9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

It appears it's pretty inconsistent often times though. I try very hard to stay inside the lines then I get edited for a non infraction, and there is no recourse.
I'm cool with editing...just do it consistently and equally...for all. Tell me what the line is, allow me to step up to it, and move on. Goose, gander.....all that.

 

Humans involved+limited time on their hands+highly trafficked forum= inconsistencies They aren't computer programs and they aren't paid to do it, so don't expect perfection nor instant replay from the booth.

Ask a mod on any forum anywhere how often they're accused of moderating in a biased fashion (especially when both "sides" do the accusing). It goes with the territory.

 

Not applicable NA.

Thanks for defending whatever it is you're defending though.

 

I'm defending common sense, but it's falling of deaf ears.

fin

 

Oh, come off it already, man. They're not targeting you, us or them.

 

Okay man.

 

What's the purpose of that post Jango? You workin' both sides here??

 

Everyone's in on it.

 

He's just living in reality slow boat.

 

well that would be true with the exception of one whom i wont mention that seems to play favorites here.All the others seem to be fair for the most part which is a different than a lot of other sites you go to but this particualr mod, I have had other fellow truthers tell me they unfailry got warnings from this mod just like I have just for telling the truth saying that a certain OCTA lied about such and such.funny how an infractune can be given just for telling the TRUTH about a poster,that they lied.

 

Both sides?

 

I thought the purpose was quite clear, RTW: The mods and admins here are not out to get you, us, and they're not exclusively on the side of them.

And I don't know what you're meaning by "workin' both sides".

 

You use your brain more often than he finds convenient.

 

Thank you.

By the way, are you going to answer the question I've asked you several times?

 

I'm not sure which side of the subject you advocate as is being discussed here. You could say you're not on any side but, clearly one has to have an opinion on whether or not 9/11 was exactly as was offered officially, or it wasn't. I know which side most of the team here occupies (that's obvious). You though, seem to wobble to some degree and I'm wondering if that isn't for effect.

 

I thought the topic we were discussing was the perceived overhanded moderation by the moderators and administrators at this forum?

As to my "wobbliness"... I dunno man. I am always researching. I guess my beliefs are not set in stone. And as I alluded to in another thread, and as I believe it is for many people, all it would take to concrete many beliefs of mine, is some simple pieces of paper acknowledging things I suspect in the affirmative. But, so far, all I have to run on is incomplete data and suspicions. The whole picture is yet to completed, in my opinion. I believe that we, collectively, will be much older when the volume of truth many of us are seeking is finally revealed. That is to say, if it even exists, and that this whole mess behind us now was not just an enormous cockup.

 

It's a little more than a perception IMO but, not worth getting into to too awful much here...it would be rather pointless for a number of reasons. I'm not sure what you believe or don't believe actually because you seem to keep jumping sides of the fence depending on....something. You could be genuine or you may not be...anyway, now you know my opinion on that aspect. I don't see how not having the "whole picture" (as you put it) can possibly lead you to believe the official BS could possibly be true in ascertaining whether or not the given story is or isn't accurate. Clearly, if you resolve nothing else, it obviously isn't accurate...meaning they LIED..meaning their credibility is suspect...meaning you can't trust most, if not all, of what it is they proclaim. They were either complicit or they weren't. The DETAILS may (and are) difficult to ascertain but, the overall message stinks badly man. Just because "nobody is capable of proving" exactly how they got away with it is almost beside the point. Take THEIR story...analyze it, compare it to other available information and look for inconsistencies. Geezus dude...they're all over the place!
This is why I question your motives in posting here. Maybe you can prove otherwise, maybe in the other debate you're advocating participating in...I guess we'll see on that one. I have a feeling though, that this "discussion" will never get off the ground or if it does, it will be riddled with "interference" of one sort or another (that's just my opinion though). Till then, I suppose cause certainly it can't be done in a controlled environment as has been tried in the past.

 

I think we are dealing with a variation on the Rashomon effect. Nobdy was really sure what the hell happened, or remembered it differently. I have been to fires of some size which were so utterly chaotic that the crew chief's logs for each vehicle looked like they were covering different incidents, but for the dates and times.The wider a perimeter and the more smoke involved, the more widely the reports varied. Remember that NORAD is not all operated out of one bunker near the Pentagon. Some of it is in DC, some in Wyoming and some of it about five miles from where I sit right now.

Things can get garbled, especially in an OH (*)(*)(*)(*) situation like none any of the actors had experienced in their lives.

 

This goes to show why the truth movement has not made any progress in 10 years. This description is a metaphor for the whole truth movement. "If there is 1 inconsistency in the report, or something that doesn't match up perfectly, that you can't trust anything at all." Just look at how off the wall, completely tin-foil hat that sounds. That is ridiculous in every sense of the word.

RT is basically trying to call out Jango for not being balls to the wall truther, or all out debunker. That's amazing. That whole statement is exactly how I thought most truthers thought.

 

Why did it take you so long to respond? And, how does the 'Rashomon effect' apply when it comes to what time X, Y and Z occurred? What, people's watches in NORAD on 9/11 weren't synced? Is that your defense?

 

Regrouping strategy meeting?

 

The time frame is easy to verify, but exactly what they said to each other, what orders they gave are often kind of garbled and incorrectly remembered either because of the horror and confusion of the moment or some doubt or shame that followed the event.

 

But isn't that what NORAD screwed up several times?

 

I believe he's referring to the the entirety of the time frame. As in, you can recall the hour, but not down to the minute. It happens in the fog of war all the time. Afterwards, when asked to recount specifics, people can't. That is, actually, how most conspiracies start. People think that memory is like rewinding a video. It's not, there are a lot of things that get lost, and when you're running your ass off to do everything you can to resolve the task at hand, you aren't checking time stamps.

 

Pretty much this ^^.

I spoke the Colin Scoggins a while ago while I was researching for my flight reconstructions. I needed to ask him about certain things (such as why he passed on AA11 was still airborne and where they got that info from, which turned out to be Doug Davis at FAA HQ, but I digres.). One thing Colin stated is that in the days that followed 9/11, he tried to retrace and reconstruct his footsteps in order to figure out his time line, and he could not work one out that made any sense. As far as I could tell, even today he still struggles. Now the time line itself is very clear, all you have to do is listen to the hundreds of recordings for that. But peoples memory of that time line is the issue. Events get mixed out of order. Things happen later or earlier than you swore they did. It's far more common than one might think.