| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | Anyone equipped with normal human suspicion response would have questioned how they "knew who did it" micro seconds after 'through their intelligence' but were in no way forewarned by their intelligence.
|
Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that the administration received adequate warning about an impending al Qaeda attack beforehand, and yet did not have information linking the attacks to al Qaeda afterwards. |
Like I said, more than 5 years ,two and a half wars, countless thousands of fellow human beings reduced to dead meat and we still await the "smoking gun" proof OBL did it. |
What would you consider a smoking gun? I know you weren't convinced by a video of OBL saying "we did it". Strange, because you usually find videos so convincing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | Anyone equipped with normal human suspicion response would have questioned how they "knew who did it" micro seconds after 'through their intelligence' but were in no way forewarned by their intelligence.
|
Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that the administration received adequate warning about an impending al Qaeda attack beforehand, and yet did not have information linking the attacks to al Qaeda afterwards. |
Like I said, more than 5 years ,two and a half wars, countless thousands of fellow human beings reduced to dead meat and we still await the "smoking gun" proof OBL did it. |
What would you consider a smoking gun? I know you weren't convinced by a video of OBL saying "we did it". Strange, because you usually find videos so convincing. |
I prefer Shrek2 myself, I bet you consider the '911? I dunnit' OBL December 2001 CIA release, kosher! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
The official story is full of holes and keeps changing, always a bad sign. |
Absolutely, quite unlike the consistant and clear story the truthshirkers have proved, which is that Bush let 19 Arabs fly planes into buildings, the planes were taken over by remote control, there were no planes, the planes fired missiles from pods, the hijacked planes were substituted by other planes, or missiles. Fortunately we know from leading scientists exactly how the towers were destroyed, it was a hitherto unknown derivative of thermite used in a way thermite has never been used before, and it was by some Star Wars weaponry of an unknown type. Could not be clearer, and no holes there! |
My favorite part is where the cruise missile zig-zags into light poles before hitting the Pentagon while simultaneously distributing B-757 parts.
Damn! If the gubmint is good enough to come up with such astoundingly complex and stupid devices we should all give up; watch our telescreens; and let President Rube Goldberg rule the world!
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, the continued refusal to hand over confiscated private business, freeway or Pentagon CCTV security footage of whatever pierced three rings of the Pentagon on 9/11 has to rank high among the most potent of 'smoking guns'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | It was just all the inconsistencies and coincidences which even today, five years on, are still mounting up. The amount of evidence is just overwhelming. |
I am continually fascinated by the use of the word 'evidence' in the context of 9/11.
It matters not what we believe, it is entirely about what can be proven and I have zero clue what constitutes anything other than hearsay, read/write, coincidence, or supposition/assumption.
So whilst I am a firm believer in the official story being fabricated, if tomorrow you were being called upon to present 'evidence' to a new enquiry - what could possibly be presented as 'proof positive'? A simple list will suffice.
I realise we have been over this a thousand times, but the use of the word 'evidence' is just plain wrong. |
Hi Tele
I disagree.
'Facts', things that we all (or near as damn it all) agree to be true, such as the world being round are not the same as evidence.
Evidence can be witness statements. In any crime or event you can quite easily have conflicting witness statements. All of the witness statements would be evidence.
Similarly you have the video evidence showing what appears to be 'squibs'. You will have different interpretations and explanations of this evidence and depending the credibility, independence and expertese of those 'expert witnesses' you will give them different weight.
The role of a jury is judge the validity of the evidence and to weigh 'both sides' in the balance before concluding what you believe to be true.
There is one objective truth (unless we start believing in paralelel universes where 9/11 never happened), there are many facts and there is a vast mountain of evidence and opinion.
I agree with Patrick, when taken in totality this evidence overwhelming supports the theory that 9/11 was 'an inside job' and we need a new investigation. The ultimate test will be the test of public opinion but only when it is informed. Most people I would hazard a guess if asked how many towers collapsed on 9/11 would reply 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | | I agree with Patrick, when taken in totality this evidence overwhelming supports the theory that 9/11 was 'an inside job' and we need a new investigation. The ultimate test will be the test of public opinion but only when it is informed. Most people I would hazard a guess if asked how many towers collapsed on 9/11 would reply 2 |
In order to be overwhelming, the evidence can't simply be abundant, it has to fit together somehow to form a coherent picture. It doesn't.
