erase board throughout the morning. Eventually, the list will grow to 11.

One, a TWA flight, refuses to land in Pittsburgh and wants to fly on toward Washington. Another, a Midwest Express flight, disappears from radar over West Virginia. And three jets over the Atlantic Ocean are sending out distress signals, the Coast Guard reports".
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-12-hijacker-daytwo_x.htm

[SDuderstadt]

76. Ghost....

"our take" clearly labels it as such, and does not try to mislead the reader into mistaking it for a statement of fact.

How in the world is that "biased"??

[Ghost in the Machine]

81. This isn't a statement of fact?

"So despite the claims, there's no direct evidence that "false blips" were placed on FAA radar screens. Even if they were, there's no reason to believe these influenced the military response to the World Trade Centre attacks. The most that can be claimed is they're a possible explanation for the Flight 11 report, but that's all. The evidence for anything further just isn't there."

Now how about we get back on track here, since your link is obviously wrong, and discuss the subject of the OP, which is http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2010/08/lets-get-rid-of-this-goddamn-sim-how.html The information at this link is much clearer, better sourced and more factual.

If your link is correct when it says "In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an "inject," is purged from the screens"., how do you reconcile it with this:

"NORAD OPERATIONS CENTER ASKS FOR 'EXERCISE INPUTS' TO BE STOPPED
At 10:12 a.m., an officer at the NORAD operations center, "Captain Taylor," called NEADS and spoke to Captain Brian Nagel, the chief of live exercises there. After introducing himself, Taylor said, "What we need you to do right now is to terminate all exercise inputs coming into Cheyenne Mountain." Nagel gave Taylor an extension number and asked him to call it to get the exercise inputs stopped. Taylor replied, "I'll do that." <4> "Inputs," according to an article in Vanity Fair, are simulated scenarios that are put into play by a simulations team during training exercises."

[SDuderstadt]

84. Williams qualifies it upfront...

Ghost.

This is getting stupid. As I said earlier, let me know when indictments are handed down. It's only been 9 years.

[Ghost in the Machine]

87. Ok, so you can't reconcile it and want to revert back to strawmen...

No one is talking indicments, is it so hard to stay on topic?

[SDuderstadt]

88. Then WHERE are you guys going with this...

Ghost?

As I remarked earlier, this getting stupid.

[deconstruct911]

121. Good day SDuderstadt

I agree with Ghost, linking to 911myths is no different than me linking to 911research. They both cite mainstream sources and draw completely different conclusions.

[SDuderstadt]

126. Why, of course you...

would.

When are you guys going to blow the lid off this thing?

[ryan_cats]

72. You lack a sense of hmour, must really suck

I said, "completely neutral" but anyone with a sense of humor would have got the joke.

Ok, what are some of the links on 'our side', doe you think this this a game; with 3000 dead and billions lost in property and money?

BTW, I don't blather; I've actually taken an English class or two, for some reason English is needed to transfer or even get an AA. Why do you think this is? William Seger from DU said fuzzy definition -> fuzzy thinking and I think that goes a long way towards explaining truther beliefs.

They not only use fuzzy thinking, they tend to solve the problem, THEN look for corroborating evidence.

[SDuderstadt]

73. "they tend to solve the problem, THEN look for corroborating evidence"

Bingo!

[Ghost in the Machine]

74. You lack the reading comprehension skills you told someone else to look into..

Yeah, I "got" your "joke"... except it wasn't a joke, it was snark, unfunny snark, but snark nonetheless.

Obviously you do blather, and like to build strawmen, too: "doe you think this this a game; with 3000 dead and billions lost in property and money?" Who said it was a game? Do YOU think it is? There are a hell of a lot more than 3000 dead. You didn't account for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi, Pakastani and Afghani people who have been killed in the illegal, immoral invasions and occupations of two sovereign nations. Invasions based on lies by the neocons and Bush/Cheney maladministration. How about the almost 5000 US troops who have lost their lives, or the 10's of thousands wounded, both mentally and physically?

I see some fuzzy thinking too, but it isn't coming from me. It is coming from the unquestioning sheeple who buy wholesale the bullshit story that the government is peddling. There are lots of unanswered questions and some proven lies. Aren't you interested in the truth, or do you prefer to keep your head buried and just move forward and forget about the lies, deaths and destruction?

[Raphael Weber]

77. You do realize

that they used inserts not to please some no planers but simply for the sake of the exercise as the inserts were part of it?

[SDuderstadt]

3. And your "source" is...

911blogger?

Please.

[jakeXT]

4. DU gets rid of brackets, there are footnotes

this one for example http://www.scribd.com/doc/14142009/NYC-Box-2-NEADS-Transcript-Rome-NY-Fdr-Transcript-Pgs-182-12371417

[Raphael Weber]

5. Better?

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2010/08/lets-get-rid-of-this-goddamn-sim-how.html

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. Please explain, in detail, how this "seems to be an effort to prop up no planes nonsense"

Thanks in advance...

[LARED]

8. I can't explain in detail others fantasies

But it seems simple enough that if simulated planes were injected into the NEADS radar then one reason could be to provide the story of actual planes into the no planes theory. Having simulated plane on NEADS radar would be required to create a narrative of real plane hitting the towers when none really existed.

The whole idea is pretty stupid, but why else would there be sims inputs? What other purpose could there be?

[Ghost in the Machine]

9. The inputs were from all the war games exercises scheduled that day.

You have heard about those exercises before, right?

[SDuderstadt]

10. Sorry....

I don't buy the "truther" take on the events of that day.

http://www.911myths.com/html/war_games_cover_for_9-11.html

[Ghost in the Machine]

11. I don't think either of you actually read the article in the link provided

You and Lared both are making comments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand... why is that?

[SDuderstadt]

12. I did read it and...

my post is perfectly responsive, Ghost.

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. So you're saying there were no war games, and/or no sims inputs? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

14. No, Ghost...

you obviously did not read my post.

[Ghost in the Machine]

20. What was there to read besides

" Sorry....
I don't buy the "truther" take on the events of that day." and a link that isn't relevant to this discussion?

[SDuderstadt]

22. The link IS relevant, Ghost...

of course, you'd actually have to read it to find that out.

[Ghost in the Machine]

24. No, it's not....

I did read it, that's how I know it's not relevant.

Why did the FAA report that Flight 11 was still airborne and heading for Washington, more than 30 minutes after it had crashed?

