Official Story for 9/11...lies?

R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Really. Facts, eh? Rational consideration of historical events, eh? Really.

Here's a little number I picked up from some snothead (and believe me, "Snothead," is the nicest thing I'm thinking) named Cassidy, on the "Serendipidity," site whose link was just posted. Look on their home page, under the heading, "Zionism."

"The world is under siege by a European hierarchy of banking families, at the top largely Jewish, the money changers and money lenders of history. They are already the richest people on earth but it is not enough. They have a Faustian Grand Plan. They mean to own or control everything of value on earth. Their weapons: MONEY and DEBT — and Washington."

Just sort through the stuff on Zionism. Looks sorta reasonable, untill you sift through to this crap.

Here is a little something from another of Mr. Cassidy’s little missives, off-site:

“…for the rest of the century Zionism "steered" America...particularly Washington. A continuing series of Jewish bankers and financiers have "had the ear" of all American presidents since World War I. In the early 1930s, Zionism demanded "regime change" in Germany; Hitler had to go. He stood in the way of Zionist exploitation of Germany, its property, its economy, its finances, etc. (insert Rothschild) just like the Federal Reserve System installed in America exploits the American people who unknowingly pledged all of their property and wealth, public and private, to the Federal Reserve which is owned by European Jewish banking families (insert Rothschild).

Today, in America, a tiny fraction of the populace, Zionists, own or control between one third and one half of the nation's total private wealth while millions of Americans are laid off and fifty million live in poverty. They dominate the finances of the nation. Remember Rothschild's motto, "Let me control the money of a country and I care not who is in power."

How did Zionism do it?

First, a national animosity for Germany had to be generated in America over decades by boycotts and propaganda (and corresponding sympathy for Zionism). Done! (The super-merchandisers super-promoted the slaughter of their own people into a Holocaust, ignoring the millions of murdered Gentiles as inconsequential.)”

--Donald Cassidy


But I expected to find it, once I got on the site. The code's right there up front, as in Pat Buchanan's speeches...secret cabal...bankers...international banks...conspiracy...hidden elite...that's what these types always go back to.

Gee, why am I dubious about these wacked-out conspiracy theories? Read 'em, fer crissake.

Guys....
 

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
What "facts"?

A fact is something that we can hold a reasonable degree of confidence in. It is knowledge or information based on real occurences. It is something known to exist or known to have existed.

Which facts do you refer to? And if they are indeed "facts", which facts does the article exclude if any?

The article mentions that the towers collapsed from the top, and that they fell as if explosives had been put in them. (They didn't. One fell to the side slightly...and you can clearly see it fall to the side on films.) The article asserts they fell due to demolition. Hogwash! The Towers survived the intitial strikes of the planes, as they were designed to do. They didn't survive the heat...which placed unforgivable stress on the metal interior of the buildings. And no...the fire wasn't "out" as one of the posts said. The rubble itself continued to burn for weeks. The article itself suggests this.

As for the fire NOT being able to burn hot enough to melt the steel...you'd think that all of the engineers at Purdue, Georgia Tech, and MIT would have just JUMPED on that little tidbit. Truth is, it didn't need to "melt" anything. It merely needed to compromise the integrity of the steel. Steel softens when you heat it...long before it melts.

Check this: http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

How could anybody rig that place with the explosives necessary without ONE security guard or employee noticing in the days leading up to the attack? Even with proper placement it would take hundreds of pounds of explosives....wiring...and all that good stuff would have to survive the fire from the airplane strikes.

This is all so silly...some people are so desperate to believe they've been lied to that they'll jump on anything to make it seem true.

Everybody repeat after me: THERE IS NO ILLUMINATI. Look at the home page for that site...its just another whacked out anti-semitic conspiracy page. Look at their analysis of the OKC bombing...they even have a "picture" of the Ryder truck stored on an Army base. <groan!>




Steve
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
1. Did anyone read this or did you just move on to the crazy stuff?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html

As I said before, this is so well researched its scary.

2. Did anyone look at this?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Can you honestly tell me that this plan is not being implemented at this time? Very convenient - this 9/11 stuff!

Some Questions

Who can explain the pictures of the pentagon? Where is the wreckage? Where did it scrape the grass on the lawn when it bounced? Where did the video tapes of the plane go from the gas station survailance cameras it flew over? Don't you think the media would have loved to smack that over our screens and scare us even more?

