| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | The premise of your arguement has been so far not what happened on 9/11 and what evidence has been presented since but the trial of Mouassouari. |
No, the premise of my argument has been "please suggest some conceivable evidence which, were I to pretend to be a troofer, I could not casually reject with some vague innuendo".
When you realise how easy it is to shrug off any possible evidence, you will realise that you have been trapped in the infinite loop of conspiracy theory logic where evidence that the conspiracy doesn't exist is evidence that the conspiracy is being covered up.
The same logic applies when you come here asking for a conspiracy theory to be debunked, and if anyone responds you take that as proof the conspiracy theory is true, otherwise why would anyone bother to debunk it?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
3 pages in and I am still waiting for some good evidence in this thread.
It has to come down to the detail because there undoubtedly was a plot to fly airplanes into towers and there were people recruited to be involved with such a plot. But that still does not provide any evidence that Flight 77 was ever anywhere near Washington. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | 3 pages in and I am still waiting for some good evidence in this thread.
It has to come down to the detail because there undoubtedly was a plot to fly airplanes into towers and there were people recruited to be involved with such a plot. But that still does not provide any evidence that Flight 77 was ever anywhere near Washington. |
Well it was provided...
A picture of a made in China blade.
Pictures of intact passports after explosions fires which brought down skyscrapers!
Still images allegedly of Arabs at airports.
A guilty plea by one man.
Western Union balance transfers.
They even unearthed DNA (how did they have it in the first place one wonders).
Motive is lacking. ( being Arab doesn't make you anti-American but being part of the US government does make you anti-Arab)
No videos of any planes on 2 out of the 4 crash sites. No videos at any airport. No proof Al Quaeda exists other than a figment of the US CIA's imagination. No connection with a man in a cave other than hearsay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | But that still does not provide any evidence that Flight 77 was ever anywhere near Washington. |
All the witness accounts of both the crash and the crash site afterwards. The recovery of body parts and parts of the plane. All witnesses concur that the plane hit the pentagon, including the CITGO witnesses. Other than video evidence (very few plane crashes are ever caught on video), what evidence is actually missing from the Pentagon crash?
Mineta's testimony also supports Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | 3 pages in and I am still waiting for some good evidence in this thread.
It has to come down to the detail because there undoubtedly was a plot to fly airplanes into towers and there were people recruited to be involved with such a plot. But that still does not provide any evidence that Flight 77 was ever anywhere near Washington. |
I take it like conspiracy analyst you haven't actually bothered to look at the links supplied. Here it is again though:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Moussaoui_evidence_0801.html
Now this is definitely evidence, no two ways about that - you may say that it's not enough evidence to convince you but it's still definitely evidence.
Here's the crux though - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon! If you disagree with that statement then you have to produce evidence to back this up. So the big question: what evidence do you have that something other than a plane hit the pentagon?
Surely that can't be difficult. I have produced evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, you weren't happy with that evidence, that's fair enough. It is still the only evidence out there though and it's firmly on the side of a plane. So if you evidence of something else please present it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | But that still does not provide any evidence that Flight 77 was ever anywhere near Washington. |
All the witness accounts of both the crash and the crash site afterwards. The recovery of body parts and parts of the plane. All witnesses concur that the plane hit the pentagon, including the CITGO witnesses. Other than video evidence (very few plane crashes are ever caught on video), what evidence is actually missing from the Pentagon crash?
Mineta's testimony also supports Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. |
Mineta's testimony does not support that at all. In the commision hearings he spoke only of the conversation between Cheney and an unknown man concerning the whereabouts of a plane. He doesn't state that the plane in question was flight 77 and even admits that he didn't know what the conversation related to at the time he witnessed it. Cheney and the unknown male could have been talking about any plane, a missile or even a flying pig for all Mineta knew. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jonnolad wrote: |
...
Here's the crux though - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon! If you disagree with that statement then you have to produce evidence to back this up. So the big question: what evidence do you have that something other than a plane hit the pentagon?
