A simple question.

[Peace]

I just wanted to know if there was anyone like me that is undecided if the 9-11 conspiracy is true or not?

[gumboot]

Welcome to the forums Peace.

[fullflavormenthol]

It will be hard to find someone who is undecided, and I will tell you why. 1.) Usually by the time people get here there minds are made up one way or another, especially if they are into the thousands of posts. 2.) People are never really undecided on anything, especially conspiracy theories. If you are here you are leaning one way or another; either looking to justify skepticism or find out if the other side as anything different to say.

[Myriad]

There are many people who have claimed to be undecided when they first posted here.

Most of them (though not all of them) have turned out to be lying when they claimed that.

Are you undecided, Peace? If so, you've come to the right place to help you weigh the actual evidence and decide. You might want to start by addressing these two questions:

1. What makes you believe that a 9/11 conspiracy might be true?

2. What makes you doubt that a 9/11 conspiracy might be true?

No need to go into detail at this stage. Just mention what you think are the most important points for both questions.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Blender Head]

I just wanted to know if there was anyone like me that is undecided if the 9-11 conspiracy is true or not?

No.

[Peace]

Welcome to the forums Peace.

Thanks Gumboot.


1. What makes you believe that a 9/11 conspiracy might be true?

2. What makes you doubt that a 9/11 conspiracy might be true?



1. There is so much attached to 9-11 that would indicate something is not right.

2. The answers to everything attached to 9-11 are very strong, and make a lot of sense. Does that make them right? I'm not sure.

[CptColumbo]

I just wanted to know if there was anyone like me that is undecided if the 9-11 conspiracy is true or not?Welcome to the forums Peace.

Your question is not as simple as you think. It depends on what you mean by "decided." What many here on the forum believe is that the prevailing theory that 19 hijackers, associated with al-queda, hijacked four planes and crashed them into the WTC towers, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville is correct. There is agreement with this theory because it is supported by the majority of the evidence and the laws of nature.

If you read the subtitle to the JREF forum (a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way), you will see that the objective of the majority of the posters here is to promote skepticism and critical thinking. This is a two way street which includes looking closely and critically at alternative theories, as well as the prevailing one. Many, including me, would be willing to believe in a LIHOP/MIHOP theory if objective evidence of it was produced. However, since the best evidence that the TM has been able to produce ranges from highly subjective to outright lies, this will probably not happen anytime soon.

If there is a matter that you are uncertain about look to the search function, since most of the topics have been discussed already and if it hasn't been discussed already (or is unresolved) start a thread asking for clarification. You will find many here who have experience in a certain relevant fields and are able to clarify most of the issues that other members are unfamiliar with or can point us towards where we can get the answer (which is one of the things that makes this forum great), we tend to deal largely with facts rather than speculation.

[CptColumbo]

Thanks Gumboot.

1. There is so much attached to 9-11 that would indicate something is not right.
Do you have an example?

2. The answers to everything attached to 9-11 are very strong, and make a lot of sense. Does that make them right? I'm not sure.
Reality is not like you see in movies and television or read in books. There is no writer trying to throw you off with red herrings or a surprise ending. The best explanation is usually the correct one.

[Panoply_Prefect]

I might be a cynic, but I sense the first mark of Wooo. However, I'll give it the benefit of a doubt.

What exactly is "the 911 conspiracy"?

[Peace]

Welcome to the forums Peace.

Your question is not as simple as you think. It depends on what you mean by "decided." What many here on the forum believe is that the prevailing theory that 19 hijackers, associated with al-queda, hijacked four planes and crashed them into the WTC towers, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville is correct. There is agreement with this theory because it is supported by the majority of the evidence and the laws of nature.



Thanks for the welcome.

I believe there was 19 hijackers, more than likely associated with al-queda, and crashed the planes. Was the government involved at all? That is where I'm stuck.

[Quad4_72]

1. There is so much attached to 9-11 that would indicate something is not right.


Examples are key here. Many things that seem like they are "not right" are usually things that have been taken out of context, misinterpreted, or just little anomalies that have been interpreted as something more than what they are.

[Quad4_72]

Thanks for the welcome.

I believe there was 19 hijackers, more than likely associated with al-queda, and crashed the planes. Was the government involved at all? That is where I'm stuck.