Who can explain why fighters weren't scrambled when the military knew the planes were hijacked and that people were crashing them into buildings?

How did all of these people our intelligence agencies KNEW were terrorists get into the country with a plan that we KNEW they were thinking about and enroll in flight school under the survailence of said intelligence agencies?

Can there be any doubt that we should doubt the official story? I'm not saying that we need to buy the conspiracy theories, in fact, I would say that it is perfect obfuscation. Look at your responses to viable questions they bring! You attach those questions to the wacky theories and forget about them. Very convenient...

upnorthkyosa
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
16,859
Reaction score
1,094
Location
Michigan
Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
1. Did anyone read this or did you just move on to the crazy stuff?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html

As I said before, this is so well researched its scary.

2. Did anyone look at this?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Can you honestly tell me that this plan is not being implemented at this time? Very convenient - this 9/11 stuff!

Some Questions

Who can explain the pictures of the pentagon? Where is the wreckage? Where did it scrape the grass on the lawn when it bounced? Where did the video tapes of the plane go from the gas station survailance cameras it flew over? Don't you think the media would have loved to smack that over our screens and scare us even more?

Who can explain why fighters weren't scrambled when the military knew the planes were hijacked and that people were crashing them into buildings?

How did all of these people our intelligence agencies KNEW were terrorists get into the country with a plan that we KNEW they were thinking about and enroll in flight school under the survailence of said intelligence agencies?

Can there be any doubt that we should doubt the official story? I'm not saying that we need to buy the conspiracy theories, in fact, I would say that it is perfect obfuscation. Look at your responses to viable questions they bring! You attach those questions to the wacky theories and forget about them. Very convenient...

upnorthkyosa

I have read them.

Have you read any other sources? Or at least my posts and opinions here?


Those articles use words that are leading and guiding, to the point that many a psychologist would look at see it for the hype and propaganda it is. There MAY be truth barried in there, yet there is so much half content and out of context quotes that I could make any thing sound creditable.

Question, Yes I agree.

Make just as crazy claims yourself, or support claims of others? Then I question you yourself with your questioning ;)


:asian:
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
For some reason, when I get on a website that gives the same weight to crackpot Nazis that it gives to everything else on the site, I tend to assume that everything on the site is nuts. Even when there's aren't articles arguing that the CIA/Mafia/Mossad alliance killed JFK, or the Trade Center was brought down by remote-controlled jetliners, in addition to the crackpot Nazis.

How in the hell can anybody take seriously authors who publish this kind of madness?

I'm still waiting to read a conspiracy-theorist response to the quotes about "the Jews," being responsible for all the world's ills. Beyond the sheer grotesqueness, absurdity and horror of such a claims, the author I cited from the Serendipidity website seems perfectly in harmony with the argument that the US staged all the bombings in order to justify invading Arab and Muslim countries...

I mean, this doesn't bother anybody but me? Really?
 

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
As I said before, this is so well researched its scary.

No, it is not well researched. It is crafted with premises that do not support cogent conclusions. It is laced with disingenuous obsfucations, distractions, and little fictions that are hidden inside a larger framework. It contains outright lies.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE PENTAGON IMPACT:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

You will find there counters to the arguments regarding the "lack of debris", eyewitness accounts, and the like. There are links to an analysis of the event, and pictures of debris from the flight. Many urban myth sites take on this topic.

------

Check out this little piece of padding from the article you provided that is absolutely irrelevant to any issue regarding 9-11:

In addition to AMI, MacDill Air Force base, and the Irishes, the state of Florida is host to a number of other eyewitnesses whose background - and testimonies - deserve far greater scrutiny than they have heretofore earned. For instance, witness Bert Rodriguez had specifically trained hijacker Ziad Jarrah in martial arts and close quarter fighting with knives. Perhaps Jarrah had a premonition that, on his designated flight - United Flight 93 - he would be facing off with a small coterie of rebellious passengers, in particular, martial arts champ Jeremy Glick.

Premonition? Get real. He had a premonition that he was going to face Jeremy Glick? So he takes a whopping EIGHT WEEKS of training? I remember reading about this and the press making a big deal out of him being "highly trained". I thought...eight weeks. Wow. He must have been a master after that intensive training. He shelled out a thousand of Osama's bucks and trained in countering[I/] knife and gun attacks...using rubber knives. He hardly trained for taking on Glick, now, did he? Or should we suspect he had a premontion that Glick would have a knife?