Surely that can't be difficult. I have produced evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, you weren't happy with that evidence, that's fair enough. It is still the only evidence out there though and it's firmly on the side of a plane. So if you evidence of something else please present it. |
And this is the essence of the 'scientific method'.
It might - conceivably - be possible that something other than AA77 hit The Pentagon. But, so far, the currently accepted theory (CAT) - backed by considerable evidence - is that it did.
It is not for proponents of the CAT to endlessly defend that theory. It's for gainsayers to not only propose an alternative but also to provide evidence for that alternative. Evidence that is stronger than that which supports the CAT.
This is how science progresses. No theory is immune from attack, but any would-be successor has to prove itself superior.
As far as Pentagon CT goes there might well be snippets and oddities that would cause anyone to raise an eyebrow. But those snippets alone do not constitute a superior theory. They do, though, impress those who are easily impressed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | Jonnolad wrote: |
...
Here's the crux though - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything other than a plane hit the Pentagon! If you disagree with that statement then you have to produce evidence to back this up. So the big question: what evidence do you have that something other than a plane hit the pentagon?
Surely that can't be difficult. I have produced evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, you weren't happy with that evidence, that's fair enough. It is still the only evidence out there though and it's firmly on the side of a plane. So if you evidence of something else please present it. |
And this is the essence of the 'scientific method'.
It might - conceivably - be possible that something other than AA77 hit The Pentagon. But, so far, the currently accepted theory (CAT) - backed by considerable evidence - is that it did.
It is not for proponents of the CAT to endlessly defend that theory. It's for gainsayers to not only propose an alternative but also to provide evidence for that alternative. Evidence that is stronger than that which supports the CAT.
This is how science progresses. No theory is immune from attack, but any would-be successor has to prove itself superior.
As far as Pentagon CT goes there might well be snippets and oddities that would cause anyone to raise an eyebrow. But those snippets alone do not constitute a superior theory. They do, though, impress those who are easily impressed. |
The problem is that what evidence is found by the truth movement it is instantly dismissed by the critics, who cite counter arguments from the official story - which is poor scientific method in itself. Since the critics are no more in receipt of direct evidence than the truth movement, there will be inevitable stalemate so the idea of using strong evidence is rather silly. It all comes down to strange probabilities, distortions, cover-ups, inconsistencies and amazing coincidences and there's plenty of all of those in the OT.
Although I'd agree that the onus is normally on the truth movement to present good reasons for the alternative view, since this is a 9/11 forum and this is the critics corner, the onus is actually on the critics to present solid evidence in support of the OT. After all, you have been easily impressed by the the US government's version of events to back it without question and so you must give good reason as to why you think the Bush administration is telling the absolute truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | But that still does not provide any evidence that Flight 77 was ever anywhere near Washington. |
All the witness accounts of both the crash and the crash site afterwards. The recovery of body parts and parts of the plane. All witnesses concur that the plane hit the pentagon, including the CITGO witnesses. Other than video evidence (very few plane crashes are ever caught on video), what evidence is actually missing from the Pentagon crash?
Mineta's testimony also supports Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. |
Mineta's testimony does not support that at all. In the commision hearings he spoke only of the conversation between Cheney and an unknown man concerning the whereabouts of a plane. He doesn't state that the plane in question was flight 77 and even admits that he didn't know what the conversation related to at the time he witnessed it. Cheney and the unknown male could have been talking about any plane, a missile or even a flying pig for all Mineta knew. |
You're absolutely right about Mineta - I have been reading up on his testimony and it is a confusing mess that correlates with absolutely none of the other evidence presented. Most likely his timing is massively out. Thanks for correcting me on that.
My other question still stands - apart from video footage, what evidence could anyone possibly expect from a plane crash at the Pentagon that hasn't been provided? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | But that still does not provide any evidence that Flight 77 was ever anywhere near Washington. |
All the witness accounts of both the crash and the crash site afterwards. The recovery of body parts and parts of the plane. All witnesses concur that the plane hit the pentagon, including the CITGO witnesses. Other than video evidence (very few plane crashes are ever caught on video), what evidence is actually missing from the Pentagon crash?