For instance, how do you reconcile the idea that Bush & Co. destroyed the WTC to drum up support for a war with the idea that Silverstein destroyed WTC7 to collect the insurance money?
How do you reconcile the idea that a plane did not hit the Pentagon with the fact that the evidence used to "prove" this was recovered from aircraft wreckage in the Pentagon?
How do you reconcile the idea that the hijackers were invented as "bad guys" to justify war with Afghanistan and Iraq with the fact that none of the "fake" identities were of Afghans or Iraqis?
How do you reconcile the idea that the evil gubmint had no scruples against murdering thousands of innocent civilians, but drew the line at planting WMD in Iraq?
The answer: You don't, because you can't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | It was just all the inconsistencies and coincidences which even today, five years on, are still mounting up. The amount of evidence is just overwhelming. |
I am continually fascinated by the use of the word 'evidence' in the context of 9/11.
It matters not what we believe, it is entirely about what can be proven and I have zero clue what constitutes anything other than hearsay, read/write, coincidence, or supposition/assumption.
So whilst I am a firm believer in the official story being fabricated, if tomorrow you were being called upon to present 'evidence' to a new enquiry - what could possibly be presented as 'proof positive'? A simple list will suffice.
I realise we have been over this a thousand times, but the use of the word 'evidence' is just plain wrong. |
Hi Tele
I disagree.
'Facts', things that we all (or near as damn it all) agree to be true, such as the world being round are not the same as evidence.
Evidence can be witness statements. In any crime or event you can quite easily have conflicting witness statements. All of the witness statements would be evidence.
Similarly you have the video evidence showing what appears to be 'squibs'. You will have different interpretations and explanations of this evidence and depending the credibility, independence and expertese of those 'expert witnesses' you will give them different weight.
The role of a jury is judge the validity of the evidence and to weigh 'both sides' in the balance before concluding what you believe to be true.
There is one objective truth (unless we start believing in paralelel universes where 9/11 never happened), there are many facts and there is a vast mountain of evidence and opinion.
I agree with Patrick, when taken in totality this evidence overwhelming supports the theory that 9/11 was 'an inside job' and we need a new investigation. The ultimate test will be the test of public opinion but only when it is informed. Most people I would hazard a guess if asked how many towers collapsed on 9/11 would reply 2 |
But you see Ian, telecasterisation knows from his police experience what good evidence actually is, and that you have not got any. If you have no evidence that cannot be shot down, it does not matter how much of it you have got, you still have no evidence. You can show videos of "squibs" but since they do not come from the areas that collapse, and no real expert will look at them and confirm they are squibs, you have nothing. You can produce witnesses who say the Pentagon plane was smaller than a Boeing or it sounded like a missile, but since many more will say they saw an AA Boeing, you get nowhere with that. Even a single small piece of irrefutable evidence would be a start but unfortunately for you that does not exist. You will not get another inquiry without strong evidence that the generally accepted account is correct, it is no use ignoring that and hoping that an enquiry will produce the evidence for you. All the many videos with authoritative voiceovers and portentious music get you some attention when people first see them, but since they do not stand up to any examination they will not help you in the end, you need something solid and you have not got it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | ian neal wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | It was just all the inconsistencies and coincidences which even today, five years on, are still mounting up. The amount of evidence is just overwhelming. |
I am continually fascinated by the use of the word 'evidence' in the context of 9/11.
It matters not what we believe, it is entirely about what can be proven and I have zero clue what constitutes anything other than hearsay, read/write, coincidence, or supposition/assumption.
So whilst I am a firm believer in the official story being fabricated, if tomorrow you were being called upon to present 'evidence' to a new enquiry - what could possibly be presented as 'proof positive'? A simple list will suffice.
I realise we have been over this a thousand times, but the use of the word 'evidence' is just plain wrong. |
Hi Tele
I disagree.
'Facts', things that we all (or near as damn it all) agree to be true, such as the world being round are not the same as evidence.
Evidence can be witness statements. In any crime or event you can quite easily have conflicting witness statements. All of the witness statements would be evidence.
Similarly you have the video evidence showing what appears to be 'squibs'. You will have different interpretations and explanations of this evidence and depending the credibility, independence and expertese of those 'expert witnesses' you will give them different weight.
The role of a jury is judge the validity of the evidence and to weigh 'both sides' in the balance before concluding what you believe to be true.
There is one objective truth (unless we start believing in paralelel universes where 9/11 never happened), there are many facts and there is a vast mountain of evidence and opinion.