[Raphael Weber]

64. Why is the link relevant

to the discussion of the OP?
Pleaqse elaborate.

[SDuderstadt]

66. Duh.

Read it through all the way and you'll find out.

[Raphael Weber]

78. You provided the link

as challenging the OP.
So the burden of proof is on your side.
Little hint: The article doesn't speak of inserts ....
maybe it's not relevant to the OP.
And if you really think so
sorry
it's up to you to show it...

[SDuderstadt]

83. How many fucking times do I have to post this?

I posted this link (which was one of a number of links I provided earlier). It is beyond stupid to claim it mentions nothing of "false injects", when the words "false blips" are right in the fucking title. You guys might want to think of actually reading posts before you reply to them.

http://www.911myths.com/html/false_blips.html

The problem with "truthers" is that the argument keeps shifting. When the initial theory claiming "false blips"...read "injects" or "inserts" on FAA radar screens fell flat on its face (probably because conspiracists conflated NORAD and the FAA), then the focus shifted to NORAD.

The problem is no one has provided any evidence at all that whatever military exercises were being conducted, in any way, interfered with NEADS' response.

It's bullshit like this that keeps you guys wandering in the wilderness.

[Ghost in the Machine]

89. Then why was NEADS chasing their own fucking planes???

"As it turns out, it's just as well the pilots are not cleared to shoot. Delta 1989 and the Canadian scare turn out to be false alarms. American 11 and United 93 are already down. And the fast-moving target near the White House that the armed fighters are racing to intercept turns out to be a friendly—a mistake by a civilian controller who was unaware of the military's scrambles, as weapons techs Huckabone and Citino, and their senior director, Fox, suddenly realize.

HUCKABONE: It was our guys .
CITINO: Yup. It was our guys they saw. It was our guys they saw—Center saw.
FOX: New York did the same thing….
CITINO: O.K., Huck. That was cool. We intercepted our own guys."

http://www.vanityfair.com/mp3/politics/101031c.mp3


Read More http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?printable=true¤tPage=all#ixzz1BLQH4b00


You want to read, and listen to, some real accounts? go here: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?printable=true¤tPage=all

[SDuderstadt]

90. I'd say mass confusion, Ghost...

if you think that's surprising, listen to the audiootapes from NEADS.

[Ghost in the Machine]

91. Mass confusion caused from.....??

[SDuderstadt]

92. Ghost...

remember earlier when I said this was getting stupid?

[Ghost in the Machine]

93. Yeah, and it sounds like my son when he is having problems understanding

some of his math homework: "this is stupid!"

Do you need some help with an answer?

False _________________

Lack of ________________

There are a few correct endings for each blank... can you fill them in?

[SDuderstadt]

94. Refer to my last post...

Ghost.

[Raphael Weber]

95. Dude, Dude, Dude

First of all you HAVEN'T provided ONE OF A NUMBER OF LINKS EARLIER!
Just one from 911myths and now the one about false blips.
Your problem is you haven't read the OP or you haven't read the article you linke to or both.
And you call it "evidence".
It's evident as I've already posted below that this article about false blips was written BEFORE the NEADS transcripts were published.
Therefore it's not dealing with the OP.
The OP is entirely based on quotes from these transcripts.
And, yes, it's getting stupid cause you babble around without ever talking concretely about the OP.

[SDuderstadt]

98. Dude...

More bullshit from you. The very first link I provided took you to an index page with multiple links.

All you're proving is that you didn't read what I provided before you started flapping your mouth. I'm done with your despicable tactics.

[Raphael Weber]

99. Tripod II

I've read everything that could have been in realtion to the OP but sorry I didn't read the stuff on Tripod II..... :eyes:
Well, if you wish that an article NOT being based on the NEADS transcripts actually has anything substantial to say about an article being entirely based on NEADS quotes
then maybe it's up to you to show it.

[deconstruct911]

15. I'm pretty sure he means it was another coincidence. nt

[SDuderstadt]

16. Nice strawman...

dude.

[deconstruct911]

18. Well isn't that what you mean?

I was just saying..... If you don't think the OP is completely false, I'd imagine you think it's a coincidence.....

[SDuderstadt]

19. Another stupid strawman from you...

dude.

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. "Is this real world or exercise?"

Yeah, lots of things are just a big coincidence, huh?

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

26. Let us know when the indictments are ready...

Ghost.

[Ghost in the Machine]

29. Indictments for war games exercises? Let us know when you can stay on topic...n/t

[SDuderstadt]

30. Jesus, Ghost...

where are you guys going with this?

By the claim that it could NOT be a "coincidence", don't you guys feel the responsibility for telling us what it all means? Please, tie it all together for us.

[Ghost in the Machine]

33. It's pretty simple, really...

We are wondering why the exercises weren't stopped immediately, once it was clear that we were under attack. Why would the military, or NORAD, keep injecting sims into radars, confusing controllers?

[SDuderstadt]

34. Let us know when...

you guys have solved your conundrum, Ghost.

I'm sure you guys are on the verge of blowing the lid off this thing.

[Ghost in the Machine]

36. blowing the lid off of what?

[SDuderstadt]

38. Nevermind...

Ghost.

[Ghost in the Machine]

41. Again I'll ask...

Why did the FAA report that Flight 11 was still airborne and heading for Washington, more than 30 minutes after it had crashed?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

44. it's a long story

[Raphael Weber]

52. Why do you argue like this?

Why don't you stay on topic??

The questions are very simple:

Why weren't the simulated attacks stopped when real world "took over"?
Why is there no discussion of the simulated attacks in the Commission Report?
The quotes do indicate the possibility that the air defense was hindered by the inserts. Is this true?


I really have not the slightest idea why basically in all the threads I read most posts have nothing to do with the OP.
Is it so hard to stay on topic (or not to answer if one doesn't have an answer)?

[SDuderstadt]

55. Dude...

it's going on 10 years and you guys have got dick in the way of hard evidence...no smoking gun, no actual participant coming forward and saying that any of the "exercises" kept them from doing what they could that morning in the midst of all the chaos and confusion.

People are getting fed up with the "we're almost there" bullshit of the "truthers".

[Raphael Weber]

56. Dude

Nobody here claims "we're almost there".
This thread is to discuss the OP.
Besides a link that has nothing to do with the OP as it doesn't deal with the inserts you have posted a lot but not added to theactual discussion of the OP.
For somebody who is fed up you post pretty much.
For somebody who's fed up you should be happy that somebody posts a new article and DOES NOT conclude anything.
Ghost's questions are very valid (see post 33)why do you keep ignoring these questions and post nonethess?

