WTC attacks - the alternative thread

[Irish Bandit]

There is no evidence to be found anywhere that categorically establishes the presence of any of the alleged hijackers at any of the three airports involved on September 11. Therefore, it is not possible to claim as you do that they boarded the aircraft and then hijacked them. That's the fairy story part.

Perhaps I should repeat myself:

Al Qaeda, the same organisation that tried to destroy the WTC in 1993 and has attacked numerous civilian targets over the years, took responsibility. Mohammed Atta and several others, spotted in Newark on the 10th, were known members. Put two and two together.

 

[vimto]

Perhaps I should repeat myself:

Al Qaeda, the same organisation that tried to destroy the WTC in 1993 and has attacked numerous civilian targets over the years, took responsibility. Mohammed Atta and several others, spotted in Newark on the 10th, were known members. Put two and two together.

And it makes five

Who were these 'known members' you talk about?

What/who is Al Qaeda?

 

[Irish Bandit]

Who were these 'known members' you talk about?

http://www.solcomhouse.com/terror.htm

Photographs of two of the hijackers the night before (although my mistake - they were in Portland, not Newark).

What/who is Al Qaeda?

"What/who is the IRA?" is on par with that question.

 

[editor]

here's an hypothesis that attempts to rationalize an alternative explanation for what happened that day.

Ah. A. K. Dewdney again!

Perhaps you could explain why any rational person should give any credibility or credence to a conspiracy fan claiming that aircraft flying "amazingly low and slow" in a highly dangerous and illegal formation over Long Island en route to Manhattan in the rush hour were somehow not seen by a single soul out of the 1.5 million population.

Oops. Sorry! My mistake! According to Dewdney this "amazing" sight was only witnessed by two out of the 1,500,000 residents and those two people just happened to somehow hear about him and they just happened to somehow get in touch with him and they just happened to tell him their story.

Oh, and they just happened to insist on remaining anonymous, so the only person who got to hear about this amazing story which just happened to perfectly match his 9/11 theory was was...A K Dewdney!

 

[fela fan]

Welcome to fela fan's notion of what passes for cutting edge debate on the WTC attacks:

Yeah, well, sorry but i came home pissed. I decided to come down to your level of language/debate that you employ on these 911 threads. I won't do it again, but i did enjoy it at the time.

 

[fela fan]

19 terrorists didn't all enter the same airport either did they. If they wore cleaning / maintenance clothing who would suspect that something was out of place.

Proove otherwise.

Oh that's right you can't.

Who do you think i am? Of course i can't. I wasn't one of the planners of the attacks. You can't prove anything either unless you were involved in the attacks. NOne of us can, so it's a massive red herring to be asking for proof.

And what's all this about you having the balls to admit you're wrong? What do you want, a bloody medal? Settle down lad.

 

[editor]

Yeah, well, sorry but i came home pissed. I decided to come down to your level of language/debate that you employ on these 911 threads. I won't do it again, but i did enjoy it at the time.

Be sure to back up your ad hominem attack with some examples of me posting up moronic gibberish like:

Spudchester Uniteds
Professor Spudbe
Spudchester...
Spudchester...
Spuddocks!

Oh, and have you found those references to 'tinfoil hatters' in this thread that you accused me of?

No? So that'll be yet another irrelevant, personal attack.

Hypocrite.

 

[WouldBe]

Who do you think i am? Of course i can't. I wasn't one of the planners of the attacks. You can't prove anything either unless you were involved in the attacks. NOne of us can, so it's a massive red herring to be asking for proof.

And what's all this about you having the balls to admit you're wrong? What do you want, a bloody medal? Settle down lad.

So as no one can proove that the planes were remote controlled then that theory must be a red herring as well then.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Wouldbe, a couple of points if I may.

You appear not to remember basic metalwork quite right. at 400ºC steel takes on a very faint reddish hue that is only visible in darkness. At this temp it's structural integrity is virtually unaffected. 'Cherry Red' comes on at around 800ºC, at which temperature is is still fairly strong - strong enough to withstand me beating the fuck out of it with a lump hammer without any damage. The other day I had to change a hub on a quadbike, it took around 30mins constant exposure to an oxy-acetylene torch with a fat nozzle to get a 1.6 KG steel hub hot enough to be mercilessly beaten off a 22mm dia splined shaft. I had to get it so hot that the hub base was getting close to lemon colour (getting on for 1000ºC) before it would budge, and this is on something that is designed to just slide off without any heat at all (and I'm sure I 'coppergreased' it last time... ).