And what does this have to do with ANYTHING in any case?

Reference:
http://martialarts.jameshom.com/library/weekly/aa092401.htm

More irrelevant padding:

Florida is also blessed with a profusion of flight schools. Yet of this rich aeronautical menu from which to choose, most of the September 11 hijackers were drawn to two flight schools practically next door to one another, both owned by Dutch nationals who purchased their respective schools within months of one another in 1998. The two owners, Rudi Dekkers and Arne Kruithof, also shared - according to independent journalist Daniel Hopsicker - a particularly troublesome post-9/11 fate, plagued by legal troubles and a pair of matching aviation accidents that nearly took both Dekkers and Kruithof out of the picture.

We are left with nothing after that. There is an implied conclusion that the aviation instructors' post 9-11 ills were somehow engineered by someone, somewhere...as if this is supposed to mean something. We are also led to believe something is fishy by the fact that the schools were next to each other. An unwritten question is posed "why not other flight schools?"

What's the point? No point is made. Unanswered and unarticulated questions are posed to raise suspicion in the reader's minds...needless and irrelevant unanswered questions, and irrational suspicions.

Who can explain why fighters weren't scrambled when the military knew the planes were hijacked and that people were crashing them into buildings?

They weren't? Even some of the conspiracy theories state that two fighters shot down the one flight over Pennsylvania, and that there was a cover up of that alleged event.

Okay...let's assume they were in fact NOT scrambled. Please let me know what precedent would have led an Air Force commander to believe that this was a viable option? How LONG would it take the information to go from flight victim's cell phones-to families-to incredulous police-to the disbelieving FAA-to the-never encountered this contingincey before- Air Force-and finally to a possibly reluctant Tactical Air Command? When I heard the news I had a hard time believing it. It was simply incomprehensable and horrific. Think back to Pearl Harbor and all the glitches there...people were thinking that they were safe in Hawaii. Surely the Japanese wouldn't attack the pride of the U.S. Fleet! Inconceivable. Surprise!!! On both dates we were caught with our pants down. Simply that, and nothing more.

How did all of these people our intelligence agencies KNEW were terrorists get into the country with a plan that we KNEW they were thinking about and enroll in flight school under the survailence of said intelligence agencies?

Were it established to my satisfaction that the higher ups in the intell community knew this stuff, I'd be quick to suggest INCOMPETENCY rather than CONSPIRACY.

Were it a conspiracy, do you really think that people who could pull of such an outrageous event with such incredible complexity (as is suggested in the article) would then let it all leak out?





Steve
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Yeah, it never fails to amaze me. On one hand, these guys are such geniuses that NOONE BUT AN ENLIGHTENED FEW EVER SUSPECT THE TRUTH, and on the other, they continually screw up.

Here's an ugly little joke I recently read:

"How do you know the CIA wasn't involved in the JFK assassination?"

"He's dead, isn't he?"

But my favorite fantasy is the idea that the 9/11 hijackers were some sort of criminal masterminds, and/or ninjas. They were a bunch of mean little creeps with a little knowledge and a fair amount of willingness.

Personally, I think the reason people jack up these bizarre theories lies in the fact that they don't want to face reality. It's hard to accept the fact that we live in an extraordinarily-complex, technologically-sophisticated but oddly delicate world--and in such a world, the fact is, anybody who's willing and has three brain cells to rub together can do a considerable amount of damage.

I also think that this particular set of conspiracy fantasies has some quite ugly roots in anti-Semitism and what Edward Said identified as Orientalism. You know--at home, it's the Insidious Trilateral Commission and the International Monetary Fund, and abroad it's whatever version of the Insidious Dr. Fu Manchu we believe in at the moment.

On the other hand, at least it's entertaining. In the same vein as the last poster, I truly enjoyed the website explanations that argued that because the Us Air Force had been working on pilotless drones, the planes that flew into the Trade Center must have been remote controlled. Among their backup evidence was the repeated mention that this plane or that plane WAS ONLY 27% FILLED!!!

Fact is, the people from the future did it. See the movie, "Millenium."
 

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Punch in "conspiracy debunking" on Google and you'll come up with some interesting web sites.

One explains conspiracy theories as being nothing more than simple scapegoating...and this makes sense, given the constant return to anti-Semitism.