Do you want to discuss the article given in the OP (I'd be happy about a discussion based on facsts because I'm far from knowing what to think of the OP)?

[SDuderstadt]

58. How many of you have actually read...

the NEADS transcripts?

Or, are you just uncritically buying what the blogger says they say and mean?

[Raphael Weber]

59. As you know the transcripts are VERY long

So, I only have read excerpts (Vanity Fair-article).
And as I learly stated I'm NOT uncritically buying the article.
Did you read the transcripts?
And please go ahead and quote them and challenge the article.
Then finally the discussion could start!

[SDuderstadt]

62. Here's an idea...

why don't you guys actually read the NORAD transcripts first, THEN we can have an intelligent debate, dude?

[Raphael Weber]

63. Wow

now that's funny!!
So far you only managed to link to an article that has nothing to do with the OP!
You avoid answering the question if you have read the NEADS transcripts. Well, have you??
I have read excerpts.
The article presents excerpts.
And you fail to explain why one has to read all the transcripts. Maybe you can give a hint. Just for the first time in this thread a shred of a fact?

And if you wish to challenge the article I think, dude, it's more up to you to read the transcripts.
Or maybe you manage an intelligent argument beforehand.....?

[SDuderstadt]

65. I did read the transcripts...

You didn't.

You're the one that posted the article. I didn't.

My post was entirely relevant, despite your attempt to cast it otherwise.

Now you're trying to "shift the burden of proof" by asserting it's my job to disprove the article, when, in fact, it's your job to prove the article reflects the NORAD transcripts accurately.

Your attempt to cast yourself as impartial isn't working.

[Raphael Weber]

79. You did?

All of them?
How many pages?

Anyway.
Your post would be really relevant if you'd finally manage to formulate an argument against the OP.
So far you only managed to provide a link without a single explanation in how far it has any relevance to the OP
and to ask me if I've read the NEADS transcripts.
So far you fail to construct an argument against the OP.

I've checked the quotes from the NEADS transcripts. They are correct. So the article rests interesting for me and I'm curious to know what other people think about it.
But even now you haven't dropped a single word about the actual content of the OP.

So, where does the OP get it wrong?
Where do the transcripts prove otherwise?

Start a constructive discussion for a change!

[SDuderstadt]

85. Dude...

you're the one who thinks this is going somewhere.

[Raphael Weber]

97. Dude

so you haven't read the transcripts but claim to have read them great.
And the discussion would lead somewhere if you for a change would be willing to actually start discussing the OP.
Hint a discussion can be productive when the one challenging an article actually quotes from it and shows that the quote is wrong.
Wish to try?

[SDuderstadt]

100. I have said multiple times that...

I read the transcripts. Why do you keep totally mischaracterizing what I have actually said?

As far as the OP is concerned, it's YOUR fucking OP. I have repeatedly asked you and others where you are going with this, to no avail.

I'm done with your despicable tactics, dude.

[Raphael Weber]

102. You're really funny

Where am I going with this??
The article presents clear cut questions eg
Why weren't the false blips erased from the screens when real life took over?
Why weren't they discussed in the CR?

I've presented the questions.
I'm open to a discussion cause I didn't make up my mind.
This certainly is a hooribly despicable "tacic".

You on the other hand have so far completely and entirely failed to disucss the OP (besides questioning the author, presenting a link that obviously has nothing to do with the OP etc etc etc etc)
And:
How many pages approximately do the transcripts have you've read?

[SDuderstadt]

104. I see that...

you're now using the word "blips". You got that from me, even as you continue to whine that my link was not relevant, even though it was perfectly relevant.

Since you continue to mischaracterize what I have actually said, why should I respond to you?

Bye, dude.

[Raphael Weber]

165. It's impossible to mischaracterize what you have said

cause you haven't said anything realted to the OP so far.
And you aren't even able to have the grandezza to admit that your outdated article cannot even theoretically have anything substantial to say about an article that is entirely based on quotes from the NEADS transcripts!
(Though I applaude you as you claim to have read all the transcripts ..... 120 hours of recordings ......)
So, until you don't start to build an argument based on facts I won't bother to answer your unrelated posts.
If you come up with an argument I'm happy to reply.
Hint: a good argument often start with quotation from the article you're challenging and with quotes from articles that prove the errors of the discussed article ....

[SDuderstadt]

168. "Raphael"...

Why should I bother to respond to someone who doesn't understand that when I say that I read all the NEADS transcripts that were linked either directly or indirectly to "shoestrings'"flawed analysis doesn't mean that I said I listened to 120 hours of tapes? Did you notice that you just mischaracterize what I said?

This whole issue is as stupid as when "truthers" claimed that Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted in a matter of minutes because they were not bright enough the time zone difference in the multiple accounts.

Duh.

[Raphael Weber]

170. Dude

Of course as usual you only answer to a quarter of my post but nevermind....

You've written:

"Why should I bother to respond to someone who doesn't understand that when I say that I read all the NEADS transcripts that were linked either directly or indirectly to "shoestrings'"flawed analysis"

But what did you write here??
"I I did read the transcripts... You didn't."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=306000&mesg_id=306134

(Mischaracterizing of course my post as I had said that I've read excerpts.....)

[SDuderstadt]

172. You just did it again, dude...

why did you clip the part where I said, "doesn't mean I said I listened to 120 hours of tapes"? Is that honest, dude?

Beyond that, reading some "excerpts" is NOT the same thing as reading all of the transcripts. BTW, if you'd bother to read the transcripts, you'd find out just why "shoestrings'" "analysis" is flawed. Hint: "shoestrings'", like almost all conspiracists, omits the parts of the transcripts that either answer the questions he raises or contradicts his analysis, instead, directing you solely to excerpts that provide support for his "analysis". In Logic, that's called "stacking the deck".

[Raphael Weber]

186. Cause you never SAID it you're just SAYING it for the first time!

You write:

„You just did it again, dude.. why did you clip the part where I said, "doesn't mean I said I listened to 120 hours of tapes"? Is that honest, dude?“

Thanks for the laugh!
Why do I clip that part? Because it’s only in your very last post (172) that you admit for the very first time only to have read parts of the transcripts!
Hint: what you present as a quote of your own postings has never been written in this thread besides your very last post!