I agree with Patrick, when taken in totality this evidence overwhelming supports the theory that 9/11 was 'an inside job' and we need a new investigation. The ultimate test will be the test of public opinion but only when it is informed. Most people I would hazard a guess if asked how many towers collapsed on 9/11 would reply 2 |
But you see Ian, telecasterisation knows from his police experience what good evidence actually is, and that you have not got any. If you have no evidence that cannot be shot down, it does not matter how much of it you have got, you still have no evidence. You can show videos of "squibs" but since they do not come from the areas that collapse, and no real expert will look at them and confirm they are squibs, you have nothing. You can produce witnesses who say the Pentagon plane was smaller than a Boeing or it sounded like a missile, but since many more will say they saw an AA Boeing, you get nowhere with that. Even a single small piece of irrefutable evidence would be a start but unfortunately for you that does not exist. You will not get another inquiry without strong evidence that the generally accepted account is correct, it is no use ignoring that and hoping that an enquiry will produce the evidence for you. All the many videos with authoritative voiceovers and portentious music get you some attention when people first see them, but since they do not stand up to any examination they will not help you in the end, you need something solid and you have not got it. |
Well this statement, while comforting to the OCT'ers is not actually correct.
There are over 6000 photos and many unreleased tapes/videotapes that have been withheld - probably because they do not shore up the OCT - and the coming change of government will put an end to the situation where these can remain suppressed.
The truth will out, make no mistake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | ian neal wrote: | | I agree with Patrick, when taken in totality this evidence overwhelming supports the theory that 9/11 was 'an inside job' and we need a new investigation. The ultimate test will be the test of public opinion but only when it is informed. Most people I would hazard a guess if asked how many towers collapsed on 9/11 would reply 2 |
In order to be overwhelming, the evidence can't simply be abundant, it has to fit together somehow to form a coherent picture. It doesn't.
For instance, how do you reconcile the idea that Bush & Co. destroyed the WTC to drum up support for a war with the idea that Silverstein destroyed WTC7 to collect the insurance money?
How do you reconcile the idea that a plane did not hit the Pentagon with the fact that the evidence used to "prove" this was recovered from aircraft wreckage in the Pentagon?
How do you reconcile the idea that the hijackers were invented as "bad guys" to justify war with Afghanistan and Iraq with the fact that none of the "fake" identities were of Afghans or Iraqis?
How do you reconcile the idea that the evil gubmint had no scruples against murdering thousands of innocent civilians, but drew the line at planting WMD in Iraq?
The answer: You don't, because you can't. |
Aggle
Are you really one of 'us'? Are you a secret 9/11 truther just pretending to be a critic, posting ridiculous arguments just to make us look good.
Cheers mate |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | ian neal wrote: | | I agree with Patrick, when taken in totality this evidence overwhelming supports the theory that 9/11 was 'an inside job' and we need a new investigation. The ultimate test will be the test of public opinion but only when it is informed. Most people I would hazard a guess if asked how many towers collapsed on 9/11 would reply 2 |
In order to be overwhelming, the evidence can't simply be abundant, it has to fit together somehow to form a coherent picture. It doesn't.
For instance, how do you reconcile the idea that Bush & Co. destroyed the WTC to drum up support for a war with the idea that Silverstein destroyed WTC7 to collect the insurance money?
How do you reconcile the idea that a plane did not hit the Pentagon with the fact that the evidence used to "prove" this was recovered from aircraft wreckage in the Pentagon?
How do you reconcile the idea that the hijackers were invented as "bad guys" to justify war with Afghanistan and Iraq with the fact that none of the "fake" identities were of Afghans or Iraqis?
How do you reconcile the idea that the evil gubmint had no scruples against murdering thousands of innocent civilians, but drew the line at planting WMD in Iraq?
The answer: You don't, because you can't. |
Aggle
Are you really one of 'us'? Are you a secret 9/11 truther just pretending to be a critic, posting ridiculous arguments just to make us look good.
Cheers mate |
And of course you could completely refute all these ridiculous arguments but you have more important things to do. Don't worry, we do understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Well this statement, while comforting to the OCT'ers is not actually correct.
There are over 6000 photos and many unreleased tapes/videotapes that have been withheld - probably because they do not shore up the OCT - and the coming change of government will put an end to the situation where these can remain suppressed.