IIRC, Your point '7' is flatly contradicted by all available reports, which suggest that the only aircraft to fly below radar level was AA77, and that was only for a minute or so as it approached the Pentagon.

8 & 9 I would like to address on the 'Robolander' thread, if I may.

 

[laptop]

No alternative media. 30 years ago. Different public, less enlightened.

Silly me.

I could have sworn I spent the 70s working in alternative media. And therefore reading the Berkely Barb, the quasi-Maoist Guardian out of Chicago, the Village Voice, the International Times, Guele Ouverte, Die Tagezeitung... and so on.

Clearly, though I was under the impression I'd only done acid the once, I spent an entire decade hallucinating.

And, equally, hallucinating that there was a higher level of political awareness - both in terms of numbers of people committed to work for social justice and in terms of "general" political discourse - then than now. The time that a couple of us were able to get a defence campaign with a couple of hundred active members up and running in 72 hours was, for example, clearly an hallucination too.

No, I know this has nothing to do with the evidence you ask for. But it says a lot about your approach in argumentation, doesn't it? Air, an, assertion, from, thin, pluck: rearrange.

Now, as for your assertions about the alleged hijackers: Are there not witness accounts of several of them going to the trouble of buying tickets, in at least one case with cash? Of course that doesn't prove they got on the plane. Neither would airport CCTV prove that. Only photos of them on the plane would prove that, and if those showed up someone would be along in a minute to state that they must be forgeries.

And I still reckon it doesn't much matter.

Even if everyone here suddenly saw the light and agreed "Yes, O fela: the US government done it": what difference would it make? Would the people of the USA rise up to overthrow said government? If not, what is the point?

 

[bigfish]

Now, as for your assertions about the alleged hijackers: Are there not witness accounts of several of them going to the trouble of buying tickets, in at least one case with cash? Of course that doesn't prove they got on the plane. Neither would airport CCTV prove that. Only photos of them on the plane would prove that, and if those showed up someone would be along in a minute to state that they must be forgeries.

And I still reckon it doesn't much matter.

Even if everyone here suddenly saw the light and agreed "Yes, O fela: the US government done it": what difference would it make? Would the people of the USA rise up to overthrow said government? If not, what is the point?

If there really is no point laptop then why are you here trying to make one in the negative?

CCTV footage would at least go some way in astablishing that the 'hijackers' passed through the various areas of all the airports concerned including the check in and boarding areas. Eye witness accounts taken from ground staff handling what were in any case quiet flights should account for them boarding the various aircraft at the departure gates. If passengers who were booked on the flights missed the flights for what ever reason then their names would not appear on the passenger manifests.

None of the hijackers names appear on any of the passenger manifests. Unless I'm very much mistaken this would indicate that all of the alleged 'hijackers' failed to check in.

As for the eye witness reports of some of them going to the trouble of buying tickets it would seem that most if not all the tickets were purchased in the latter part of August.

August 24, 2001: • Khalid Almihdhar establishes an American Airlines profile with a cash payment, ticketed at Baltimore/Washington International Airport.


August 25, 2001: • Majed Moqed reserves a ticket for American Airlines Flight 77 through “www.AmericanAirlines.com” using the same American Airlines profile number that was established by Khalid Almihdhar the day before.


August 26, 2001: • Khalid Almihdhar flies to Baltimore and buys a ticket with cash for American Airlines Flight 77 on September 11. • Majed Moqed books his flight on American Airlines Flight 77, paying cash at the Baltimore Airport a few days later. • Waleed Alshehri books his flight on American Airlines Flight 11, using a Visa card to pay for the ticket and a Hollywood, Florida, address.


August 27, 2001: • Nawaf and Salem Alhazmi book their flights on American Airlines Flight 77 through “www.travelocity.com”, charging them with a Visa card. • Reservations for one-way e-tickets for Fayez Ahmed and Mohand Alshehri for Untied Airlines Flight 175 are mailed to their apartment in Florida.