Mineta's testimony also supports Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. |
Mineta's testimony does not support that at all. In the commision hearings he spoke only of the conversation between Cheney and an unknown man concerning the whereabouts of a plane. He doesn't state that the plane in question was flight 77 and even admits that he didn't know what the conversation related to at the time he witnessed it. Cheney and the unknown male could have been talking about any plane, a missile or even a flying pig for all Mineta knew. |
You're absolutely right about Mineta - I have been reading up on his testimony and it is a confusing mess that correlates with absolutely none of the other evidence presented. Most likely his timing is massively out. Thanks for correcting me on that.
My other question still stands - apart from video footage, what evidence could anyone possibly expect from a plane crash at the Pentagon that hasn't been provided? |
As I've just said on another thread, hard evidence is extremely difficult to come by. It's essentially your word against ours when it comes to photographs and witnesss statements. Personally I would have expected to see a significantly damaged lawn and a lot more plane parts lying about outside. I also question how the facade remained standing for half an hour almost intact and with limited damage. Then there are those statements from experienced pilots who claim an inexperienced pilot just wouldn't have been able to execute the manoeuver necessary to hit the wall so precisely. There is also the question of the flight path and why the plane travelled so far out before coming back to almost where it had started from. Mineta's comments are very revealing since Cheney was not supposed to be aware of any object travelling toward the Pentagon at that time. According to Cheney he wasn't aware until the very last minute so Mineta's testimony clearly contradicts that. Why did the plane hit the newly refurbished wing and not smack into the roof to cause greater damage? Why did the FBI take away the (clean) plane parts so quickly, many by hand, before any sort of investigation could be completed - just look at how long it has taken to sort out the recent crash at Heathrow.
These questions are too complex to dismiss as the products of an over active imagination which is why 9/11 is not a cut and dry case.
Thanks for discussing the Mineta case with decency and without resorting to bad language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | The premise of your arguement has been so far not what happened on 9/11 and what evidence has been presented since but the trial of Mouassouari. |
No, the premise of my argument has been "please suggest some conceivable evidence which, were I to pretend to be a troofer, I could not casually reject with some vague innuendo".
When you realise how easy it is to shrug off any possible evidence, you will realise that you have been trapped in the infinite loop of conspiracy theory logic where evidence that the conspiracy doesn't exist is evidence that the conspiracy is being covered up.
The same logic applies when you come here asking for a conspiracy theory to be debunked, and if anyone responds you take that as proof the conspiracy theory is true, otherwise why would anyone bother to debunk it? |
Evidence is normally linked alongside motive.
Being an Arab is no evidence of being Anti-American but being American does produce evidence of being anti-Arab as the 50 or so vetoes in support of Israel.
So the onus is on you to show how the evidence which is presented of a boxcutter and still images of Arabs at an airport has anything to do with 9/11 and not with the Bush family and their rich friends eg Silverstein who profited from the collapse of the towers.
There is motive for Bush=war and oil.
There is profit=Silverstein.
There are fake witnesses=Mousaourri.
You produce disconnected 'evidence' from the actors of the crime.
Where is their alleged anti-American profile?
Bodyparts on a plane in and of itself again is no proof of anything.
The whole central premise of 9/11 is that there were Arabs who instituted it and that in some way they were linked with Al Quaeda and that Al Quaeda is an anti-American organisation and not an American one.
It isn't an issue of belief but of hard facts. CIA assets like Bin Laden never come off the payroll even when they want to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | | pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | The premise of your arguement has been so far not what happened on 9/11 and what evidence has been presented since but the trial of Mouassouari. |
No, the premise of my argument has been "please suggest some conceivable evidence which, were I to pretend to be a troofer, I could not casually reject with some vague innuendo".
When you realise how easy it is to shrug off any possible evidence, you will realise that you have been trapped in the infinite loop of conspiracy theory logic where evidence that the conspiracy doesn't exist is evidence that the conspiracy is being covered up.