The truth will out, make no mistake. |
Really? You say there is probably a lot of evidence that has been withheld, and it probably supports your case, and the US government will probably change, and the new administration will probably release it all and you will probably be proved right.
Does the expression "whistling in the dark" convey any meaning to you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Well this statement, while comforting to the OCT'ers is not actually correct.
There are over 6000 photos and many unreleased tapes/videotapes that have been withheld - probably because they do not shore up the OCT - and the coming change of government will put an end to the situation where these can remain suppressed.
The truth will out, make no mistake. |
Really? You say there is probably a lot of evidence that has been withheld, and it probably supports your case, and the US government will probably change, and the new administration will probably release it all and you will probably be proved right.
Does the expression "whistling in the dark" convey any meaning to you? |
We are citizens who know we've been lied to - not detectives.
We know that evidence is in government possession - the Pentagon tapes for one instance.
It is our task to ensure that the events in question are investigated transparently and openly with all known relevant factors taken into account by any explanation, whatever that might be.
It is only the psychology of the liar that demands that some all explaining 'alternate story' is invented, bcause that's how their world operates. It IS an invention, and they can imagine no alternative.
The rest of us weigh the evidence on balance of probability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Well this statement, while comforting to the OCT'ers is not actually correct.
There are over 6000 photos and many unreleased tapes/videotapes that have been withheld - probably because they do not shore up the OCT - and the coming change of government will put an end to the situation where these can remain suppressed.
The truth will out, make no mistake. |
Really? You say there is probably a lot of evidence that has been withheld, and it probably supports your case, and the US government will probably change, and the new administration will probably release it all and you will probably be proved right.
Does the expression "whistling in the dark" convey any meaning to you? |
We are citizens who know we've been lied to - not detectives.
We know that evidence is in government possession - the Pentagon tapes for one instance.
It is our task to ensure that the events in question are investigated transparently and openly with all known relevant factors taken into account by any explanation, whatever that might be.
It is only the psychology of the liar that demands that some all explaining 'alternate story' is invented, bcause that's how their world operates. It IS an invention, and they can imagine no alternative.
The rest of us weigh the evidence on balance of probability. |
That's all guff, isn't it?
You think you have been lied to - but you have no evidence for it.
When the Pentagon gas station tapes were released they showed - a gas station. Do you really think security cameras are set up to focus on distant buildings?
You think relevant factors have not been taken into account - but you can point to nothing of substance.
You weigh the solid evidence shown to you against your fantasies - and you decide in favour of fantasy.
You claim to want the truth - but your methods are of deception and falsehood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Well this statement, while comforting to the OCT'ers is not actually correct.
There are over 6000 photos and many unreleased tapes/videotapes that have been withheld - probably because they do not shore up the OCT - and the coming change of government will put an end to the situation where these can remain suppressed.
The truth will out, make no mistake. |
Really? You say there is probably a lot of evidence that has been withheld, and it probably supports your case, and the US government will probably change, and the new administration will probably release it all and you will probably be proved right.
Does the expression "whistling in the dark" convey any meaning to you? |
We are citizens who know we've been lied to - not detectives.
We know that evidence is in government possession - the Pentagon tapes for one instance.
It is our task to ensure that the events in question are investigated transparently and openly with all known relevant factors taken into account by any explanation, whatever that might be.
It is only the psychology of the liar that demands that some all explaining 'alternate story' is invented, bcause that's how their world operates. It IS an invention, and they can imagine no alternative.
The rest of us weigh the evidence on balance of probability. |
That's all guff, isn't it? . |
It's actually the crux of what some on this site just can't seem to understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | ian neal wrote: | | I agree with Patrick, when taken in totality this evidence overwhelming supports the theory that 9/11 was 'an inside job' and we need a new investigation. The ultimate test will be the test of public opinion but only when it is informed. Most people I would hazard a guess if asked how many towers collapsed on 9/11 would reply 2 |
In order to be overwhelming, the evidence can't simply be abundant, it has to fit together somehow to form a coherent picture. It doesn't.
For instance, how do you reconcile the idea that Bush & Co. destroyed the WTC to drum up support for a war with the idea that Silverstein destroyed WTC7 to collect the insurance money?
How do you reconcile the idea that a plane did not hit the Pentagon with the fact that the evidence used to "prove" this was recovered from aircraft wreckage in the Pentagon?