One last time for you:
You stated clearly:

„I I did read the transcripts... You didn't."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Now, you admit you didn’t.
And yo have the guts to reproach me that I mischaracterize you??

You?
Who just admit NOT to have read all the transcripts?
You?
Who mischaractized me?
I’ve stated to have read excerpts and you summarize my posting that I haven’t read the transcripts:
„I did read the transcripts you didn’t.“
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

You write:

„Beyond that, reading some "excerpts" is NOT the same thing as reading all of the transcripts.“

Really?
Where did I say that?
Oh, wait. It was you who pretended exactly this (see above).

You write:

BTW, if you'd bother to read the transcripts, you'd find out just why "shoestrings'" "analysis" is flawed. Hint: "shoestrings'", like almost all conspiracists, omits the parts of the transcripts that either answer the questions he raises or contradicts his analysis, instead, directing you solely to excerpts that provide support for his "analysis". In Logic, that's called "stacking the deck".

Well.
Then it shouldn’t be a problem for you to point that out giving the proofs.....?
Oh, why do I know that I’ll wait for this in vain?

[SDuderstadt]

188. Fucking unbelievable...

Read post #165, dude. That is PRECISELY what I said.

[Raphael Weber]

189. My bad

I apologize.

[SDuderstadt]

190. You need to do more than...

just apologize, dude. You need to cut out the bullshit, for example, where you now claim that I have admitted that I only read part of the transcripts. For the last time, I have read all of them.

[Raphael Weber]

191. Flawed

Then it shouldn't be a problem for you to back up your claim!

[SDuderstadt]

192. Dude...

I have asked you repeatedly whether NORAD'S radar systems were inward-looking, outward-looking or both on 9/11.

[Raphael Weber]

195. Well, you've asked me once (post 161)

but anyway.
I've asked you countless times to back up your claim that shoesting's analysis is "flawed". You never did answer.
you don't think it's the normal way of a discussion that you answer first my original question before I answer your question?
But just for you and to show that I'm well-educated contrary to some others around here I'll answer nonetheless
and insist that before you continue discussing my answer you have the politeness to back up your claim (Ghost did ask you to do this as well, didn't he??).
Deal?

Outward-looking.
Do I win a price?

[JackRiddler]

176. Excellent points. (Raphael, sorry to see the outrageous harrassment tolerated on this thread.)

As you say, Raphael:

"Where am I going with this??
The article presents clear cut questions eg
Why weren't the false blips erased from the screens when real life took over?
Why weren't they discussed in the CR?

You'll be interested in this article:

The Wargames of September 11th
http://911truth.org/wargames

---

The article you cite uses NEADS transcripts to make indisputable points.

- There was an exercise (or multiple exercises) using injects.

- Injects were still an issue at 10:12 am, after all plane crashes. Therefore screens were not definitely cleared at any point during the attacks, contrary to claims.

Whether or not these exercises were routine is not the point! This is:

- Why weren't the injects cleared? Did these confuse response?

- Why didn't the CR cover these questions?

Furthermore, one can't presume that the exercises were or were not routine. That has to be asked and answered.

- Were the exercises based on intelligence or other reasons to increase attention to this scenario?

- Was it really a coincidence that similar scenarios unfolded in "real world"?

An investigation that doesn't ask is not a real investigation. Someone who assumes the answer must be routine and doesn't want to see the evidence (in the form, for example, of an investigation of just what is "routine") is not a real skeptic.

Thanks, Raphael.

[SDuderstadt]

177. "Outrageous harassment"

LOL

Funny how you guys whine that vigorous debate is "outrageous harassment".

Just one more reason you guys are not taken seriously.

[zappaman]

178. "Was it really a coincidence that similar scenarios unfolded in "real world"?"

Yes.
Unless you have poof it wasn't?

[SDuderstadt]

179. I cannot tell you the number of times I have gone to post...

looked at the time and notice that it EXACTLY 9:11!!

That CANNOT be a coincidence, can it?

[JackRiddler]

180. How would I have "poof" of anything if I'm not even allowed to ask?

It's a question. Answers to it definitely exist in documents detailing plans for the wargame and exercises scheduled on September 11th, and probably also exist in other documents laying out the intelligence rationale for these exercises. Rather than arguing about which answer we should presume is likely, shouldn't we have a right to expect the actual answer in black and white? And what kind of "investigation" assumes answers based on likelihood in advance, and stops there, rather than confirming them?

[zappaman]

181. More coinicidences

A SUPERMAN comic came out on 9/11/01.
It featured the destruction of many world landmarks...including the WTC!!!
?v=1

The rap group THE COUP had an album scheduled to release the week after 9/11...


The rock group DREAM THEATER had an album released that day....the WTC is on fire!!!


Were DC comics, the COUP and DREAM THEATER in on it???

[Raphael Weber]

183. Thanks JackRiddler!

Thanks for your kind words!
And thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

[JackRiddler]

174. Someone talking about "it's going on 10 years" should wonder what he's doing here...

if he doesn't even believe there's any evidence.

You can't make fun of people for presenting evidence on this board while excluding yourself as though you are not also here after the same period of time.

[SDuderstadt]

175. Dude...we're

not the ones with something to prove. You guys are. If you have something concrete instead of the usual bullshit, let's hear it. What are you guys waiting for?

[Raphael Weber]

184. The importance of the questions are proven

Nobody around here claims to have the answerss. It's kind of strange not to want the questions to be asked and (even to call it the "usual bullshit") not being able to show in any way why the questions aren't valid and important.
Until you try to do so ......

[SDuderstadt]

187. "It's kind of strange not to want the questions to be asked"

You just did it again, dude. Show me where I remotely said that.

My problem is with your lack of analysis skills and constantly mischaracterizing what I have actually said.

[deconstruct911]

27. Of course

What a scary world we would be in otherwise.

[LARED]

21. How are my comments off topic?

Surely Sims would be needed at airports control rooms and military tracking stations to create a narrative of planes impacting the towers if no planes theories are correct.

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. You started babbling about "no planes", Lared...

The article has nothing to do with "no planes" at all. Period. Got it? Try actually reading the article and see if you have anything relevant to it to discuss...

Thanks

[LARED]

28. I read the article

I think it will be used to support no planes nonsense. You disagree. I'll still sleep fine tonight.