No. The government was not involved at all. If you think they were, do you have proof of this?

[Peace]

No. The government was not involved at all. If you think they were, do you have proof of this?

Lol no, if I had proof, I wouldn't be undecided. How can we prove the government wasn't involved?

[T.A.M.]

Peace:

Welcome to the forum. As others have said, it is not as simple as "believe" or "not", but most of us like fit into one of these categories.

1. 100% believe the official tale as we now know it (a portion of people here, but not the majority).

2. LIHOI (US govt - Let It Happen Out of Ignorance/Incompetence)

3. LIHOP (US govt - Let It Happen On Purpose)

4. MIHOP (US govt - Made It Happen On Purpose)

On this forum, 95% of posters fall into 1. and 2., the other 5% split into 3. and 4.

TAM:)

[Quad4_72]

Lol no, if I had proof, I wouldn't be undecided. How can we prove government wasn't involved?

You must have a reason to think they were involved or else you would not be posting here. The 911 Commission report actually answers all of your questions. All of the evidence we have links Al Qaeda to the attacks of 9/11. There is not a single shred of evidence that even remotely links the government to being involved in 9/11.

So lets way the choices:

1. Mounds of evidence that positively links the attacks of 9/11 to Osama bin Laden and Al qaeda.

or

2. ZERO evidence that links the government to the attacks.

Seems like a pretty easy choice to me. You yourself even said you don't have proof of the governments involvement. So which one do you choose?

[DGM]

Thanks for the welcome.

I believe there was 19 hijackers, more than likely associated with al-queda, and crashed the planes. Was the government involved at all? That is where I'm stuck.
Welcome Peace; (sounds like a slogan)
That wasn't so hard now was it. Sounds like you may have "trust" issues toward the government more than anything else. Theres nothing wrong with that most of us here are the same way. You don't however have to trust that they're telling you the truth because there is no "they". The "official story" as it's been called is not a government issued story. It's made up of thousands of accounts from mostly regular people. Don't let anyone tell you that questioning 9/11 is bad, just make sure you can justify your sources of information. If you have to think about if it could be BS or ignore physical evidence I think you know inside which way to go. Good luck with your quest for knowledge.

[CptColumbo]

Lol no, if I had proof, I wouldn't be undecided. How can we prove the government wasn't involved?It's hard to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who make the accusation.

[Pope130]

Welcome Peace.

For myself, the case for no government involvement is as proven as a case proving the non-existance of an object can be. I have seen no credible evidence of a 'larger conspiracy' whatever.

Robert

[Peace]

1. Mounds of evidence that positively links the attacks of 9/11 to Osama bin Laden and Al qaeda.

or

2. ZERO evidence that links the government to the attacks.



I believe 1 is true. But was Bush or more people involved at any level?

[Peace]

It's hard to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who make the accusation.

Just because you can't prove something does that mean it's not true?

[CptColumbo]

I believe 1 is true. But was Bush or more people involved at any level?Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the current answer is no.

[Quad4_72]

I believe 1 is true. But was Bush or more people involved at any level?

No. At no level was Bush involved or anyone else in the US government. We went over that part remember? Since there is not a shred of evidence that links anyone in the government to the attacks, we can say that they were not involved.

[Quad4_72]

Just because you can't prove something does that mean it's not true?

When there is overwhelming evidence that points to the complete opposite side of the spectrum? Yes, that means its not true.

[Peace]

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the current answer is no.

People commit all kinds of crimes and leave no evidence.

[Quad4_72]

People commit all kinds of crimes and leave no evidence.

Maybe on a small level such as the murder of one person. But the supposed largest conspiracy in the history of man kind and not a single shred of evidence, commited by an already highly incompetent government? I think not.

[CptColumbo]

Just because you can't prove something does that mean it's not true?And gut-feeling is no reason to accuse someone of mass murder. There has to be proof. I can accuse Donald Trump of being behind 9/11, can you prove he wasn't.

I dislike the Bush Administration, but I'm not going to accuse them of killing 3000 civilians without any evidence they did it.

[CptColumbo]

People commit all kinds of crimes and leave no evidence.
And innocent people also leave no evidence that they commited a crime.