How do you reconcile the idea that the hijackers were invented as "bad guys" to justify war with Afghanistan and Iraq with the fact that none of the "fake" identities were of Afghans or Iraqis?
How do you reconcile the idea that the evil gubmint had no scruples against murdering thousands of innocent civilians, but drew the line at planting WMD in Iraq?
The answer: You don't, because you can't. |
So if I take these "irreconcievable problems" and answer them for you Aggle Rythm, which I can, conclusively (and again, I understand why its hard for you to find the answers on your own), will you give up this compulsive defense of the official lie and join the campaign for 9/11 truth wholeheartedly?
But do you want the answers? If not, its futile providing them to you
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
So if I take these "irreconcievable problems" and answer them for you Aggle Rythm, which I can, conclusively (and again, I understand why its hard for you to find the answers on your own), will you give up this compulsive defense of the official lie and join the campaign for 9/11 truth wholeheartedly?
But do you want the answers? If not, its futile providing them to you |
I would recommend getting the writers from "Star Trek" to help you here. They actually came up with a fairly plausible explanation as to why Klingons looked like humans in cheap makeup in the original series, but sported turtle shells on their foreheads in later series.
If they can do that, they certainly can dream up a way for some of the CT drek to make sense!
Of course, parsimony would have to come into consideration at some point, at least for those of us (and I hate to keep belaboring this point) who live in the real world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: |
So if I take these "irreconcievable problems" and answer them for you Aggle Rythm, which I can, conclusively (and again, I understand why its hard for you to find the answers on your own), will you give up this compulsive defense of the official lie and join the campaign for 9/11 truth wholeheartedly?
But do you want the answers? If not, its futile providing them to you |
I would recommend getting the writers from "Star Trek" to help you here. They actually came up with a fairly plausible explanation as to why Klingons looked like humans in cheap makeup in the original series, but sported turtle shells on their foreheads in later series.
If they can do that, they certainly can dream up a way for some of the CT drek to make sense!
Of course, parsimony would have to come into consideration at some point, at least for those of us (and I hate to keep belaboring this point) who live in the real world. |
Well we could sling-shot around the sun really really fast and time-warp the Klingon "Bird of Prey" back to Sept 11th, 2001 and instead of saving the whales we just torpedo the TT and Pentagon while only briefly de-cloaking while sprinkling B767 parts all over the place.
Wait! Then we also find a field in the middle of nowhere and torpedo a hole there too. They'd just never believe the conspiracy unless we made a hole in the middle of nowhere!
Wait, then we beam in an "away team" to set the not yet invented sooper thermate charges in WTC 1 2 and 7. Then we watch on our plasma screens while Mr. Spock doodles devil-faces in the smoke with the tractor beam.
We all have a shot of Romulan brandy and poke fun at "Bones" as we fly off into the cosmos.
That is until we get back to the future and find out that a couple of college drop-outs, brain damaged agoraphobes, and internet cranks have busted our conspiracy wide open!!!
Bummer!
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So what you are both saying (through obfuscation and sarcasm) is that you are so open minded, such critical thinkers, that you cannot entertain the possibility that your views could be easily exposed as simply inadequately developed.
Interesting
It demonstrates to me that you genuinely don't understand the 9/11 Truth position at all: hence your railing aginst it
Would anyone else like to see me take aggle-rythm's Q's apart without difficulty?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | So what you are both saying (through obfuscation and sarcasm) is that you are so open minded, such critical thinkers, that you cannot entertain the possibility that your views could be easily exposed as simply inadequately developed.
Interesting
It demonstrates to me that you genuinely don't understand the 9/11 Truth position at all: hence your railing aginst it
Would anyone else like to see me take aggle-rythm's Q's apart without difficulty? |
Can you give me 5 minutes to get a nice cuppa first  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | ian neal wrote: | | I agree with Patrick, when taken in totality this evidence overwhelming supports the theory that 9/11 was 'an inside job' and we need a new investigation. The ultimate test will be the test of public opinion but only when it is informed. Most people I would hazard a guess if asked how many towers collapsed on 9/11 would reply 2 |
In order to be overwhelming, the evidence can't simply be abundant, it has to fit together somehow to form a coherent picture. It doesn't.