[Ghost in the Machine]

31. Do you often use psychic foreclosure?

Yes, wondering why sims were still being injected onto the radar screens, confusing controllers and causing problems tracking planes = "no planes". :eyes:

I'll sleep just fine tonight too...

[SDuderstadt]

32. That isn't...

"psychic foreclosure", Ghost.

[Ghost in the Machine]

35. "I think it will be used to support no planes nonsense"

Yeah it is...

[SDuderstadt]

37. You need to look up the...

definition of "psychic foreclosure", Ghost.

You're not even close.

[Ghost in the Machine]

39. How about this definition?

""psychic foreclosure"...attempting to win the debate by pretending your goofy claims aren't debatable"

Ring a bell?

[SDuderstadt]

40. So, Ghost...

show me how Lared committed that fallacy.

[Ghost in the Machine]

42. Very easy.. he started babbling about "no planes", which was off topic, then

adds "I think it will be used to support no planes nonsense" as his argument when it's pointed out that the article, which he apparently didn't read, had nothing to do with "no planes".

Now, for the last time.. can you stick to the subject of this OP, and discuss why it is that the simulated injects were not stopped immediately once it was clear we were under attack? Why weren't they stopped until *after* the attacks were over?

[SDuderstadt]

43. How is Lared arguing it isn't debatable...

Ghost?

[Ghost in the Machine]

45. Apparently it's not debatable to him..

He still insists it will be used to prop up no planes theories, even after it has been pointed out to him that it had nothing to do with no planes theories...

[SDuderstadt]

46. That isn't "psychic foreclosure", Ghost.

If you can't see that, I can't help you.

[Ghost in the Machine]

47. Ok, I'll change it to "bullshit opinion not based on fact"

Better??

[SDuderstadt]

48. Well, like I said...

it isn't "psychic foreclosure, Ghost.

[LARED]

60. Ghost you're going to have to turn in your thruther button if you keep

this up. Do you really think no one in the 9/11 CT community that believe no plane nonsense will not look at the supposed smoking gun of sims inputs and not use it to prop up no planes idiocy?

[Raphael Weber]

54. Nobdoy is interested

in how some stranger might use an article.
We are interested in what YOU think of what is mentioned and discussed in the article!

[jakeXT]

17. It refernces a 2006 book and the link doesn't produce the pdf

We'll examine this case as it's portrayed in "The Military Drills on 9-11: "Bizarre Coincidence" or Something Else?", by Four Arrows (aka Don Jacobs).


Is it possible that the NEADS Transcripts or other information became available later?

[Raphael Weber]

50. You do realize that the link

doesn't refer to the NORAD tapes at all???
Youuur article is irrelevant as it has no connection whatsoever to the OP.
It doesn't discuss the inserts.

[SDuderstadt]

53. More bullshit...

This is from the link I posted:

http://www.911myths.com/html/false_blips.html

[Raphael Weber]

82. You do realize that this article

does NOT deal with the quotes from the transcripts but with old material (Michael Ruppert etc)?

[SDuderstadt]

86. No, really? n/t

[Raphael Weber]

96. Ouch

That's your answer when your proven that your link has absolutely nothing to do with the OP?
It's like discussing the 1953 Iran coup and presenting a book from 1955 is evidence and trying to challenge a book from 2010 that is entirely based on documents published now in the National Security Archive.

[SDuderstadt]

101. Is English not your first language?

Your writing is so poor, I honestly have no idea what you are getting at most of the time.

[Raphael Weber]

103. Sure

now we change the tactics and stop even pretending to discuss!

JUST FOR YOU:

PROVE THAT YOUR ARTICLES HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE OP (hint: they are not based on the NEADS transcripts)
PROVE THAT THE NEADS TRANSCRIPTS PROVE THAT THE OP GOT IT WRONG

IF YOU CAN'T YOU SHOULD SIMPLY STOP THE DISCUSSION.

[Ghost in the Machine]

105. [phone]

We have both tried to engage him in meaningful debate and all we get in return is links that are off topic, obtuse belligerence and nuisance/distraction tactics. I think his "despicable tactics" comment was a case of pure projection, too. I have asked him several times to stay on topic, but he seems unwilling, or unable, to do so.

[SDuderstadt]

106. Nice dodge, Ghost...

I'm still waiting for either one of you or anyone else, for that matter, to show how the military exercise interfered with our response or that it was intended to do so.

That's the real question and you guys will brush-off anything that raises those issues as "off-topic".

[Ghost in the Machine]

107. Why did the Langley fighters head out to sea, instead of to Washington as ordered?

"But a clear shootdown order wouldn't have made a difference. The Langley fighters were headed the wrong way—due east, straight out to sea into a military-training airspace called Whiskey 386, rather than toward Washington, which neads believed was under attack. According to the 9/11 commission, the Langley pilots were never briefed by anyone at their base about why they were being scrambled, so, despite having been given the order from neads to fly to Washington, the pilots ended up following their normal training flight plan out to sea—a flight plan dating from the Cold War. As one pilot later told the commission, "I reverted to the Russian threat—I'm thinking cruise-missile threat from the sea."

Read More http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?printable=true¤tPage=all#ixzz1BPAsS6iz

You're the one brushing things off. I gave you a link earlier to read. Why didn't you read it? Why did the military LIE about events of 9-11? You have been given proof of this, yet you refuse to see it. That's your problem, though, not ours. You can continue to try to derail honest discussion, but as you can see, it's not getting you anywhere.

edited for bad HTML .. D'OH!

[SDuderstadt]

109. Ghost...

it's silly to pretend these issues haven't been addressed. How do you know the Vanity Fair article got everything right? Is it possible that the reporter got some facts wrong? Did you cross-check this against other sources? How do you reconcile the conflicting accounts?

One thing we know that conspiracists do is reject all accounts that conflict with their conspiracy theory.

http://www.911myths.com/html/fighter_speeds.html

[Ghost in the Machine]

113. Another irrelevant link?? What the FUCK does the "fighter speeds" have to do with the pilots

going out to sea, into a military-training airspace called Whiskey 386, rather than toward Washington, which neads believed was under attack??

If you had bothered to click the link to Vanity Fair, you would know they have transcripts, as well as mp3's, posted.

Yeah, you're right, this is getting stupid... you still can't stay on topic or provide anything relevant. Please excuse from this conversation until you are able to stay on topic or provide something, anything, relevant.

[SDuderstadt]

114. Ghost...

did you read the entire link I posted? If you did, did you notice the part about why the fighters were vectored where they were?