The same logic applies when you come here asking for a conspiracy theory to be debunked, and if anyone responds you take that as proof the conspiracy theory is true, otherwise why would anyone bother to debunk it? |
Evidence is normally linked alongside motive.
Being an Arab is no evidence of being Anti-American but being American does produce evidence of being anti-Arab as the 50 or so vetoes in support of Israel.
So the onus is on you to show how the evidence which is presented of a boxcutter and still images of Arabs at an airport has anything to do with 9/11 and not with the Bush family and their rich friends eg Silverstein who profited from the collapse of the towers.
There is motive for Bush=war and oil.
There is profit=Silverstein.
There are fake witnesses=Mousaourri.
You produce disconnected 'evidence' from the actors of the crime.
Where is their alleged anti-American profile?
Bodyparts on a plane in and of itself again is no proof of anything.
The whole central premise of 9/11 is that there were Arabs who instituted it and that in some way they were linked with Al Quaeda and that Al Quaeda is an anti-American organisation and not an American one.
It isn't an issue of belief but of hard facts. CIA assets like Bin Laden never come off the payroll even when they want to. |
I haven't seen any evidence that Bin Laden was ever a CIA asset. I know that they are linked by association with Afghanistan in the 80s, but there is no evidence of a direct link (to my knowledge). Maybe that's an issue for another thread...
One other point - I think body parts on a plane are proof of something, at least in a conventional sense - no more compelling proof could be provided that planes crashed at the Pentagon or Shanksville. You may think that the crash scenes were faked, but you would need compelling evidence to prove that to a neutral imo.
I agree that Bush could be seen to have some motive there, though it would have been easier for him all round if the terrorists had been Iraqi and not Saudi. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | ...
Although I'd agree that the onus is normally on the truth movement to present good reasons for the alternative view, since this is a 9/11 forum and this is the critics corner, the onus is actually on the critics to present solid evidence in support of the OT. After all, you have been easily impressed by the the US government's version of events to back it without question and so you must give good reason as to why you think the Bush administration is telling the absolute truth. |
Critic's Corner on a 9/11 forum isn't a reflection of the real world James. Scientific principles aren't suspended here just because 9/11 sceptics are in a minority on this particular forum.
We sceptics don't need to prove the OT. It is the OT. Do you understand that? Just as the heliocentric theory of the workings of the Solar System wouldn't need "proving" on a Flat-Earther forum (or whatever) just because it's full of people who believe the sun revolves around the Earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We sceptics don't need to prove the OT. It is the OT. Do you understand that? Just as the heliocentric theory of the workings of the Solar System wouldn't need "proving" on a Flat-Earther forum (or whatever) just because it's full of people who believe the sun revolves around the Earth. |
flat earth use to be the offical theory long ago, so i agree the OT is the OT, but it dos'nt mean its right does it, just because its the OT.
thank christ people worked out the earth was'nt flat, and people did'nt just dismiss it, well after a thousand years of denial that is.
there has to be reasons to believe the OT the same as their has to be reasons not to believe the OT.
all i think people are asking for is reasons to believe the OT, in the form of back up information rather than just repeating the OT with no back up information or evidence to certain claims.
you expect it when someone makes a claim, why would'nt anybody else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | The problem is that what evidence is found by the truth movement it is instantly dismissed by the critics, who cite counter arguments from the official story - which is poor scientific method in itself. |
Ok then - clean slate. No instant dismissals.
Let's take one specific claim from conspiracy theorists and weigh up the evidence from both sides. Forget motives or anything non-tangible like that, let's just concentrate on the evidence.
For sake of debate the obvious claim can be:
"Something other than a plane hit the pentagon."
Now I'd personally say that the evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon would be (other critics can obviously add to this):
1) Photographs of plane parts on the lawn after the impact (there are more photographs but that's one):
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecuti on/P200030.html
2) A comprehensive list (with photographs) of people who were aboard the flight and who are now missing, phone calls made from the flight, and a photograph of recovered cockpit voice recorder (this evidence is collated into a interactive executable)
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecuti on/flights/P200054.html
3) The academic research of Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna which confirmed the damage was consistent with a 757 impact:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/
4) All witnesses stated that they saw a plane.