For instance, how do you reconcile the idea that Bush & Co. destroyed the WTC to drum up support for a war with the idea that Silverstein destroyed WTC7 to collect the insurance money? |
Thats really simple: mutual benefit. Complex events can occur for more than one reason. Each individual component has its own subjective viewpoint. Why should Silverstein give a damn about the cabal inside the US Government getting their excuse for a War when his own pockets would get lined considerably? And thats assuming Silverstein would not be idelogically persuaded to the notion of the US taking control of the middle east
| Quote: | | How do you reconcile the idea that a plane did not hit the Pentagon with the fact that the evidence used to "prove" this was recovered from aircraft wreckage in the Pentagon? |
There is only speculation that no plane hit the pentagon. This speculation postulates that plane components found on site were small, and easy to distibute in a highly secure environment. Personally I consider that a plane did hit the Pentagon: but there is no conclusive evidence that it was the hijacked Boing. Whatever hit the Pentagon, there are major issues reconciling the observable damage with the idea of the building being stuck by a commercial Jet. If that wasnt the case, the specualtion would never have arisen
| Quote: | | How do you reconcile the idea that the hijackers were invented as "bad guys" to justify war with Afghanistan and Iraq with the fact that none of the "fake" identities were of Afghans or Iraqis? |
There is a distinction between invented as bad guys (suggesting the hijackers may be only a figment of the imagination) with created as bad guys (meaning that the hijacking plot was run as a component of the false flag operation, on the basis that Al-Qeuda is a CIA operation). How do you reconcile the fact the the US government did not invade Saudi Arabia, being as this was where the hijacker's came from? That is of course ridiculous, but is meerly an echo of your own reasoning. There is the possibility that the nationality of the hijackers was wrongly exposed in the media, but that cannot be shown conclusively at this time. However, this issue of the hijackers nationality fades into irrelvance considering the fact that Bin Laden was allowed to escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan ("Jersey girls", not refuted by any critic) and that none of the intelligence used to justify Iraq as a target of retaliation for 9/11 has stood up to public and international scrutiny. What does a passport matter compared to people brainwashed into a fundamentalist ideology? and of course there still exists the possibility that the hijackers are a fairy tale and the planes were controlled by other means. Regardless, the nationality of the hijackers is of minor relevance
| Quote: | | How do you reconcile the idea that the evil gubmint had no scruples against murdering thousands of innocent civilians, but drew the line at planting WMD in Iraq? |
This again shows an inability to understand the mechanisms under which flase flag operation have to operate. On 9/11 the orchestrating cabal controlled the hijackers, controlled the airspace over the United States and controlled the reponses and the information repeated (not reported) by the media. The key factor is: Control of all the elements at all times. None of this is the case with Iraq and WMD's. Such a fraud as planting WMD's would be subject to UN scrutiny, and would have to credibly explain how such weapons avoided detection by UN weapon inspectors. the possibility of Iraqi's being able to succesfully expose such a fraud as claiming the existance of WMD's in their own country would also be high. and finally, there was no need to produce WMD's, only gain time for the invasion to "bed in" by claiming such would be found. WMD's were only the pretext for invading Iraq for the consumption of the masses. There is no reason to suppose the US and UK governments actually believed their own spin
| Quote: | | The answer: You don't, because you can't. |
I rather think I just did 
As I am sure critics will again ignore
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Thats really simple: mutual benefit. Complex events can occur for more than one reason. Each individual component has its own subjective viewpoint. Why should Silverstein give a damn about the cabal inside the US Government getting their excuse for a War when his own pockets would get lined considerably? And thats assuming Silverstein would not be idelogically persuaded to the notion of the US taking control of the middle east
|
Bravo! Now you just have to explain how a person smart enough to amass a fortune would be stupid enough to destroy an extremely lucrative building just to collect the cost of rebuilding it. It's like a taxi driver wrecking his own vehicle so he could collect the money to get it fixed, during which time he can't pick up any fares.
| Quote: |
There is only speculation that no plane hit the pentagon. This speculation postulates that plane components found on site were small, and easy to distibute in a highly secure environment. Personally I consider that a plane did hit the Pentagon: but there is no conclusive evidence that it was the hijacked Boing. Whatever hit the Pentagon, there are major issues reconciling the observable damage with the idea of the building being stuck by a commercial Jet. If that wasnt the case, the specualtion would never have arisen
|
No, the speculation arose because conspiracy theorists had to find something to support their preconceived beliefs. How do I know this? Well, I've been studying the 9/11 CT phenomenon since late 2002. At that time, there was no talk of missiles hitting the Pentagon or controlled demolition. These little tidbits came up later. This suggests strongly that this "overwhelming" evidence was dug up to CONFIRM something that was already held as a cherished belief. In other words, belief preceded evidence.