[DGM]

People commit all kinds of crimes and leave no evidence.
Think about this. How many people would need to be involved and how do you suppose they could have done it. If you run through this question honestly you should come up with the conclusion of "too many". Remember you also have to account for the fact that people suck at keeping secrets. Good luck.

[T.A.M.]

Peace:

I can't prove to you that Santa Claus isn't real either, so does that mean he is?

No, the chances of Santa Claus existing, as we know him by legend, are infinitely small.

See the point.

TAM:)

[Peace]

Maybe on a small level such as the murder of one person. But the supposed largest conspiracy in the history of man kind and not a single shred of evidence, commited by an already highly incompetent government? I think not.

Lets say Bush (maybe more people) and Osama made some kind of deal, and let everything else run its course.

And gut-feeling is no reason to accuse someone of mass murder. There has to be proof. I can accuse Donald Trump of being behind 9/11, can you prove he wasn't.

I dislike the Bush Administration, but I'm not going to accuse them of killing 3000 civilians without any evidence they did it.


Well I'm not saying Bush was involved, at the same time I can't say he wasn't.

[Peace]

Peace:

I can't prove to you that Santa Claus isn't real either, so does that mean he is?

No, the chances of Santa Claus existing, as we know him by legend, are infinitely small.

See the point.

TAM:)

I think you can prove a man doesn't come down your chimney on the 25th of dec with gifts for the kids. :)

[DGM]

Lets say Bush (maybe more people) and Osama made some kind of deal, and let everything else run its course.


How with out having to involve several agencies? FBI, FAA, NORAD, ect,ect. See where I'm going with this? These people have to know and keep quite.

[T.A.M.]

Lets say Bush (maybe more people) and Osama made some kind of deal, and let everything else run its course.




Well I'm not saying Bush was involved, at the same time I can't say he wasn't.

Ok, lets look at what you have just said.

Now:

1. Why would you suspect Bush and Obama in on it together?
2. What proof do you have they were in on it together?

You see it is not enough for you to say "well they might have, who knows?"

I mean, how do we know the Russian's weren't involved? How about Canada, how do we know they didn't get OBL and Al-Qaeda to do it??

TAM:)

[volatile]

Santa Claus is behind 9-11?

[T.A.M.]

I think you can prove a man doesn't come down your chimney on the 25th of dec with gifts for the kids. :)

How do I prove it to you?

How do I know he doesn't turn invisible, and come down the chimney through "magic"? How do I know?

The only thing I can prove in this regard, is that he has not left anything for the children, and I can only do that by accounting for all the presents as purchased by myself, or someone I know who is not St. Nick.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

I think you can prove a man doesn't come down your chimney on the 25th of dec with gifts for the kids. :)
There goes your gift

[Quad4_72]

Lets say Bush (maybe more people) and Osama made some kind of deal, and let everything else run its course.




Well I'm not saying Bush was involved, at the same time I can't say he wasn't.

It simply does not work that way Peace. You can't just assume people are involved. You MUST have evidence. You can accuse anyone you want, but without the proper evidence, your accusation means exactly DICK.

And exactly how do you think Bush went about planning this massive conspiracy with Osama? With eyes on his every move 24/7, how did he manage to plan mass murder without a single person noticing?

[Peace]

How with out having to involve several agencies? FBI, FAA, NORAD, ect,ect. See where I'm going with this? These people have to know and keep quite.

Why would they have to know anything?

Ok, lets look at what you have just said.

Now:

1. Why would you suspect Bush and Obama in on it together?
2. What proof do you have they were in on it together?

You see it is not enough for you to say "well they might have, who knows?"

I mean, how do we know the Russian's weren't involved? How about Canada, how do we know they didn't get OBL and Al-Qaeda to do it??

TAM:)

1. Because people are pointing fingers at the government. I know that doesn't make them guilty, but it does make one wonder.
2. None. :)

[CptColumbo]

So, basically any Police Detective and DA should be able to open a phone book and close all their open cases.

[Peace]

There goes your gift

Haha ok I believe, new car please.

[CptColumbo]

1. Because people are pointing fingers at the government. I know that doesn't make them guilty, but it does make one wonder.
It's been my experience that there will always be people who blame the government for all kinds of problems. The mayor of my hometown lost an election because he was blamed for a severe rainfall we had.
2. None. :)
Then what's the problem?