Now importantly, as stated earlier, the objective here is not to dismiss the evidence as we'd be here all day going backwards and forwards, it's just to present the evidence on both sides.
So therefore what is the evidence which backs up the claim that something other than a plane hit the pentagon (and remember the object here isn't evidence dismissal)?
This is obviously open to all conspiracy theorists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The first picture is of a plane part.
Whether it has anything to do with the Pentagon is anybodys guess.
One cannot see the Pentagon but only a plane part.
But then again if they showed you a picture of an Arab in a turban shouting Allah Akbhar you would still call him a terrorist not because he was one but primarily the aim of western policy over the years has been to portray people not in suit and ties as criminals or gangsters but ...democrats fighting for human rights.
I understand your need to not want to analyse motive but motive is a central part of any murder investigation and it is a central feature of 9/11. Bush had the more direct motive as no WMD's existed in Iraq, Saddam had no relationship with the so-called Al Quaeda and the Yanks (ie the terrorist oil lobby from Texas) have been wanting Arab oil for free from the mid-1970's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: |
I understand your need to not want to analyse motive but motive is a central part of any murder investigation and it is a central feature of 9/11. Bush had the more direct motive as no WMD's existed in Iraq, Saddam had no relationship with the so-called Al Quaeda and the Yanks (ie the terrorist oil lobby from Texas) have been wanting Arab oil for free from the mid-1970's. |
Very well, let us examine that. You say that Bush had a motive as no WMDs existed in Iraq, Saddam had no relationship with Al Qaeda, and he wanted free oil. To then carry out a plan which blamed the attacks on Saudis, citizens of a nation he needed to buy oil from, at the instigation of Al Qaeda, who were known to have no relationship with Iraq, would therefore make little sense, and did not achieve free oil. Instead of invading Iraq, he had to invade Afghanistan, which has no oil. Then, some time later, he invaded Iraq using failure to comply with UN inspections for WMDs as his causus belli, which could have been frustrated at any time by Saddam's full co-operation with the inspectors. Bush therefore had no motive to carry out the plan claimed to have been followed.
On the other hand, the motive stated by bin Laden was that he was motivated by the 1982 Lebanon War, for which he held the U.S. partially responsible. In the 2004 video, bin Laden also claims that he wants to "restore freedom to our nation," to "punish the aggressor in kind," and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy." Bin Laden said, "We swore that America would not live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America will not get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel."
The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of Al Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Shaykh Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman. In the fatwa, Bin Laden directed his followers "to kill Americans anywhere". He also outlined his objections to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people, the ensuing sanctions against Iraq, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War. The fatwa also specifically condemns the U.S. for "plundering" the resources of the region, oppressing the people by supporting abusive regimes in the region, and dictating policy to legitimate leaders. It also opposes the presence of U.S. military bases and installations in the region, especially on Muslim holy land, which are used to threaten Muslim countries, while fomenting disunity and strife. By a similar token, it decries the continued refusal to address the occupation of Palestine.
So Bush had no motive, but Bin Laden did have a motive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | The first picture is of a plane part.
Whether it has anything to do with the Pentagon is anybodys guess.
One cannot see the Pentagon but only a plane part.
.... |
This is precisely the "evidence dismissal" that Jonnolad's original post asked people to avoid for the sake of this particular debate.
I would add to Jonnolad's list the fact that every passenger on AA77 (except one child, I believe) was identified by DNA samples taken at The Pentagon crash site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: |
I understand your need to not want to analyse motive but motive is a central part of any murder investigation and it is a central feature of 9/11. Bush had the more direct motive as no WMD's existed in Iraq, Saddam had no relationship with the so-called Al Quaeda and the Yanks (ie the terrorist oil lobby from Texas) have been wanting Arab oil for free from the mid-1970's. |
Very well, let us examine that. You say that Bush had a motive as no WMDs existed in Iraq, Saddam had no relationship with Al Qaeda, and he wanted free oil. To then carry out a plan which blamed the attacks on Saudis, citizens of a nation he needed to buy oil from, at the instigation of Al Qaeda, who were known to have no relationship with Iraq, would therefore make little sense, and did not achieve free oil. Instead of invading Iraq, he had to invade Afghanistan, which has no oil. Then, some time later, he invaded Iraq using failure to comply with UN inspections for WMDs as his causus belli, which could have been frustrated at any time by Saddam's full co-operation with the inspectors. Bush therefore had no motive to carry out the plan claimed to have been followed.