| Quote: |
There is a distinction between invented as bad guys (suggesting the hijackers may be only a figment of the imagination) with created as bad guys (meaning that the hijacking plot was run as a component of the false flag operation, on the basis that Al-Qeuda is a CIA operation). How do you reconcile the fact the the US government did not invade Saudi Arabia, being as this was where the hijacker's came from?
|
You're forgetting, it is YOU who believe in the "false flag" operation, not I. The US government invaded the country that had harbored terrorists for years and allowed organizations such as al Qaeda to thrive. Believing that any country would go to war as a knee-jerk reaction is a CT trick.
| Quote: |
That is of course ridiculous, but is meerly an echo of your own reasoning. There is the possibility that the nationality of the hijackers was wrongly exposed in the media, but that cannot be shown conclusively at this time. However, this issue of the hijackers nationality fades into irrelvance considering the fact that Bin Laden was allowed to escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan ("Jersey girls", not refuted by any critic) and that none of the intelligence used to justify Iraq as a target of retaliation for 9/11 has stood up to public and international scrutiny.
|
Agreed, but irrelevant.
| Quote: |
What does a passport matter compared to people brainwashed into a fundamentalist ideology? and of course there still exists the possibility that the hijackers are a fairy tale and the planes were controlled by other means.
|
This possibility is so remote that it's more likely that Martians attacked the WTC.
| Quote: | Regardless, the nationality of the hijackers is of minor relevance
|
Your fellow CT'er's don't agree. In fact, many of them believe that unless the hijackers were the EXACT INDIVIDUALS identified by the investigation, then the attacks were an inside job.
Don't ask me to explain it, it's not my reasoning.
| Quote: |
This again shows an inability to understand the mechanisms under which flase flag operation have to operate. |
Possibly, but then I stopped reading comic books when I was 12.
| Quote: | | On 9/11 the orchestrating cabal controlled the hijackers, controlled the airspace over the United States and controlled the reponses and the information repeated (not reported) by the media. The key factor is: Control of all the elements at all times. None of this is the case with Iraq and WMD's. |
So some dark, shadowy organization had total control during the 9/11 attacks, but was caught napping in Iraq? This is a little hard to swallow.
| Quote: | | Such a fraud as planting WMD's would be subject to UN scrutiny, and would have to credibly explain how such weapons avoided detection by UN weapon inspectors. |
The UN weapon inspectors weren't able to do their job in Iraq, remember? That's one of the main reasons why it was believed their were WMD's there -- the Bush administration found Saddam's stonewalling tactics suspicious. I would think you would understand this, since you find so many apparently innocuous aspects of 9/11 suspicious. (For instance, Larry Silverstein brazenly collecting the insurance settlement he was entitled to when his very expensive buildings were destroyed.)
| Quote: |
the possibility of Iraqi's being able to succesfully expose such a fraud as claiming the existance of WMD's in their own country would also be high. and finally, there was no need to produce WMD's, only gain time for the invasion to "bed in" by claiming such would be found.
|
But this isn't really consistent with the apparent "killer instinct" shown by the globalists, the zionists, or whatever, when they supposedly not only crashed airliners into buildings, but went to all the trouble to plant explosives just to make sure everyone was dead. For this same group to suddenly turn lazy in Iraq is yet another inconsistency that needs to be explained.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | The answer: You don't, because you can't. |
I rather think I just did
As I am sure critics will again ignore |
I'm not ignoring it. You have just failed to impress me because your answers just bring up more questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well what a suprise: and again aggle rythm you try to claim 9/11 Truth is about conformity to one set of perspectives: even if no other 9/11 truther shares my POV, you still have to refute the POV I put forward effectively
Take the Silverstein situation for example: he paid a fraction of the insurance payout to secure the lease on the compound: six weeks later two white elephant buildings that were going to cost a cool £billion to bring up to code are rubble and he's collecting a fat cheque and the sympathy of a nation:if only all insurance fraud was so lucrative!
The rest of your points I'm not going to invest energy in, becuase your simply not serious about asking the real tough questions: of the official story you treat like a gospel
(Though at least you admit that "enemy number one" Bin Laden was allowed to escape Tora Bora: now all you have to do it tell me why)
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Possibly, but then I stopped reading comic books when I was 12. |
What? even the graphic novels of Alan Moore? You've never read Watchmen? V for Vendetta? From Hell? The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?