[T.A.M.]

Why would they have to know anything?



1. Because people are pointing fingers at the government. I know that doesn't make them guilty, but it does make one wonder.
2. None. :)

It is ok to have doubts. No one here is going to say squat about having doubts. What people will have something to say about, is accusations made against others without solid proof. This does not seem to be a problem for you.

I think in the end though, for your own peace of mind, you have to decide how remote, given the overwhelming evidence in opposition to it, the plausibility of the CTs argument is.

TAM:)

[Quad4_72]

1. Because people are pointing fingers at the government. I know that doesn't make them guilty, but it does make one wonder.
2. None. :)

There are very, very few people pointing fingers at the government. These few people are generally uneducated and have no knowledge of science or physics. The even fewer that have actually been to college are liars and completely out of their minds. For example, Judy Woods has been to college and got a degree, but she believes that beam weapons brought down the towers.

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah, someone is "undecided" I see *wink wink*. Is this were we all play along?

[DGM]

Why would they have to know anything?

That's easy. Why would they ignore the procedures in place and do nothing? He would need these people to not react and not look into things that they are tasked to do. Most things that happen in the government are dictated by procedures and the higher ups only come into play after the action is already going. Unless of course they start it which involves lots of people.

[Peace]

It is ok to have doubts. No one here is going to say ***** about having doubts.
TAM:)

Thats it I just have my doubts. When people say the government was or wasn't involved, I just think how do you know.


That's easy. Why would they ignore the procedures in place and do nothing? He would need these people to not react and not look into things that they are tasked to do. Most things that happen in the government are dictated by procedures and the higher ups only come into play after the action is already going. Unless of course they start it which involves lots of people.

Well lets just say for arguments sake just Bush was involved, and the rest was incompetence. We could add lots of people was involved.

[T.A.M.]

ok, so you have doubts, and that is all.

Honest question then...why are you here?

TAM:)

[CptColumbo]

Thats it I just have my doubts. When people say the government was or wasn't involved, I just think how do you know. As you can see, we are asking the same thing. How do you know?

Well lets just say for arguments sake just Bush was involved, and the rest was incompetence. We could add lots of people was involved.
Remember Cheney's hunting accident? There were 7 people (including the VP) present, it still got out to the press. The more people involved the greater the chance of it leaking out.

[Peace]

There are very, very few people pointing fingers at the government. These few people are generally uneducated and have no knowledge of science or physics. The even fewer that have actually been to college are liars and completely out of their minds. For example, Judy Woods has been to college and got a degree, but she believes that beam weapons brought down the towers.

I'm just a 40 year old postman. I like to think my common sense makes up for the lack of education, but maybe that's not the case. That's why I like to read what the educated people here think. :)

[DGM]

Well lets just say for arguments sake just Bush was involved, and the rest was incompetence. We could add lots of people was involved.

OK let me ask you this. Why would Osama involve Bush if he in no way could ensure success of the plan? What your proposing implies that Bush was helping accomplish the plan, this would involve many people. If your just saying he knew, then why? Is Bush just evil? Do you see my reasoning?

[T.A.M.]

Peace:

the same principle should hold true the next time you have a fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Your common sense might tell you it is a cold, and you MIGHT be right. However, it might be a pneumonia. How would you find out?

TAM:)

[Peace]

Honest question then...why are you here?

TAM:)

I like to read what both sides have to say, and got sick of being a lurker. :o

[Peace]

OK let me ask you this. Why would Osama involve Bush if he in no way could ensure success of the plan? What your proposing implies that Bush was helping accomplish the plan, this would involve many people. If your just saying he knew, then why? Is Bush just evil? Do you see my reasoning?

I think if there was any plan it would be Bush was involving Osama.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Thats it I just have my doubts. When people say the government was or wasn't involved, I just think how do you know.




Well lets just say for arguments sake just Bush was involved, and the rest was incompetence. We could add lots of people was involved.

What deal could Bush strike with Al Quaida, that had any bearing on the events to come, that didn't involve anyone else?


- Hey, Osama, I'll let you hit the Twin Towers!

- Great Bushie, I'll just go ahead and send my men through the Newark Airport or sumthin, heading down to Florida for flightschool.

- Umm... that would be a problem, since I'd have to involve the US Customs...