Steve
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
I think that is a good rule of thumb to be skeptical and sometimes you need to extend that rule to the skeptics themselves. I'm not jumping to any conclusions and I don't really believe in any "theory" posted above. I think the suppositions they make far outstrip the doubt they have shown. Ask yourselves, could your reluctance to doubt the official story be borne of your wish to BELIEVE it? Can you acknowledge that bias?
 

Cruentus

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
7,161
Reaction score
130
Location
At an OP in view of your house...
Even the one that was supposedly well researched is nonsense. It is filled with names, places, and 'evidence' that doesn't support the conclusions, clouded with distractive language. It's difficult to decifer what the conjecture or point even is.

I think that these theories, sites, and "facts" are silly. It's like the writers know that something is wrong with the forest, so to figure it out they bark up the wrong set of trees.

Something is wrong with our foriegn policy, the Bush administration, 9-11, and our wars. However, the facts are right in front of our faces. There is no conspiricy...it is just that the way we handle certian aspects of trade and foriegn policy lands us into perdicaments. We change our policy, we'll have less problems. The problems with our Foriegn Policy go back 30 or more years...there are structural problems that need to change if we expect to improve, and "win" this so-called mess of a "war on terror". What is also worth saying, because I know that there are a lot of Bush haters (and avid supporters) on this site, that the problems that we have been having with our foriegn policy is not all the Bush administrations fault; they have been set in motion over time and over many presidancies. The Bush administration is not fault-less, however, by any stretch of the means.

Well...to tell you the truth....I have been following politics for awhile, especially the Bush administration, election 2000, 9-11, and the "war on terror". I have been gathering info and keeing it for my own use. With an election coming up in 04', I think it is time now to put all my information together and present it to SOMEONE, even if it never leaves MartialTalk. So...I'll take a few days to write something up, and I'll post it as a new thread.

Some of what I'll present you'll already know, and some of what you'll read you'll be suprised to find out. One thing that is true, is that the none of it will be an off the wall conspiricy theory. It will be the facts that we do have, and the conjectures that we can make based off these facts.

It'll take me a few days to write it up, so please be patient.

One thing is for sure though....these conspiricy theory's that have been presented are all barking up the wrong tree.

:cool:
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Skeptical about my skepticism? What's next--skeptical about my skepticism with regard to skepticism?

Sure, all observers are biased. But they're not all nuts--and frankly, if push really came to shove, I will sure as hell buy what, say, Colin Powell thinks WAY before I will buy the conspiracy theories of the sorts of nutbars who appeared in the references cited.

Can I be skeptical about skepticism. Sure; have been for years. Can you perhaps acknowledge that there might be a few things about a website with obvious anti-Semites and Trilateral Comimssion: Root of All Evil wackos on it that should send up a red flag, a red flare, a red firework and a big ol' red light?

I mean, MAYBE Bush et al are lying about 9/11...though in the particular case, I'm pretty sure it's one of the few things the man's telling the truth about. But I can say unequivocally that the stuff the wackos on, "Serendipidity," are claiming is absolute undiluted hogwash.

Remotely possibly untrue...obviously and clearly untrue. Hm. Since all knowledge is a bet anyway, I think I know which horse I'm backing in this particular race.

Again, the truth is not all that far out there. In fact, it's right up against our noses. We just don't wanna look.
 

someguy

Master Black Belt
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
20
Location
Milledgeville Ga
For all i know there could really be no 9/11. I have never seen the world trade towers in real life. For that matter I have never seen China. Maybe thats a lie. same with england. Oh I know I havent seen the past maybe it doesnt exist. yeah I think I must be one of the first generations of humans living on the only place on the Earth. there is no Canada for that matter. there is only the area from Fl to Mi and nothing east of the mississippi.

Now ehy did I say that. Cuz I am crazy. Not really I did so to prove the point that not every thing must be proven to be 100% true. For those who want to see a conspiracy by the goverment you can make it up. You have no proof its really real unles you were there right. So maybe nothings real. Its all a conspiracy. errs something
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
Why do people put out their particular conspiracy theories? Because doubt of the official story exists.

Do theories make conclusions that are far out and absolutely wacky? Yes.

Does that make the doubt any less? No.

Why is there doubt? Because some questions have not been answered and because people are looking at the evidence and realizing that part of the official story do not make sense.