On the other hand, the motive stated by bin Laden was that he was motivated by the 1982 Lebanon War, for which he held the U.S. partially responsible. In the 2004 video, bin Laden also claims that he wants to "restore freedom to our nation," to "punish the aggressor in kind," and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy." Bin Laden said, "We swore that America would not live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America will not get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel."
The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of Al Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Shaykh Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman. In the fatwa, Bin Laden directed his followers "to kill Americans anywhere". He also outlined his objections to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people, the ensuing sanctions against Iraq, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War. The fatwa also specifically condemns the U.S. for "plundering" the resources of the region, oppressing the people by supporting abusive regimes in the region, and dictating policy to legitimate leaders. It also opposes the presence of U.S. military bases and installations in the region, especially on Muslim holy land, which are used to threaten Muslim countries, while fomenting disunity and strife. By a similar token, it decries the continued refusal to address the occupation of Palestine.
So Bush had no motive, but Bin Laden did have a motive. |
I dont recall Bin Laden being involved in 9/11 or Mousaourri.
The 18 or was it 19 hijackers though allegedly were.
At least on the day Blair joined Zurich Insurance you run the same political line about assigning a motive to man in a cave who doesn't even exist as according to the late Robin Cook Al Quaeda was just a computer name assigned to operatives on the CIA payroll.
http://www.zurich.com/main/productsandsolutions/industryinsight/2005/a pril2005/industryinsight20050413_004.htm
So producing quotes from a manufactured asset and then relating it to 9/11 is similar to what the neo-cons did when they alleged Al CIAda was linked to Saddam.
Free drugs and free oil have always been part of Empires raison d'etres.
Only the Americans had a motive for the subsequent wars no one else.
If Al CIAda existed they would have carried out attacks in the last 6 years. They didn't and this proves they dont exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
9/11 was bin Laden's idea, he did not do the detailed planning nor take part in it.
Conspiracists are always obsessed with the silly, rather racist nonsense about "a man in a cave" not being able to plan such an operation, for some strange reason. Bin Laden was not living in a cave until the the invasion of Afghanistan, before that he occupied the very extensive Tarnak Farm training complex.
Robin Cook did not say Bin Laden or Al Qaeda did not exist, he said:
"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west."
Actually of course there is no evidence at all that the CIA armed Bin Laden, and given his hatred of America it is most unlikely he would have co-operated with them in any way.
As for your nonsense that Al Qaeda has committed no attacks in the last six years, this is their believed record, including affiliates and associates:
Paris embassy attack plot (2001)
Singapore embassies attack plot (2001)
Kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (2002)
Ghriba synagogue bombing in Djerba, Tunisia (2002)
Foiled bombings of Western warships in the Strait of Gibraltar (2002)
Limburg tanker bombing (2002)
Kenyan hotel bombing in Mombasa and the attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner (2002)
Riyadh Compound Bombings (2003)
2003 Casablanca bombings
2003 Istanbul bombings
2004 Madrid bombings
2005 London bombing
2005 Jordan attacks
2007 Algiers bombings
and about 48 major attacks in Iraq.
I notice you ignore the pointers against Bush having any motive for the 9/11 attacks as carried out by mostly Saudis.
Last edited by Bushwacker on Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've been lacking in time recently - apologies. I'd like to collect all together all the dubious Pentagon evidence but it could take some time.