- OK, I'll manage that part myself then, but when my men packs boxcutters and pass the security checks at the airport, make sure they aren't stopped

- Ummm... again, can't do that. It would involve the security personel

- Dang it, George, at least make sure noone shoots down the airplanes or tries to stop them..

- Well, that would mean I'd have to involve the military and a bunch of others...


So, exactly what deal do you propose Bush could have striken with Osama? The president doesn't work in a vacuum - he has to order people around.

[Peace]

Peace:

the same principle should hold true the next time you have a fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Your common sense might tell you it is a cold, and you MIGHT be right. However, it might be a pneumonia. How would you find out?

TAM:)

I would see a doctor. I don't see anyone that can prove Bush was or wasn't involved at all.

[DGM]

I think if there was any plan it would be Bush was involving Osama.
That would lead to the "Bush is just evil" option now wouldn't it. That my friend I can't help you sort out. That actually falls into the belief category that I'm not a big fan of (being skeptic in all).

[Quad4_72]

I'm just a 40 year old postman. I like to think my common sense makes up for the lack of education, but maybe that's not the case. That's why I like to read what the educated people here think. :)

Fair enough. Lets give your common sense a run for its money. We tried this a couple of times before, so maybe third times a charm.

All evidence that has been collected in the 7 years since the attacks points directly to Al qaeda. Osama bin Laden himself has admitted that he was responsible. Also in the 7 years since the attacks, not a single piece of evidence has surfaced indicating that any member of the U.S. government has had any involvement or prior knowledge of the attacks. In the new age media world that we live in, where information is transferred within seconds, and with technologies such as cell phones, computers, small cameras, audio devices, and especially the internet, there has not been a single leak or indication that the government was even remotely involved.

So now Peace this is where that common sense of yours comes in. The choice is yours.

[T.A.M.]

I would see a doctor. I don't see anyone that can prove Bush was or wasn't involved at all.

Exactly...you would see an expert (a doctor). Now he would tell you, given your symptoms, what you are likely suffering from. He might, or might not (the norm) order a CXR, and would almost certainly, if he felt you had pneumonia, give you antibiotics.

In most cases experts will tell you what is MOST LIKELY, based on their expertise, based on their knowledge, and based on evidence.

The doctor would not for certain, tell you it was "Definitely Pneumonia" (if he is any good anyway), but will tell you "you are most likely suffering from pneumonia".

similarly, but on a much more detailed and grand scale, the experts who investigated the attacks have concluded who carried out the attacks, and how. No significant evidence of any kind has come forward to the contrary. Can we say with 100% certainty that all they have told us is true? of course not, but we can say, given the OVERWHELMING evidence, that the official story is most likely the correct one.

TAM:)

[Peace]

What deal could Bush strike with Al Quaida, that had any bearing on the events to come, that didn't involve anyone else?



So, exactly what deal do you propose Bush could have striken with Osama? The president doesn't work in a vacuum - he has to order people around.

I'll try to answer, and keep it simple (for me). :)

Bush calls Osama. "hi Osama I have a plan and need you to crash some planes for me, and you'll get what you asked for."

[T.A.M.]

That would lead to the "Bush is just evil" option now wouldn't it. That my friend I can't help you sort out. That actually falls into the belief category that I'm not a big fan of (being skeptic in all).

Exactly. As I have said to many truthers and others, if your point or stance boils down to a "belief" only, then while you are entitled to such, do not expect it to carry any weight here without proof.

TAM:)

[Peace]

That would lead to the "Bush is just evil" option now wouldn't it. That my friend I can't help you sort out. That actually falls into the belief category that I'm not a big fan of (being skeptic in all).

Not saying that is the truth but I'm just playing devils advocate here.

All evidence that has been collected in the 7 years since the attacks points directly to Al qaeda. Osama bin Laden himself has admitted that he was responsible. Also in the 7 years since the attacks, not a single piece of evidence has surfaced indicating that any member of the U.S. government has had any involvement or prior knowledge of the attacks. In the new age media world that we live in, where information is transferred within seconds, and with technologies such as cell phones, computers, small cameras, audio devices, and especially the internet, there has not been a single leak or indication that the government was even remotely involved.

So now Peace this is where that common sense of yours comes in. The choice is yours.