There are inconsistancies that these theories have in common that will not go away because they have not and will not be addressed. I posted some of these theories because I think its important to see the points they have in common. The theories and blind conclusions DO NOT MATTER. They go too far.

Some questions...Answer them if you can - provide evidence please.

1. Where were the fighters? They knew what was happening over an hour in advance. Even when the first plane hit, nothing happened. When the second plane hit, othing happened. FORTY FIVE MINTUES LATER, the third "plane" hit the pentagon. NO FIGHTERS. NOTHING HAPPENED. WHY?

2. Why were SUSEPECTED terrorists allowed to enter the country with ties to a group who had KNOWN plans to use planes as weapons, and then ALLOWED to enter a flight school? Are our intelligence agencies that incompetent or (begging the question) are they accomplices?

3. Where is conclusive proof that a plane hit the pentagon? (eye witness accounts and the little wreckage seen in photos are all suspect - in that it could have been something else) A good example of conclusive proof would be the 5 gas station survailence cameras under the direct flight path of flight 77. These were confiscated by the FBI. Why?

We have videos of the other planes hitting their targets. No body in their right minds says that planes didn't hit the world trade center. Why not put the doubt to rest and release the video.

In 1998 PNAC was put together to lay out the foriegn policy that we are seeing today. PNAC was shelved until after 9/11. EVERYTHING that has been done in our foriegn policy since 9/11 has been a part of the PNAC. Is the Bush administration using 9/11 to further this radical agenda?

Or, as the "wackos" put it, did it cause 9/11 to push a plan for American Neo-colonialism. (I will not allow myself to believe that because I know that I have a strong bias against our president - and personally think the former has overwhelming circumstantial evidence and some physical evidence)

They are just questions - not answers.
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
And it doesn't bother you in the least that on the very websites you've cited, there are repeated statements that are clearly anti-Semitic? Or that precisely these sorts of conspiracy theories pop up all the time among the same guys who rant about ZOG and the United Nations menace?

What are these, LaRouche sites? They have his same quality of apparently plausibility on first glance, with some real ugliness just barely beneath the skin...

Never keep your mind so open that your brain falls out.

I mean, another of the websites you refer to has articles on:

a) the takeover of neoconservative thinking by the, "obscure German Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss"

b) Princess Di's prediction of her own assassination

c) the theory that the car-bombings in Turkey were carried out by the US to push Turkey into supporting us in the Gulf

d) Henry Kissinger's complicity in the upcoming plot to establish the New World Order and abolish civil rights by claiming, falsely, that we are being attacked by space aliens.

e) the evils of Freemasonry

Um...anybody detect a pattern here? I also don't know that ping-pong balls aren't Martian larvae, but I can't say I stay up late considering the possibility.
 

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Where were the fighters? They knew what was happening over an hour in advance. Even when the first plane hit, nothing happened. When the second plane hit, othing happened. FORTY FIVE MINTUES LATER, the third "plane" hit the pentagon. NO FIGHTERS. NOTHING HAPPENED. WHY?

I answered this in my previous post. You obviously ignored it.

Why were SUSEPECTED terrorists allowed to enter the country with ties to a group who had KNOWN plans to use planes as weapons, and then ALLOWED to enter a flight school? Are our intelligence agencies that incompetent or (begging the question) are they accomplices?

I answered this in my previous post. You obviously ignored it.

Where is conclusive proof that a plane hit the pentagon? (eye witness accounts and the little wreckage seen in photos are all suspect - in that it could have been something else) A good example of conclusive proof would be the 5 gas station survailence cameras under the direct flight path of flight 77. These were confiscated by the FBI. Why?

I answered this in my previous post. You obviously ignored it.

I even gave you a site to peruse...citing the evidence you ask for, but clearly choose to ignore. Its pretty clear here you've made up your mind, and are going to ignore the facts.

But here it is again:


http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

HERE ARE JUST SOME OF YOUR WITNESSES:

USA Today.com Editor Joel Sucherman (suspect as a witness?)
Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today (suspect as a witness?)
Fred Gaskins, a national editor at USA Today (suspect as a witness?)
Allan Clevelend. Interviewed by the Washington Post.
Mike Walter
Aydan Kizildrgli
Omar Campo
Afework Hagos
Tim Timmerman (a pilot who described the plane as adding power before impact...and the wings folding in. Now we know what happened to the wings.)
Steve Eiden, a truck driver
Elaine McCusker
Father Stephen McGraw
Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia
John O'Keefe
Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program

Okay, now...tell me how you would present this to the families of 63 people who died on flight 77? Did they just disappear?