August 28, 2001: • Mohamed Atta books a flight on American Airlines Flight 11 using his Visa card and returns to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from Baltimore on US Airways. • Satam Al Suqami books reservations for American Airlines Flight 11 and pays cash. • Abdulaziz Alomari books a seat on American Airlines Flight 11 using “www.AmericanAirlines.com.” • Wail M. Alshehri arrives from Saudi Arabia, leaving behind a suicide note. • Ziad Jarrah checks out of the Pin Del Motel in Laurel, Maryland. • FAA issues warning about possible violence against U.S. carriers flying in and out of Israel, but nothing domestic. • FBI headquarters denies warrant for search of Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer.


August 29, 2001: • Ahmed Alghamdi and Hamza Alghamdi reserve one-way tickets for United Airlines 175. • Ahmed Al Haznawi buys a ticket for United Airlines Flight 93.

source

 

[FridgeMagnet]

This doesn't follow.

Say the people that the USG alleges were the hijackers were in fact not, and the whole thing was an attempt to make it look like they knew what was going on. It does not then follow that the planes were not hijacked (by people) at all and were in fact remote controlled or whatever.

The UK govt blamed the Birmingham Six for the pub bombings. They were innocent. Does that mean pubs were bombed in Birmingham by remote control?

blah blah blah

This is a logical fallacy that you've been consistently promoting on several threads here. Care to address it?

The validity of the USG's theory has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of any alternatives. None.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Laptop:

To be fair, the point Fela was responding to the editors rather spurious point regarding the USG needing no 'pretext' to launch a war on North Vietnam.

I say 'spurious' because the event that was cited as justification for that war - the Gulf of Tonkin 'Incident' - looks now as if it quite probably never actually took place:

In an attempt to possibly lure the North Vietnamese into an engagement, both the Maddox and the C. Turner Joy were in the gulf on August 4. The captain of the Maddox had read his ship’s instruments as saying that the ship was under attack or had been attacked and began an immediate retaliatory strike into the night. The two ships began firing into the night rapidly with American warplanes supporting the showcasing of the American firepower. However, the odd thing was that the captain had concluded hours later that there might not have been an actual attack. James B. Stockdale, who was a pilot of a Crusader jet, undertook a reconnaissance flight over the waters that evening and when asked if he witnessed any North Vietnamese attack vessels, Stockdale replied: "Not a one. No boats, no wakes, no ricochets [sic] off boats, no boat impacts, no torpedo wakes-nothing but black sea and American firepower." [1]

If we take a look at President Johnson's Message to Congress following the 'incident', I can see a number of chilling parallels with the pronouncements made by Bush regarding Iraq, etc. eg:

Our purpose is peace. We have no military, political, or territorial ambitions in the area...

..a struggle for freedom on every front of human activity. Our military and economic assistance to South Vietnam and Laos in particular has the purpose of helping these countries...

The threat to the free nations...

..the North Vietnamese regime has maintained military forces, used Laotian territory for infiltration into South Vietnam, and most recently carried out combat operations - all in direct violation of the Geneva Agreements of 1962...

The incident took place in 1964 - I'm not sure that there was as much of an 'alternative media' then, although certainly the 'The Times They Were A-Changin'.

-

Say the people that the USG alleges were the hijackers were in fact not, and the whole thing was an attempt to make it look like they knew what was going on. It does not then follow that the planes were not hijacked (by people) at all and were in fact remote controlled or whatever.

Indeed, Fridge. But it would indicate that the story as presented to us (concerning hijack) is false. You propose that if they were not hijacked by those alledged by the USG, then they may have been hijacked by 'someone' else?

Just for the record, is there still anyone here (who has read WouldBe's and my own posts towards the end of the 'Robolander' thread) who still disputes the technical possibility of the 'remote theory'?

The validity of the USG's theory has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of any alternatives. None.

If the USG's theory were shown to be invalid, logically one of the alternatives - whether it's one we have considered or not - must therefore be valid.

That's no logical fallacy.

-

One point regarding the lack of CCTV or other evidence of the alledged hijackers boarding the flights in question (remember, we have only a double time-stamped still of only one alledged hijacker at an airport from which none of the flights originated) that I am surprised no-one has made (apologies if it has) is that footage from CCTV of 'hijackers' boarding the doomed flights would quite possibly show other people who were on the flights.