Just because there is no evidence that Bush was involved that doesn't mean he wasn't. That just means no one can prove it.

[DGM]

I'll try to answer, and keep it simple (for me). :)

Bush calls Osama. "hi Osama I have a plan and need you to crash some planes for me, and you'll get what you asked for."
This again is a Bush is evil. Just out of curiosity why do you think that?

PS I'm also a working stiff, 49 year old iron worker that happens (through too much hard work) to own a construction company.

[Quad4_72]

Not saying that is the truth but I'm just playing devils advocate here.



Just because there is no evidence that Bush was involved that doesn't mean he wasn't. That just means no one can prove it.

Again, we go back to the old "Well since you can't prove he wasn't involved that means he was" argument. It seems that common sense that you prided yourself on has failed you. By your logic, I could just as easily say that Brad Pitt conspired with Osama to plan that attacks. You can't prove that he did not, so what does that mean? The faster you start grasping the basic concepts of logic, the faster you will understand how things in the real world function.

[Peace]

Exactly...you would see an expert (a doctor). Now he would tell you, given your symptoms, what you are likely suffering from. He might, or might not (the norm) order a CXR, and would almost certainly, if he felt you had pneumonia, give you antibiotics.

In most cases experts will tell you what is MOST LIKELY, based on their expertise, based on their knowledge, and based on evidence.

The doctor would not for certain, tell you it was "Definitely Pneumonia" (if he is any good anyway), but will tell you "you are most likely suffering from pneumonia".

similarly, but on a much more detailed and grand scale, the experts who investigated the attacks have concluded who carried out the attacks, and how. No significant evidence of any kind has come forward to the contrary. Can we say with 100% certainty that all they have told us is true? of course not, but we can say, given the OVERWHELMING evidence, that the official story is most likely the correct one.

TAM:)

If someone does something and leaves no evidence, he can't be caught, and no expert can help.

This again is a Bush is evil. Just out of curiosity why do you think that?



I hope he's not evil, and would do something like that to the people that voted him in. Can I say for sure he didn't? No.

[Peace]

Again, we go back to the old "Well since you can't prove he wasn't involved that means he was" argument. It seems that common sense that you prided yourself on has failed you. By your logic, I could just as easily say that Brad Pitt conspired with Osama to plan that attacks. You can't prove that he did not, so what does that mean? The faster you start grasping the basic concepts of logic, the faster you will understand how things in the real world function.

Well for a start a lot of people are pointing fingers at Bush, I don't know anyone that thinks Brad Pitt was involved. There is also a lot of people that think the evidence points to Bush or the government. I know all the evidence could be wrong, but that still don't prove Bush wasn't involved.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Bush calls Osama. "hi Osama I have a plan and need you to crash some planes for me, and you'll get what you asked for."

And how would he go about that? Taking into the picture the fact that american authorities had been looking form Osama since early -90's something, with Bill Clinton shooting Tomahawks after him and all?

Does Osama have a direct hotline Bush could call without anyone knowing, or did he just look him up in the yellow pages? And exactly what is the deal? What on earth could Bush give Osama, that he didn't already have (Or do you think Osama walked about his camp in Pakistan or whatever, just thinking "Oh, I need to come up with a cunning plan - but I feel my own fantasy isn't suffice, I need input!")?

[Peace]

And how would he go about that? Taking into the picture the fact that american authorities had been looking form Osama since early -90's something, with Bill Clinton shooting Tomahawks after him and all?

Does Osama have a direct hotline Bush could call without anyone knowing, or did he just look him up in the yellow pages? And exactly what is the deal? What on earth could Bush give Osama, that he didn't already have (Or do you think Osama walked about his camp in Pakistan or whatever, just thinking "Oh, I need to come up with a cunning plan - but I feel my own fantasy isn't suffice, I need input!")?

So you're saying two (maybe more people) can't make a plan without others knowing?

[Finnegan]

We could all be convinced of any theory.*

"Bush calls Osama. "hi Osama I have a plan and need you to crash some planes for me, and you'll get what you asked for.""

What do you imagine could have been his incentive? Osama Bin Laden was already a billionaire, and the following years have hardly suited his declared political agenda. Afghanistan has been invaded, Iran has been challenged and US policy remains firmly pro-Israel.