Steve
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
Steve

You haven't answered the questions. You've just made more suppositions without any conclusivity. I looked at your sites and each of them has very plausible explanations for the questions raised in the sites I posted, yet, I have to ask, what would put the debate to rest? The sites you posted did a good job of explaining why they CAN'T get THAT data. Surely that information has to be out there and I have not seen it. Steve, ask yourself, what evidence would totally and without a doubt blast these questions out of the water? If it existed, it would be put forth. I respectfully choose to remain skeptical.


Robert

You have done a good job tying my opinions to outrageous ideas. Its a common logical fallacy called ad absurdum. Look at what I've been saying, you're not discrediting what I'm saying because you are not addressing it. Hardhead has addressed my questions, what do you think?

As far as the victims, I sincerely hope that no body takes my questioning as disrespectful to the victims's families. I realize people died and are still in pain from this experience. If I truly have offended anyone with my posts of these stupid theories, I apologize. It is not my intent to paint over their pain with other people's stupid opinions.

I do not think you can ignore the questions, though.

Also, did anyone compare what has happened since 9/11 and what is written in and about PNAC? Does anyone else find the correllations suspicious?
 

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths.

--Bertrand Russel


The sites you posted did a good job of explaining why they CAN'T get THAT data.

THEY being the creators of the web site you listed, I assume. The reason they couldn't get the data is simple...it would have ruined their conspiracy theory.

Why ask questions that don't need to be asked?

They recovered all of the remains of the victims of flight 77 from the Pentagon wreckage. They recovered both black boxes. There is testimony of debris being seen by witnesses, and published pictures of debris. They have witness testimony from many people...some I listed. Three worked for a reputable national newspaper. These are not, as you state, "suppositions without any conclusivity".

Look at your questions concerning the Pentagon. THEY'VE BEEN ANSWERED OR DISMISSED AS INVALID. The witness testimony is NOT suspect. There are dead people who boarded a plane that morning, and whose remains were recovered at the Pentagon. The pictures of the wreckage site are not supsect. There are pictures of debris. The week of 9-11 I saw an aerial photo that clearly showed the swath of the impact point as the plane piled into the dirt in front of the building. I haven't even bothered looking for that one, though. What's the point?

What more do you need? The plane was seen flying into the building. The wreckage and the bodies were removed from the building. As far as the FBI taking the video surveillance cameras...if they in fact did ...it raises no questions, nor does it answer any. It is not unreasonable to assume they did it as part of an investigation of a crime they are tasked with investigating. An assumption here is far more reasonable than buying into an idea that there was a truck bomb...which this theory proposes.

You're essentially stating that without video, you aren't buying it.

As far as jets not shooting down the planes, why even ask? Did they in fact have the "warning" you describe? Who says? The flakes at this web site? It seems pretty clear to me that there was no precedent for such an activity...and I'm not sure they knew which planes were actually hijacked.

Ask yourselves, could your reluctance to doubt the official story be borne of your wish to BELIEVE it?

No, upnorthkyosa...I have no reason to believe otherwise. The questions posed on that site aren't at all intriguing. They're simply stupid.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Give me the extraordinary evidence that clearly refutes the undeniable evidence of a plane hitting that building. Give me hard, solid evidence that a truck bomb blew up the Pentagon. Explain how the bodies of flight 77 got in the building. Explain how the hundreds of witnesses in a traffic jam next the Pentagon that day imagined they saw a plane. Show me clear evidence some of them were bought off by the government to make up a story.

And no, the onus of proof isn't on the government, or any of us disagreeing with you, to prove that a plane actually flew into the Pentagon. There is no other plausible explanation.


Steve
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
I am very moved by your argument, hardhead. In fact, I would say that your reasoning is quite solid. Consider this - how many witnesses say they saw something different? How many witnesses say they saw a truck or a small plane, or even a cruise missile? Has anyone ever bothered to count that? Too many times negative data is ignored in favor of the positive - this is special pleading. A great example of this is the specific decision by the FBI to choose witnesses who heard three shots, anyone else who heard anything else was ignored. Also, consider all of the people who claim to have seen aliens or have been abducted by aliens. There are a lot of fine and upstanding citizens who have made such claims. Yet, are they to believed because they are many? Here is an example of an interaction...