In my view, this could provide a logical explanation as to why such footage might be witheld - to spare the friends and relatives the trauma of seeing them boarding the flights in the company of their alledged killers.

Despite this, it would still be perfectly possible to 'zoom in' on the faces of the 'hijackers' and show them, thus avoiding the issue above.

Anyway, here is a page that contains links to the mainstream media reports (ignore the rest of it if you prefer) concerning eight of the alledged hijackers still being alive.

 

[fela fan]

Be sure to back up your ad hominem attack with some examples of me posting up moronic gibberish like:

Oh, and have you found those references to 'tinfoil hatters' in this thread that you accused me of?

No? So that'll be yet another irrelevant, personal attack.

Hypocrite.

I didn't post what you quoted me posting, so get the poster right.

I don't know whose posts you read, but you barely glance through mine. I think this is now the fourth time i've had to tell you i accept you've not used 'tinfoil hatters' in this thread, but you can't seem to understand this. Have you never used this term? Coz i reckon you have in other 911 threads, like i said.

I don't do personal attacks in the same way as you do. You just roll them off your tongue for fun. If i do do the odd one, it is only to make a point in reaction to personal attacks aimed at me.

Everyone's a hypocrite at times, some just more often than others. Why, you're one just for simply calling me one.

 

[fela fan]

So as no one can proove that the planes were remote controlled then that theory must be a red herring as well then.

If you like. But my point has been about asking for some consistency, and hence me starting this thread.

I've now asked for some evidence that backs up the USG version, but none, not one iota has been forthcoming.

And my point? That plenty on these other 911 threads have incessantly called for evidence to back up their beliefs that the official version isn't what it says it is.

When their own question is directed back at them, silence becomes a deafening roar.

Different rules for those with different opinons seems to be the rule of the day here on urban.

 

[fela fan]

Silly me.

I could have sworn I spent the 70s working in alternative media. And therefore reading the Berkely Barb, the quasi-Maoist Guardian out of Chicago, the Village Voice, the International Times, Guele Ouverte, Die Tagezeitung... and so on.

...

No, I know this has nothing to do with the evidence you ask for. But it says a lot about your approach in argumentation, doesn't it? Air, an, assertion, from, thin, pluck: rearrange.

Now, as for your assertions about the alleged hijackers: Are there not witness accounts of several of them going to the trouble of buying tickets, in at least one case with cash? Of course that doesn't prove they got on the plane. Neither would airport CCTV prove that. Only photos of them on the plane would prove that, and if those showed up someone would be along in a minute to state that they must be forgeries.

And I still reckon it doesn't much matter.

Even if everyone here suddenly saw the light and agreed "Yes, O fela: the US government done it": what difference would it make? Would the people of the USA rise up to overthrow said government? If not, what is the point?

You're splitting hairs.

I'm not really here making assertions. I post my beliefs, and plenty of questions.

And if everyone suddenly said that the USG did it, i think that would be most profound, and would have rather a large political ramification. For one, with the momemtum, evidence would be uncovered, and bush et al would find themselves behind bars.

 

[WouldBe]

Wouldbe, a couple of points if I may.

You appear not to remember basic metalwork quite right. at 400ºC steel takes on a very faint reddish hue that is only visible in darkness. At this temp it's structural integrity is virtually unaffected. 'Cherry Red' comes on at around 800ºC, at which temperature is is still fairly strong

I had my doubts about this when I posted as I did basic metalwork 20 years ago but after posting I did a search on google and found this.

while the deck steel reaches nearly 700°C at end of fire. At thistemperature steel, looses most of its strength

Source university of Edinburgh civil engineering dept, fire damage research.

The fact that steel can be worked when 'Cherry Red' shows how much it's strength has been reduced and considering the substantial forces of the WTC above the impact sites it's hardly suprising that the building collapsed.

IIRC, Your point '7' is flatly contradicted by all available reports, which suggest that the only aircraft to fly below radar level was AA77, and that was only for a minute or so as it approached the Pentagon.

As I understand the flight paths of the aircraft already shown in other links are taken from radar tracks. In the links flight 77's path is unknown from just after it's departure from the scheduled flight path over Ohio and is shown in the links as a dotted line for this reason. The only way it's flight path could be unknown is if it was flying below radar.

 

[Irish Bandit]

None of the hijackers names appear on any of the passenger manifests. Unless I'm very much mistaken this would indicate that all of the alleged 'hijackers' failed to check in.