(forget all the poor, nay, butchering film adaptations btw)
Man, you've missed out!
Don't be such a snob!
Personally, I draw the line at the 'comic book' 911 Commission report, though...
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: | | Quote: | | Possibly, but then I stopped reading comic books when I was 12. |
What? even the graphic novels of Alan Moore? You've never read Watchmen? V for Vendetta? From Hell? The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?
(forget all the poor, nay, butchering film adaptations btw)
Man, you've missed out!
Don't be such a snob!
Personally, I draw the line at the 'comic book' 911 Commission report, though... |
Have you seen this version (extract below) yet?
http://blog.abovetopsecret.com/wecomeinpeace/2006/09/911_graphic_novel _the_real_ver.html
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Well what a suprise: and again aggle rythm you try to claim 9/11 Truth is about conformity to one set of perspectives: even if no other 9/11 truther shares my POV, you still have to refute the POV I put forward effectively
Take the Silverstein situation for example: he paid a fraction of the insurance payout to secure the lease on the compound: six weeks later two white elephant buildings that were going to cost a cool £billion to bring up to code are rubble and he's collecting a fat cheque and the sympathy of a nation:if only all insurance fraud was so lucrative!
|
You really believe the insurance companies would blindly pay without doing their own investigation? People who insure buildings have experts on the payroll to detect insurance fraud. Do you think every time there's a fire or a building is destroyed by other means, they don't look for any possible advantage that would get them out of paying the settlement? Even if they had to spend a million dollars investigating it, wouldn't that be worth it if it meant saving billions?
| Quote: |
The rest of your points I'm not going to invest energy in, becuase your simply not serious about asking the real tough questions: of the official story you treat like a gospel
|
The only thing I treat like gospel is reality. I couldn't care less about the official story. There have been enough independent investigations to fully satisfy any question I may have about the attacks, not to mention the fact that I have seen no competing theory that isn't more convoluted than the documentation for the pdf file format.
(sorry, inside joke, it was all I could come up with.)
| Quote: |
(Though at least you admit that "enemy number one" Bin Laden was allowed to escape Tora Bora: now all you have to do it tell me why) |
I don't know. Somebody didn't do their job?
I could give you a whole list of military or covert operations where one side had a golden opportunity and let it slip through its fingers. Does this ALWAYS mean there's a conspiracy at work?
Here are three examples from a single war:
At Pearl Harbor, why didn't the Japanese bomb the American fuel tanks and submarine ports?
In the Phillipines, why didn't MacArthur bomb the Japanese planes at Formosa?
On D-Day, why did the British stop and have tea instead of taking Caen?
Also, don't forget about Hitler, the OBL of his time. Everybody wanted him dead, including a lot of Germans. He survived several assassination attempts through sheer, dumb luck. Were the people who attempted these assassinations complicit with Hitler because they failed? If so, why were they executed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Well what a suprise: and again aggle rythm you try to claim 9/11 Truth is about conformity to one set of perspectives: even if no other 9/11 truther shares my POV, you still have to refute the POV I put forward effectively
|
Something just occured to me as I read this again.
Why don't you challenge CT beliefs that don't agree with yours, the way you do the "official" story?
If you really wanted to get to the truth, wouldn't you want to do this?
Could it be that it is because you all share a common bond, one that has little to do with the "truth": Belief that the US govt. is evil, and that the details aren't important? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well Aggle Rythm, your observation that my perceptions arnt always shared by other 9/11 truthers would indicate that I already do, wouldnt it?
Perhaps I can do that in the privacy of my own thoughts without having to work everything out on a public forum?
But does that mean I should do that for critics who can't get their own mind to work through some simple perspectives and consider matters from differeing hypothetical POV?
| Quote: | You really believe the insurance companies would blindly pay without doing their own investigation? People who insure buildings have experts on the payroll to detect insurance fraud. Do you think every time there's a fire or a building is destroyed by other means, they don't look for any possible advantage that would get them out of paying the settlement? Even if they had to spend a million dollars investigating it, wouldn't that be worth it if it meant saving billions?
|
I can see it now...Major Insurance Company quibles US government and declares Towers Destruction Controlled Demolition. I thought you claimed to live in the "real world"?
(though we have also pawned that as a subjective illusion of decoded electrical signals, havnt we?)
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