Anyway, on point 3 above, you may want to consider whether this helps your case or not. For example :-
| Quote: | | Most of the aircraft structure is light-weight low-mass, and relatively low strength, with the exception of the wheel undercarriage. |
followed by an image of a plane that doesn't seem to have any engines. They appear to be working backwards from the damage to see how it was caused rather than questioning whether the large plane would have caused this damage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think we can abandon all hope of seeing responses based on anything other than evidence dismissal, troofers have been conditioned to automatically respond in this way.
This is the second challenge they have failed lately - the first being a request that they imagine some sort of evidence which could realistically be provided to prove the official version, which couldn't be flippantly dismissed.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | I think we can abandon all hope of seeing responses based on anything other than evidence dismissal, troofers have been conditioned to automatically respond in this way.
This is the second challenge they have failed lately - the first being a request that they imagine some sort of evidence which could realistically be provided to prove the official version, which couldn't be flippantly dismissed. |
Keep using that word "troofer" - it adds a mature quality to your posts which might otherwise be lacking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | The first picture is of a plane part.
Whether it has anything to do with the Pentagon is anybodys guess.
One cannot see the Pentagon but only a plane part.
But then again if they showed you a picture of an Arab in a turban shouting Allah Akbhar you would still call him a terrorist not because he was one but primarily the aim of western policy over the years has been to portray people not in suit and ties as criminals or gangsters but ...democrats fighting for human rights.
I understand your need to not want to analyse motive but motive is a central part of any murder investigation and it is a central feature of 9/11. Bush had the more direct motive as no WMD's existed in Iraq, Saddam had no relationship with the so-called Al Quaeda and the Yanks (ie the terrorist oil lobby from Texas) have been wanting Arab oil for free from the mid-1970's. |
The debate here was to produce evidence for both sides. James C said that evidence is usually dismissed by critics so this was a big chance of a clean slate with no dismissals.
So what's the first thing you do: attempt to dismiss evidence 
Just to repeat again - this is a collation of evidence from both sides for comparison.
By dismissing evidence or discussing motives it makes it seem you don't have any evidence to produce that something other than a plane hit the pentagon. Is that the case? If it's then not please produce evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: |
I've been lacking in time recently - apologies. I'd like to collect all together all the dubious Pentagon evidence but it could take some time.
Anyway, on point 3 above, you may want to consider whether this helps your case or not. For example :-
| Quote: | | Most of the aircraft structure is light-weight low-mass, and relatively low strength, with the exception of the wheel undercarriage. |
followed by an image of a plane that doesn't seem to have any engines. They appear to be working backwards from the damage to see how it was caused rather than questioning whether the large plane would have caused this damage. |
You are doing it as well
Surely this can't be difficult; we have presented evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, please can you present evidence that something other than a plane hit. Not dismissing evidence or discussing motives. Plain and simple just present the evidence to back up the conspiracy side.
Failure to do so will just indicate that no such evidence exists of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It would seem to follow that if imagining conceivable evidence that would disprove their theory is too hard, and actually providing evidence that supports it is also impossible, there really is not really a lot going on here.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jonnolad wrote: | | KP50 wrote: |
I've been lacking in time recently - apologies. I'd like to collect all together all the dubious Pentagon evidence but it could take some time.
Anyway, on point 3 above, you may want to consider whether this helps your case or not. For example :-
| Quote: | | Most of the aircraft structure is light-weight low-mass, and relatively low strength, with the exception of the wheel undercarriage. |
followed by an image of a plane that doesn't seem to have any engines. They appear to be working backwards from the damage to see how it was caused rather than questioning whether the large plane would have caused this damage. |
You are doing it as well
Surely this can't be difficult; we have presented evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, please can you present evidence that something other than a plane hit. Not dismissing evidence or discussing motives. Plain and simple just present the evidence to back up the conspiracy side.
Failure to do so will just indicate that no such evidence exists of course. |
If you are presenting
then I take a look at
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/image1/10sep02slo w.gif
which appears to show a much narrower band of damage than one would expect with a plane of that size. Hence it would appear that the damage was caused by something much smaller. The animation shows no engines and the wings appearing to disintegrate - presumably matching the column damage in the animation with the real column damage. Thus we are forced to believe that the engines also disintegrated.