Apparently the USG can make four airliners explode on top of each other but they can't insert names into a passenger list. Has it ever occurred to you that the airlines removed the names of the hijackers as a courtesy to the families of their victims?

 

[WouldBe]

Apparently the USG can make four airliners explode on top of each other but they can't insert names into a passenger list. Has it ever occurred to you that the airlines removed the names of the hijackers as a courtesy to the families of their victims?

Or that they used false ID to get onboard the flights. One of the suspected terrorists was in Saudi on the day before and the day of the attacks, so false ID was used by one of the terrorists to have been in the US to start with.

 

[WouldBe]

Dewdney in his fairy tale suggests that the aircraft could have been made to land at Harrisburg airport or other airport nearby. I have done a google search and the only airport I can find within a 100km radius of Harrisburg capable of handling a 767 is Harrisburg it self. This is a busy international airport. So why are there no witnesses at the airport of 4 aircraft landing and taxying to hangers instead of the terminal buildings?

Dewdney also claims in his fairy story that in his theory the only people you would need to keep quiet was the ATC's but now you would also have to keep all the staff and passengers at Harrisburg airport quiet as well.

I see Dewdney has updated his website in the last few days. On the site his co fairy teller Longspaugh claims that only the front wall of the pentagon was damaged and that this was insufficient damage to have been caused by a 757. In Dewdney's update he includes photo's of the hole in the back of C ring !!!!!

With regards to his statement

I was amazed to see these two jets were flying closely behind the other [sic], nose to tail, and what was most amazing was that they were perfectly spaced, about fifty feet apart, with absolutely no fluctuations in their spacing. It looked just like one plane was towing the other.

Has the man never heard of jet wash. Aircraft have to have a spacing of at least a minute to prevent jet wash from the front aircraft causing severe problems with the engines of the following aircraft. Now even I with my poor maths can see without even doing the calculations that 50 feet is going to be well under the 1 minute of separation. The aircraft that crashed in Queens was thought to have been brought down by jet wash.

 

[bigfish]

Apparently the USG can make four airliners explode on top of each other but they can't insert names into a passenger list. Has it ever occurred to you that the airlines removed the names of the hijackers as a courtesy to the families of their victims?

I'm not interested in your speculations or your subjective opinion IB.

If you have any evidence to support your position then I suggest you cite it... fast! Otherwise it's all just hot air I'm afraid.

If the hijackers names were removed from the published passenger manifests out of respect for those killed as you suggest then that means the original manifests must have been edited versions... so where are the original versions?

Where are the eye-witness statements from ground staff confirming the presence of the 'hijackers' at all of the airports on the morning of September 11?

Where is the CCTV footage showing them passing through the airports in question?

Until anyone can categorically prove that all of the 19 alleged 'hijackers' were actually in the airports on that fateful morning and that they actually boarded the four aircraft concerned, this element of the official version should be regarded as a complete "paranoid fantasy".

So, what we're left with if proof is not forthcoming is a "paranoid fantasy" sitting as the filling in a sandwich of planted evidence. The hire cars containing the teach yourself to fly a jumbo jet manuals along with the obligatory Korans as well as Mr Atta's suitcase containing the famous letter which was left on the carousel at portland airport make up one slice, while the miraculous survival and recovery of Mr Atta's passport found a few blocks away from the 9/11 site make up the other.

 

[bigfish]

Or that they used false ID to get onboard the flights. One of the suspected terrorists was in Saudi on the day before and the day of the attacks, so false ID was used by one of the terrorists to have been in the US to start with.

But why would the 'hijackers' use false ID after purchasing their tickets in their real names in the first place?

 

[editor]

So, what we're left with if proof is not forthcoming is a "paranoid fantasy" sitting as the filling in a sandwich of planted evidence. The hire cars containing the teach yourself to fly a jumbo jet manuals along with the obligatory Korans as well as Mr Atta's suitcase containing the famous letter which was left on the carousel at portland airport make up one slice, while the miraculous survival and recovery of Mr Atta's passport found a few blocks away from the 9/11 site make up the other.

Exactly what actual proof have you that the evidence was 'planted'?

 

[bigfish]

Exactly what actual proof have you that the evidence was 'planted'?