[Ghost in the Machine]

119. Yeah I read it, now let me explain this very clearly. Your link is still irrelevant

Most of the posts are from 2003. The link from the OP, and my links to Vanity Fair, deal with after the NORAD/NEADS tapes were released. They prove the military LIED in some of their testimony.

"In testimony a few minutes later, however, General Arnold added an unexpected twist: "We launched the aircraft out of Langley to put them over top of Washington, D.C., not in response to American Airlines 77, but really to put them in position in case United 93 were to head that way."

How strange, John Azzarello, a former prosecutor and one of the commission's staff members, thought. "I remember being at the hearing in '03 and wondering why they didn't seem to have their stories straight. That struck me as odd."

The ears of another staff member, Miles Kara, perked up as well. "I said to myself, That's not right," the retired colonel, a former army intelligence officer, told me. Kara had seen the radar re-creations of the fighters' routes. "We knew something was odd, but we didn't have enough specificity to know how odd."

As the tapes reveal in stark detail, parts of Scott's and Arnold's testimony were misleading, and others simply false. At 9:16 a.m., when Arnold and Marr had supposedly begun their tracking of United 93, the plane had not yet been hijacked. In fact, neads wouldn't get word about United 93 for another 51 minutes. And while norad commanders did, indeed, order the Langley fighters to scramble at 9:24, as Scott and Arnold testified, it was not in response to the hijacking of American 77 or United 93. Rather, they were chasing a ghost. neads was entering the most chaotic period of the morning."

Please refrain from using your outdated source, as it contains false and misleading information. You have been provided updated links, numerous times. You have been provided links to audio versions of the tapes that were released, too.

[SDuderstadt]

120. You can't tell me what sources to use, Ghost...

Again, where are you going with this?

[Ghost in the Machine]

128. Well by all means, feel free to use outdated, debunked sources..

just don't be surprised when you're called out for it, or if you're not taken seriously, my friend.

Where are we going? We'll just have to see where the road ends, but we have to follow it to the end to find out...

[zappaman]

129. where the road goes?

maybe here?

[SDuderstadt]

131. Just another...

typical "truther" investigation.

They never go anywhere.

[Ghost in the Machine]

162. Pipe down, junior, no one asked about your life story...

Coming from someone who didn't know about multiple reports of a plane crashing at Camp David, as seen here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=301930#302007 and someone who doesn't even know what a debunker is, as witnessed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=304861#305046 ... it might be best for you to go educate yourself some and then come back when you're capable of some intelligent discussion, instead of the nusiance/distraction that seems to be your specialty.

Thanks in advance,

Ghost

[zappaman]

163. Thanks for the laugh

No, really it made me smile.
Just the thought of you and those perpetually twisted panties...
:rofl:

[Ghost in the Machine]

164. Thanks for the many laughs you provide, too..

What makes it even funnier is that you think I'm really mad or upset :-) Quite the opposite, my friend. I'm actually usually pretty freakin' bored and this is how I get my kicks, jollies, or whatever you want to call it. I like to push buttons and see just how far I can push the envelope. I'm sitting here laughing my ass off myself, dude.

Just for the sake of conversation though, do you spend a lot of time fantasizing about other guys in panties? Not that there's anything wrong with it, mind you, but you must be one kinky lil fella :-)

[SDuderstadt]

130. Great...

start by pointing out how whatever military exercises were being conducted that day were the proximate cause of our inability to either prevent or interrupt the 9/11 attacks, otherwise, you've got dick.

Bonus question: how many drills, exercises or simulations do you think the various military services conduct in the course of a year?

[Ghost in the Machine]

142. You don't get to direct the discussion here, SDude...

You get to discuss the topic of the OP, or go start your own thread, otherwise you're just distracting and obfuscating. It's already been proven that the military lied during testimony. It's already proven that your outdated link is irrelevant. It's already proven that there were indeed injects onto the screens of NORAD, NEADS and the FAA.

""Chase this guy down"
At 9:21 a.m., just before Dooley's alert about a third hijacked plane headed for Washington, neads is in the eye of the storm—a period of relative calm in which, for the moment, there are no reports of additional hijackings.

The call that sets off the latest alarm ("Another hijack! It's headed towards Washington!") comes from Boston and is wholly confounding: according to Scoggins, the Boston manager, American 11, the plane they believed was the first one to hit the World Trade Center, is actually still flying—still hijacked—and now heading straight for D.C. Whatever hit the first tower, it wasn't American 11.

The chase is on for what will turn out to be a phantom plane"


{snip}

"As one of its last acts before disbanding, in July 2004, the 9/11 commission made referrals to the inspector general's offices of both the Department of Transportation (which includes the F.A.A.) and the Defense Department to further investigate whether witnesses had lied. "Commission staff believes that there is significant evidence that the false statements made to the commission were deliberately false," Farmer wrote to me in an e-mail summarizing the commission's referral. "The false testimony served a purpose: to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down UAL 93." A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office told me that the investigation had been completed, but he wasn't at liberty to share the findings, because the report had not been finalized. A spokesman at the Pentagon's inspector general's office said its investigation had also been completed, but the results are classified."

I don't know about you, but I have a problem with taking anything a proven liar says at face value. That's the bottom line, SDude... I want to find out what else the proven liars lied about.Face the fact that your military, your government, LIED during testimony. Why do some of you continue to believe everything else they say, without question?

[SDuderstadt]

144. You don't get to direct the discussion either, Ghost...

could you please provide evidence that "false injects" were input into FAA radar screens?

[Raphael Weber]

166. I can't agree more

and I don't have your patience, ghost. So I will not answer any postings anymore unless they are related to the OP.
(Though it would be a nice starter simply to admit that the 911myths article has nothing substantial to say about the OP. Or when he is still convinced to present something called a quotation he believes proves his point)

Peace

[SDuderstadt]

169. It's really to stupid to pretend that the...

link I provided to 9/11 Myths (which was actually an index of links to the supposed "standdown") is not germane to this OP.

[Raphael Weber]

171. It's really stupid that you use an outdated article

that was written before the NEADS transcripts were released to say something substantial about the OP that bases its analyses entirely on the transcripts.
Oh, btw what exactly does your nice article say about the OP? What's your relevant point? Even if this stuff is outdated .......