* Though I doubt that David Icke will bring me to the truth.

[T.A.M.]

Actually Osama was far from a Billionaire at the time of 9/11...for what it is worth.

His family, on the other hand, was worth a substantial amount.

TAM:)

[Quad4_72]

Well for a start a lot of people are pointing fingers at Bush, I don't know anyone that thinks Brad Pitt was involved. There is also a lot of people that think the evidence points to Bush or the government. I know all the evidence could be wrong, but that still don't prove Bush wasn't involved.

Is anyone of credibility pointing fingers at Bush? No, they are not. Do any of these people have any evidence that Bush was involved? No they do not. This is a skeptics forum, where you must have evidence to back all claims. If you have no evidence for a claim, then you have no case. End of discussion. Your argument of "Well you can't prove he wasn't involved." holds no water here. Next please.

[DGM]

I hope he's not evil, and would do something like that to the people that voted him in. Can I say for sure he didn't? No.

So what's your reasoning for believing it is possible? No one here is going to give you [rule 10] as long as you don't lie, makeup stuff and the like. Just say why you think this could be true. Beating around the bush and telling lies will get you nowhere here but if you shoot from the hip and stand by you convictions you will be respected for this. (anyone here want to challenge this assessment?)

[Peace]

What do you imagine could have been his incentive? Osama Bin Laden was already a billionaire, and the following years have hardly suited his declared political agenda. Afghanistan has been invaded, Iran has been challenged and US policy remains firmly pro-Israel.




Thats like saying why do some rich some people commit crimes.

[Panoply_Prefect]

So you're saying two (maybe more people) can't make a plan without others knowing?

Im saying nothing of that kind. Im saying that even if Bush somehow found out Osamas phone number and called him, he couldn't have striken any sort of deal with him, without other people being involved.

Think about it - If the only thing Bush had to offer was the mere idea of a terrorist-attack on US soil, Im sure Osama would manage without his "help".

In order for Bush to have striken a deal with Osama on staging 911, he would have had to offer a lot more - which would involve a lot "more people".

[CptColumbo]

Can you provide an example of someone who is "pointing a finger" at the president and what the basis for it is?

[T.A.M.]

Im saying nothing of that kind. Im saying that even if Bush somehow found out Osamas phone number and called him, he couldn't have striken any sort of deal with him, without other people being involved.

Think about it - If the only thing Bush had to offer was the mere idea of a terrorist-attack on US soil, Im sure Osama would manage without his "help".

In order for Bush to have striken a deal with Osama on staging 911, he would have had to offer a lot more - which would involve a lot "more people".

Unless Bush simply promised to "slip him a fiddy".

TAM;)

[Peace]

Is anyone of credibility pointing fingers at Bush? No, they are not. Do any of these people have any evidence that Bush was involved? No they do not. This is a skeptics forum, where you must have evidence to back all claims. If you have no evidence for a claim, then you have no case. End of discussion. Your argument of "Well you can't prove he wasn't involved." holds no water here. Next please.

I'm not sure who is or who isn't credible. Do they have any evidence? Well they think so.

My argument wasn't you can't prove Bush was involved, so he's guilty, but you can't prove he wasn't involved so I'm undecided. People who commit crimes get away all the time because of lack of evidence.

[Peace]

Im saying nothing of that kind. Im saying that even if Bush somehow found out Osamas phone number and called him, he couldn't have striken any sort of deal with him, without other people being involved.



Can you tell me why Bush and Osama, or a few of their people, can't strike a deal without other people knowing?

[Peace]

Can you provide an example of someone who is "pointing a finger" at the president and what the basis for it is?


Well all the twoofers or whatever you guys call them for a start. :)

[Quad4_72]

I'm not sure who is or who isn't credible. Do they have any evidence? Well they think so.

My argument wasn't you can't prove Bush was involved, so he's guilty, but you can't prove he wasn't involved so I'm undecided. People who commit crimes get away all the time because of lack of evidence.

This is getting a bit childish now. As I said before, present evidence as to why you have any doubts or drop your argument.

[CptColumbo]

I'm not sure who is or who isn't credible. Do they have any evidence? Well they think so.