I have no proof that the evidence is real... do you?

But in any case the hire cars along with their contents do not prove that any of the 'hijackers' passed through any of the airports. At the very best if genuine these 'finds' may prove that some of the suspects passed through the car parks, though somehow I very much doubt it.

Any eye-witness accounts of the 'hijackers leaving their cars in the car parks?

Any CCTV?

 

[editor]

Any eye-witness accounts of the 'hijackers leaving their cars in the car parks?

So if it wasn't them, who hijacked the planes then?

And who were the passengers referring to in the phone calls?

 

[bigfish]

So if it wasn't them, who hijacked the planes then?

If you are unable to establish in fact that 19 Al-Q operatives passed through any of the airports and then boarded the planes... then one thing's for sure, it wasn't them.

If you are unable to produce any evidence that the planes were actually physically hijacked by operatives belonging to a group other than Al-Q as FM appears to be now suggesting... then it wasn't them either.

And who were the passengers referring to in the phone calls?

If Al-Q or any other group did not hijack the aircraft then the calls must be fakes and the people you refer to above as "the passengers" most likely are spooks. No other explanation that I am aware of other than one involving psyops fits.

 

[fela fan]

But, bearing in mind the thread title, there hasn't been a single scrap of evidence to support the USG position.

Not a fucking iota of evidence.

Which is what some jokers/CTs continuously call for.

I want concrete, unassailable evidence that the USG version can hold.

But, nothing is forthcoming is it? What a fucking surprise.

Why is that?

 

[editor]

If Al-Q or any other group did not hijack the aircraft then the calls must be fakes and the people you refer to above as "the passengers" most likely are spooks. No other explanation that I am aware of other than one involving psyops fits.

So you think it's even remotely possible that there was a crack team of CIA Mike Yarwoods on hand that were so brilliantly capable of foxing loved ones that even a couple married for ten years wouldn't be able to tell the difference - even over the course of four phone calls?!

Face it: it's preposterous. And deeply insulting to those still cherishing their last words with their loved ones. Have you any idea how hard it would be to fake such calls?

You'd have to know the accent, timbre, tone, speed, pronounciation and pet names. So how did they do it?

And unless you've got some damm good proof, how dare you accuse a father of not being able to spot the difference between his own son and a CIA Rory Bremner.

Businessman Peter Hanson, who was with his wife and baby on the United Airlines flight 175 that hit the World Trade Center, called his father in Connecticut. Despite being cut off twice, he managed to report how men armed with knives were stabbing flight attendants, apparently in an attempt to force crew to unlock the doors to the cockpit. "A stewardess has been stabbed... the plane is going down," he said, before being cut off.
BBC

 

[fela fan]

So you think it's even remotely possible that there was a crack team of CIA Mike Yarwoods on hand that were so brilliantly capable of foxing loved ones that even a couple married for ten years wouldn't be able to tell the difference - even over the course of four phone calls?!

Face it: it's preposterous. And deeply insulting to those still cherishing their last words with their loved ones. Have you any idea how hard it would be to fake such calls?

You'd have to know the accent, timbre, tone, speed, pronounciation and pet names. So how did they do it?

And unless you've got some damm good proof, how dare you accuse a father of not being able to spot the difference between his own son and a CIA Rory Bremner.

God, you sound so fucking insulted. I mean, it's so deeply insulting isn't it?? It's so terrible...

It would be most easy to fake a call. I mentioned before the case of dozens of Japanese people who were just so 'conned' that they were listening to a 'loved' one.

You're so fixated on your own experiences on life, it precludes you from thinking straight.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

If you are unable to produce any evidence that the planes were actually physically hijacked by operatives belonging to a group other than Al-Q as FM appears to be now suggesting...

I suggested no such thing.

My post, which contained no references to other groups anyway - not sure quite where you got that bit from - made no suggestions, any more than saying "if unicorns had wings they could fly" is a suggestion that unicorns have wings.

It was in fact a criticism of your continually repeated assertion that, if the USG is wrong about the names of the hijackers, the planes can't have been hijacked at all and must have been remotely controlled, which is about as sensible as saying that if they were wrong it must have been aliens that did it. (I should have used a different word to "validity" in hindsight, it should have been something like "truth".)

I must say that it takes a certain chutzpah to ignore the post and then misquote it later for a different purpose.