So do you want to use this as evidence that a large plane hit the Pentagon or can I use it as evidence that a large plane didn't hit the Pentagon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jonnolad wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: | The first picture is of a plane part.
Whether it has anything to do with the Pentagon is anybodys guess.
One cannot see the Pentagon but only a plane part.
But then again if they showed you a picture of an Arab in a turban shouting Allah Akbhar you would still call him a terrorist not because he was one but primarily the aim of western policy over the years has been to portray people not in suit and ties as criminals or gangsters but ...democrats fighting for human rights.
I understand your need to not want to analyse motive but motive is a central part of any murder investigation and it is a central feature of 9/11. Bush had the more direct motive as no WMD's existed in Iraq, Saddam had no relationship with the so-called Al Quaeda and the Yanks (ie the terrorist oil lobby from Texas) have been wanting Arab oil for free from the mid-1970's. |
The debate here was to produce evidence for both sides. James C said that evidence is usually dismissed by critics so this was a big chance of a clean slate with no dismissals.
So what's the first thing you do: attempt to dismiss evidence
Just to repeat again - this is a collation of evidence from both sides for comparison.
By dismissing evidence or discussing motives it makes it seem you don't have any evidence to produce that something other than a plane hit the pentagon. Is that the case? If it's then not please produce evidence. |
If you present me a picture with an Arab with a turban on and then say brainstorm your feelings then if I was Martin Amis I would say ...terrorist.
If you show me a plane part and you present it to me as evidence how can I accept that it has anything to do with 9/11.
What you are saying essentially is as this was the evidence presented at a trial subsequent to 9/11 by the security agencies of the USA one has to accept it as evidence as they presented it. That does not make it evidence because security services provide it. Its just propaganda.
Knowing how to distinguish evidence from propaganda as opposed to faith in the security services is a political act, one which uses the past as a guide to action.
So far I have been told by an array of pro-Bush apologists that
a) evidence is what is provided by the security services
b) a trial after 9/11 proves complicity about 9/11 with Bin Laden
c) someone only pleads guilty when they are
d) DNA evidence is proof positive of Arab complicity on 9/11
e) because the alleged hijackers were Saudi they had more motive than Bush.
I am still waiting to see the evidence though from multiple sources.
All of the above five can be explained as after the event plants.
You have no way of presenting that they cant all be police plants.
Before you argue the police dont get people to plead guilty they do plant evidence though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: |
<snip>
What you are saying essentially is as this was the evidence presented at a trial subsequent to 9/11 by the security agencies of the USA one has to accept it as evidence as they presented it. That does not make it evidence because security services provide it. Its just propaganda.
<snip> |
No - it might be propaganda.
You have just characterised all evidence from official sources as propaganda.
Don't you see that when you say things like this you're just presenting yourself as a person who is hell-bent on seeing conspiracy everywhere? And, therefore, all evidence is dismissible. So round you go in a tight little circle of self-perpetuating paranoia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: |
<snip>
What you are saying essentially is as this was the evidence presented at a trial subsequent to 9/11 by the security agencies of the USA one has to accept it as evidence as they presented it. That does not make it evidence because security services provide it. Its just propaganda.
<snip> |
No - it might be propaganda.
You have just characterised all evidence from official sources as propaganda.
Don't you see that when you say things like this you're just presenting yourself as a person who is hell-bent on seeing conspiracy everywhere? And, therefore, all evidence is dismissible. So round you go in a tight little circle of self-perpetuating paranoia. |
You characterised the evidence provided by the FBI and the Bush cabal as real at the same time as you erase the geopolitical environment within which 9/11 occurred.
The end of the ex-USSR and the positioning of the USA to re-order and occupy the planet or at least those parts that could provide it with a generational advantage vis a vis its competitors.
If the evidence was provided within 6 months of 9/11 to an international agency say of the UN like the USA asked for Iraq to do I would have taken it seriously. But it did not and it provided the 'ideological' justification for the 'war on terror' ie terror oil wars.
History will record it as such even if as Bush apologists you pretend you cannot see beyond your noses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
