• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Pentagon 911 Conspiracy?

Without wishing to derail the thread too much, I've always been intrigued about Jerry's site too. Jerry, no offence intended as you've already stated your dislike of the term skeptic, but generally your posting does come across as 'semi-professional debunking' rather than fair open-mindedness, even if that is your intention. That's not a serious criticism, more an observation and, again, apologies if that comes across as being unfair.

Could you explain a little bit about it? Why the focus on two American states and, in the main timeline, those particular events? Are these occurrences that you feel stand up to scrutiny or particularly relevant in some way?

If not here, perhaps on a chat thread?
 
crunchy5 said:
Keep your hair on mate, I never feel any stress about the site it's all just a laugh init, I've taken the time to look at your Fortean timeline, like the title, but just couldn't see how it proved or even indicated that you weren't a skeptik, as you have mentioned it in that context a few times, my interjection was genuine. :)

As I said, a skeptic wouldn't have such a site. All I'm asking is that you don't brand anyone who doesn't agree with you who is unconvinced by this conspiracy theory as a skeptic. Just because the theories about 9/11 don't hold water IMHO, that doesn't make me a skeptic - any more that believing in them makes you a tinfoil hatter. People here are going to have opposite views to your own, but that doesn't make them a skeptic.
 
jefflovestone said:
Could you explain a little bit about it? Why the focus on two American states and, in the main timeline, those particular events? Are these occurrences that you feel stand up to scrutiny or particularly relevant in some way?

PM me if you want an explanation.
 
Jerry_B said:
crunchy5 said:
Keep your hair on mate, I never feel any stress about the site it's all just a laugh init, I've taken the time to look at your Fortean timeline, like the title, but just couldn't see how it proved or even indicated that you weren't a skeptik, as you have mentioned it in that context a few times, my interjection was genuine. :)

As I said, a skeptic wouldn't have such a site. All I'm asking is that you don't brand anyone who doesn't agree with you who is unconvinced by this conspiracy theory as a skeptic. Just because the theories about 9/11 don't hold water IMHO, that doesn't make me a skeptic - any more that believing in them makes you a tinfoil hatter. People here are going to have opposite views to your own, but that doesn't make them a skeptic.

Erm - having a list of events and dates without any comment on them does not mean anything in particular, a skeptic could do the same thing.

You are not supporting the interpretation of events in your list or debunking them - so I personally could draw nothing from them; and couldn't call you a tin foil hatter or a skeptic.

Nice list though.
 
The above is all Sooo off topic.

You Tube: 911 Commission - Trans. Sec Norman Mineta Testimony

The thing that sticks out = Cheney knew about an incoming flight! What were the orders? If it was for a shoot down, why weren't the Pentagon, Capitol building and White House evacuated... What if the orders were to let the incoming aircraft hit? (more) (less)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
What were the standing orders?
 
We don't know what the standing order was.However from the secretary of transportation's testimony it is obvious that the young man was incredulous that 'the order' still stood with the plane being so close.Under the circumstances what order would cause incredulity? With both WTC towers having all ready been struck by aircraft by this time, what order would this young man have expected the vice president to give?Obviously,that WASN"T 'the order'!You figure it out.
 
Jerry has already nailed his colours to the mast.

He's not a skeptic, not a Fortean, just an interested observer.
 
Back
Top