Confused bystander 1 - "oh my god the pentagon is on fire?"
Official interviewer - "Did you see a plane?"
Confused bystander 1 "No"
Official interviewer - "thank you for your help."

Confused bystander 2 - "oh my god the pentagon is on fire?"
Official interviewer - "Did you see a plane?"
Confused bystander 2 - "uh maybe.. it was really fast."
Official interviewer - "what did the plane look like?"
Confused bystander 2 - "it had wings, uhh blue markings with a red stripe?"
Official interviewer - "Was it large..."

See where this is going? This is a common tactic used by people who are looking for specific information.

You also made the claim that since three journalists from national newspapers had similar reports this gives them credibility. Where did they get their information? From the "Officials" Also, remember when all of the major networks told us that our enemies were Al-Qaeda and Iraq 20 minutes after the second plane struck? How could they have known this? Can you trust these sources when they make claims like this? Only one thing can be said for sure, they certainly play their hands and show their marionette strings.

As far as the bodies of the victims go, I don't know what to say? Who counted the bodies? Was it average joe EMT rescue worker or was it military official? I seem to remember reading somewhere that strictly military officials were allowed to perform the rescue operations and clean up. I will see if I can find a source for that.

I am still skeptical of this story, not as skeptical as before, I still don't think that doubt has totally been erased. Your quote was great, but I am not asking to count teeth. Where are the videos? Don't you think the government owes it to us to convince us BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT?

As far as the other questions...I am not the only one asking these questions. Members of Congress are looking into those matters. In fact, Al Gore just said on CNN that the Bush administration has blatently used 9/11 for its own pursuit of radical foriegn policy. These other questions have few answers and even more doubt.

Can you deny this? Perhaps the Official story becomes more and more extraordinary.
 
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Oh, for crying out loud. Reductio ad absurdum, my left....

Ahem. Here's an even older logical principle, usually attributed to Socrates: "Birds of a feather flock together."

Here's another one: "Do not multiply hypotheses unnecessarily." You know...when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

I notice that we're still not quite willing to discuss the anti-Semitism that is not just incidental, BUT INTEGRAL, to these, "questions," eh? I also see that the obvious nut-cult sillinesses on the sites doesn't seem to cast the slightest doubt on their next-door neighbors...which is just plain bonkers.

It's the old, "I've discovered the sun is a great fiery dragon," theory. You know...the sun is a dragon...how do I know?...well, prove to me that it isn't. I mean, have you ever been there?

Next, we'll be reading the good old, "the lack of evidence proves that I'm right, because I know there's a guv'mint conspiracy, because who else but the guv'mint could have hid the evidence that I know is there?"

First time I heard this one was some guy explaining why there're no good pictures of UFOs, despite their astonishing propensity to fly over towns in daylight and haunt golf courses...you know, "the fuzzy, out of focus picture proves that it's aliens, because only an alien craft's stardrive could have fuzzed the film this way. They're magnetic, you know."

This would be funny, if it weren't connected to some truly ugly propositions--racist ones, among others. Look at my last post: why else would it be important that Leo Strauss was, "a German Jew?"

I also see that you're unwilling to deal with the proposition that there isn't any need for secrecy. The conspiracy is right out in front...conservatism, religious hatred, stupidity, globalizing capitalism...

Wait wait, I've figured it out. You...you are a CIA plant! As in the X-Files, you are presenting the absolute truth in a fashion so wacked-out that it cannot possibly be believed, thereby helping to conceal the malign influence of the Jews, The Trilateral Comission, the Freemasons, the CIA.

Nope, nope, protest all you want. I've found you out. You are in league with the Cigarette Smoking Man---you are the real assassin! How else could you have known that there were exactly, to quote your last post, "three shots?" How else could you know so many details of the government conspiracy? Why else would you claim to be from, "SUPERIOR," Superior--get it? the arrogance of you Freemasons never fails to amaze me--Wisconsin? What else do we know about Wisconsin? Well...aha! radical politics and cheese! Princess Diana ate cheese! Got you now...NOW we know who the real assassin was! You were working for the Better Wisconsin Cheese ***'n (BWCA), which you foolishly listed on your Profile! ha! You were...working to protect Wisconsin dairy products!

It's...it's DISINFORMATION, that's what it is!!

Now prove to us that it's not true. We have a right to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
 

Latest Discussions

Top