[SDuderstadt]

173. If you'd bother to read "shoestrings'"...

footnotes, you'd find that much of his sources are from the same time period as 9/11 Myths. If you'd bother to read deeper into the 9/11 Myths website, you'll also find that Mike Williams credits the "Loose Change" crew with getting NORAD to release the audio files from NEADS and NORAD in question, so it's pretty stupid to argue that 9/11 Myths, in any way, ignores or is unaware of that information.

Simple question: why don't you subject "shoestrings'' "analysis" to the same critical examination you're demanding of us? All you guys are doing is revealing your cognitive biases.

[Raphael Weber]

182. If I'd bother to read "shoestrings" ...

I've read his footnotes yes. And I believe you don't realize that I've read maybe not every single page of 911myths (and learnt quite a lot eg their presentation that the hijackers are still alive stuff is nonsense is very well done and convincing. Hope I don't destroy your idea here you had of me .....)

You write:
"If you'd bother to read deeper into the 9/11 Myths website, you'll also find that Mike Williams credits the "Loose Change" crew with getting NORAD to release the audio files from NEADS and NORAD in question, so it's pretty stupid to argue that 9/11 Myths, in any way, ignores or is unaware of that information."

You know you use the word "stupid" quite often. This is a bit ridiculous especially given the fact that one again you twist the words in my mouth.

Nowhere did I write that "9/11 Myths, in any way, ignores or is unaware of that information."

My heart is broken but I have to bring you once again (maybe for the tenth time in this thread) the bad news that I'm ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY talking about the links you've provided. These pages don't include the info obtained by the NEADS transcripts. So, sorry, they are pretty irrelevant to the discussion of the OP.
And it's pretty irrelevant as well that 911myths is aware of this info. The chap can't update all his articles. And I don't expect him to do so.
But I expect you to stop twisting the words in my mouth every time.

[SDuderstadt]

185. This is unintentional irony, right?

You're complaining that I am twisting YOUR words?

Well, anyway, if you, indeed, read "shoestrings'" footnotes, do you see the flaws in his "analysis"?

[Raphael Weber]

49. Others fantasies

:rolleyes:
The presence of inserts on the screens are facts. Proven by the NORAD tapes.
No fantasie needed. And if you conclude that this would support no plane then this is your fantasie only.
Nowhere in the article is it stated that there actually was a" simulated plane on NEADS radar" that hit the tower ....
It would be great to discuss the article not something that is NOT part of the article.

[Raphael Weber]

57. You did read the article?

You write:

"The whole idea is pretty stupid, but why else would there be sims inputs? What other purpose could there be?"

Well, because they were used in the exercise?
Because the NORAD tapes prove that they were?

[hack89]

61. It doesn't sound like it is a significant issue

based on the comments in this thread - no one is even willing to venture a guess as to what impact they had on 911. It would be nice if one day someone would post a substantial issue so we could have a meaningful discussion.

[LARED]

80. 'they were used in the exercises'

So what?

[Raphael Weber]

167. Well, can you answer the questions raised at the end of the article

or explain to my why these questions are irrelevant?
Besides a like to add a question:
Why didn't the CR mention the simulation??

The fact that key NEADS and NORAD operations center personnel had false information appearing on their radar screens throughout the 9/11 attacks raises critical questions that have yet to be investigated. We need to know who was responsible for transmitting the simulated "exercise inputs" to radar scopes. It has been reported that there was a "simulations team" working at NEADS the morning of September 11. Was this team putting out the false tracks? If so, who were its members? Why did they continue with the simulation when it should have been obvious that a real-world crisis was taking place? And why didn't their higher-ups order them to stop transmitting the false tracks?
We also need to find out how many radar scopes at NEADS, the CMOC, and other NORAD facilities across the U.S. were receiving the simulated information. And what scenarios were transmitted onto the screens? Considering that Vigilant Guardian has been described as a "simulated air war," one would assume that many false tracks were being displayed.

[whatchamacallit]

108. Wow, saving this thread as a testament to the pavlovian dogmatism and deceitful tactics of the OCT!

Stunning example of fail.

[SDuderstadt]

110. Why don't you join the debate...

dude?

While you're at it, why don't you point out the instances of "deceit" since you're going to violate DU's rules against questioning a member's character and motivation anyhow?

[whatchamacallit]

111. Whose character and motives am I questioning?

I don't recall singling anyone out.

[SDuderstadt]

112. Dude...

you can try to camouflage all you want, but since the "OCT" isn't posting here, it's clear who you're accusing of "pavlovian dogmatism" and "deceitful tactics", which absolutely poisons the debate, not that you care.

[whatchamacallit]

115. Several heroes of the OCT have posted in this thread

Don't be so self absorbed.

[SDuderstadt]

116. Dude...

which is my point. The rules provide that you cannot question the motivation of groups of members, as well as individuals, not that you care.

[whatchamacallit]

117. OMG!

How many threads and posts blatantly call out the group you refer to as "truthers"? Double standard much? :wtf:

[SDuderstadt]

118. In how many posts have I accused "truthers" of...

"deceitful tactics", dude?

Do the rules prevent criticism? Do you understand the difference between criticism and attacking someone's character or motivation?

[whatchamacallit]

122. Continuously calling a group of DU members "goofy, stupid, delusional, irrational, liars..."

Is not what I would call fair criticism. And no Sdude, those are not all directly attributable to you. But I've seen that and a lot worse allowed and tolerated in this forum. Funny how you guys are usually the first to smear, and the first to cry to the mods.

[zappaman]

123. BS

Who has called a group of DU members those things?
What is goody, stupid and delusional are the "theories"(I use the term loosely) that those members put forth.

[whatchamacallit]

124. The pattern

Step 1: Label anyone who doubts the official story a "truther"
Step 2: Call out truthers because of their "nuttier" theories. Pay no mind to the fact that not all lumped into the truther category subscribe to all the various exotic theories, just go for it.

lather, rince, repeat...

[SDuderstadt]

127. Please show where any of us have...

accused you of a theory other than your own.

You DO realize that if you guys could actually produce concrete evidence for your goofy theories, you wouldn't be in this predicament, right?

[whatchamacallit]

132. LOL a denial and a confirmation in the same statement

"Please show where any of us have accused you of a theory other than your own. You DO realize that if you guys could actually produce concrete evidence for your goofy theories, you wouldn't be in this predicament, right?
Classic!:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

133. Remember the subject?

You guys? Duh.

[whatchamacallit]

135. Define "you guys" (nt)

[SDuderstadt]

137. It's PLURAL...

dude. So, the "your" in the sentence obviously referred to "you guys".

Do you understand basic English? Do you understand what a segue is?

This is why most of this crap gets started.

[whatchamacallit]

138. Ha, there's nothing you won't try...

Let me ask again: *Who* are you referring to? What collection of individuals comprises "you guys"?

[SDuderstadt]

139. And there are no words...

you won't strain to twist into something other than what the speaker intended, dude..

[whatchamacallit]

140. Prove it

Who is "you guys"?

[SDuderstadt]

141. Dude...

do YOU understand English? Do you maintain that "you guys" could possibly mean you individually?

[whatchamacallit]

145. Desperate flailing

If anyone is having difficulty with english right now, it's you. I am asking for you to define or name the the group or entity you collectively refer to as "you guys". Is "you guys" vegetarians, shriners, cosmoneaughts...? If you are still incapable of answering the question, seek remedial education.

[SDuderstadt]

146. Dude...

you're the one trying to twist what I said to make "you guys" mean you individually.

I'll try to warn you the next time I make a segue.

[whatchamacallit]

148. Well there it is (again)

You've painted yourself into another corner, and simply refuse to answer a very simple question. You've twisted yourself, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

149. Oh, bullshit, dude...

You're trying to twist a plural construction into a singular construction because you apparently have trouble understanding basic sentence structure.

[whatchamacallit]

151. Really?

Problem for you is, you don't know when to quit. Anyone reading this thread will be able to see what's really going on here. Matter of fact your buddy zappaman, had no problem identifying and understanding my simple question. What's wrong with you?

[SDuderstadt]

152. Anyone reading this thread who understands...

basic sentence structure will understand the relationship between "you guys" (plural) and the subsequent use of "your" (plural reference), unlike you, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

153. Like a boulder rolling downhill...

I tried repeatedly to state my original question in a manner you might grasp. I now have two options; to believe you don't possess the mental faculties to understand my question, or to assume you're being disingenuous. It's a simple question anyone reading this thread would understand, yet you prefer to blather on about "plural, singular, sentence structure... blah, blah blah...". Wtf man?

[SDuderstadt]

154. Okay...

"you guys" = opposite of "us guys". You seem to believe "you guys" = "whatchamacallit", which is the only way your stupid claim would make sense. Happy now?

It's always funny to watch you believe you've cornered someone, while everyone else realizes that you've stepped in it once again.

[whatchamacallit]

155. How could you be more wrong?

I never once claimed that "you guys" referred to me alone. That was your bizarre formulation. The very first time I asked you to define "you guys", I was of course asking you to name the group you made me a member of. You are apparently still wondering aimlessly in a maze of your own construction.

[SDuderstadt]

156. Then why did you emphasize...

"YOUR goofy theories", dude?

I also never said that you claimed that "you guys" referred to you individually, what I said was that is the only way your stupid claim makes sense.

Again, your cognitive impairment launches another red herring.

[whatchamacallit]

157. Uh huh...

Let me break it down for you Sdude:

Upstream I stated that you have a tendency to lump us into a group called truthers, and then castigate us collectively for sins of batshittery.

You countered with "Please show where any of us have accused you of a theory other than your own. You DO realize that if you guys could actually produce concrete evidence for your goofy theories, you wouldn't be in this predicament, right?

In sentence 1 you deny ascribing anyone else's theories to me, then in sentence 2 you do just the opposite by including me in the "you guys" group (presumably truthers) and saying "your goofy theories". Yes I understand that "your" meant the theories of the group, but by including me in that group, they are my theories. A complete reversal of sentence 1.

Obviously, the cognitive impairment resides elsewhere.

[SDuderstadt]

158. Do you see the logical fallacy you just...

committed, dude?

Actually, you just committed two fallacies. Your argument is a strawman and the fallacy of division.

Do I need to draw you a Venn diagram?

[whatchamacallit]

159. Let me apologize Raphael Weber for the obscene hijacking of your thread

This is my stop. I'm getting off the crazy train.

[SDuderstadt]

160. Finally...

I always cringe when WC drops in for another one of his drive-bys.

[zappaman]

147. who are the "you guys" that you refer to in post #122? n/t

[whatchamacallit]

150. Unlike some, I have no problem understanding this question

I of course was referring to people who believe and defend the official story.

[zappaman]

143. the opposite guys of your post #122

your post---
"Funny how you guys..."

[SDuderstadt]

125. Please point to where ANY debunker has ever called...

any "truther" here a "liar", dude. Your penchant for strawman arguments is legendary.

Similarly, referring to a "truther's" CLAIMS as "goofy, stupid, delusional or irrational" is NOT the same thing as calling the "truther" that.

How many fucking times do we have to go through this?

[whatchamacallit]

134. Looking

I'll post if/when I find

[SDuderstadt]

136. Point to one...

dude.

[SDuderstadt]

161. I have a simple question...

"Raphael".

Before 9/11 and on that day, was NEADS' radar outward-looking, inward-looking or both?

[Larry L. Burks]

193. You are asking the wrong question.

It’s not what the radar is showing.

The question is . “What is the radar not showing”

RORAD, Military, Civilian. Video security cameras. Video cameras at the air port where they took off. The transponder that track the planes. The radios in the aircraft. The spy satellite pictures.

The history. The paper trail of the Master Records. The history of the paper trail of the money. The history of the people and paper trail.

The history of the evidence that keeps contradicting it self.

The long long history of how they keep changing their story.

The long long history of how they are distorting and destroying evidence. Hiding evidence. Fabricating evidence out of thin air.

The long history of staging and faking events. That are said to have taken place on 9/11. But did not.

They are being evasive and not fourth right, truthful. The evidence is overwhelming. The flood gats have burst The stop checks. the fail safes, and the lies are no longer working.

The cover –up has failed. The truth is well known. The cat is out of the bag. It is written in stone. And there is no putting the cat back in the bag, Once he is out of the bag.

You can’t change history. Not some thing that is as big as the event that took place on 9/11.

The people that Mastermind all of this. Just don’t get it. It’s to big to fake and cover it up.

The one thing they for got about.

On and. On and. On it goes.

What is wrong with this picture? Think.

You tell me.

[SDuderstadt]

194. I have a hard time taking someone...

who thinks "forthright" is spelled "fourth right" seriously.

Larry, again I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing DU.