My argument wasn't you can't prove Bush was involved, so he's guilty, but you can't prove he wasn't involved so I'm undecided. People who commit crimes get away all the time because of lack of evidence. And innocent people get accused of crimes by finger pointers based on little or no evidence.

Alright, the basis for your claim that the USG may be involved in the 9/11 attacks is the lack of evidence that they were involved in the attacks? Do you see how silly that is?

[Quad4_72]

Well all the twoofers or whatever you guys call them for a start. :)

And what evidence do they have for his involvement? Answer both parts of his question, not just part of it.

[CptColumbo]

Well all the twoofers or whatever you guys call them for a start. :)Can you give a specific example, and explain why it is a credible accusation?

[dbalsdon]

Bush calls Osama. "hi Osama I have a plan and need you to crash some planes for me, and you'll get what you asked for."

So, lets imagine Bin Laden gets caught.
In the interrogation, he gets asked: "Why did you do it?"
He replies with: "Because Bush told me to do it"

Would that be proof for you that the US government was behind it?

[Peace]

And what evidence do they have for his involvement? Answer both parts of his question, not just part of it.

Come on you know what they think of 9-11, on top of that money, power, oil, etc.

[applecorped]

that is not evidence.

[Peace]

Can you give a specific example, and explain why it is a credible accusation?

I didn't say it was, but they think seem to think it is.

[dbalsdon]

Alright, the basis for your claim that the USG may be involved in the 9/11 attacks is the lack of evidence that they were involved in the attacks?

Sorry, but when put like that, that sounds scarily familiar!!!!

ETA: Ok, so that sums up the truth movement I guess.. but one 'group' came to mind when I read that.

[DGM]

Come on you know what they think of 9-11, on top of that money, power, oil, etc.
He said evidence not speculation and conjecture. Please be honest or responses to you will regretfully become hostile.

[CptColumbo]

I didn't say it was, but they think seem to think it is.
If you don't believe it is a credible accusation, why acknowledge it?

[Peace]

that is not evidence.


Again people get away with crime all the time because of lack of evidence. If Bush was involved that would be a motive. Was he involved? I don't know. Could he have been? Yes.

[DGM]

Again people get away with crime all the time because of lack of evidence. If Bush was involved that would be a motive. Was he involved? I don't know. Could he have been? Yes.

Excuse me! What the hell do you mean by this?

[CptColumbo]

Again people get away with crime all the time because of lack of evidence. And innocent people get accused of crimes they didn't commit with liitle evidence.

If Bush was involved that would be a motive. Was he involved? I don't know. Could he have been? Yes.If the fact that someone "could have been involved" is the basis for a claim, the list of suspects reaches into the millions (if not billions).

[twinstead]

ah. Absence of evidence is evidence. This thread appears to be going down familiar lanes. When all else fails, suspect something because it could have been, and drive an investigation based on that.

What the hell happened to our education system?!

[Finnegan]

Again people get away with crime all the time because of lack of evidence.

Yes, and it commonly means that they're innocent.

[CptColumbo]

Yes, and it commonly means that they're innocent.I've tried that a few times and we seem to keep coming around to it again.

[Peace]

If you don't believe it is a credible accusation, why acknowledge it?

Well tbh, I'm undecided on that. I see and hear things, and I have no idea whats right or wrong.

You guys say one thing, and the twoofers say another.

[twinstead]

So how does one tell the difference between somebody who is innocent because of lack of evidence and somebody who is getting away with a crime because of lack of evidence?

[Peace]

So how does one tell the difference between somebody who is innocent because of lack of evidence and somebody who is getting away with a crime because of lack of evidence?

You can't! That's my point. People say Bush or the government was involved, and others say him or them are innocent, but you can't prove it one way or the other. So how can anyone be so sure?

[DGM]

people get away with crime all the time

Peace;
This is not a motivation. This maybe a selfish justification for some act but there would need to be a root motivation to commit this act. I hate to break it to you but Bush is not a moron (despite popular belief) he would think things through before acting. You can accuse him of being calculating (sometimes wrong) but he's not a moron.

[dbalsdon]

The hell with it. I'm calling truther on this guy. Bye.

[Peace]

I've been here a long time, and thanks for the welcome guys. Hope my opinion doesn't upset anyone, and I respect yours. I have to get up early or you won't get your mail. :)

[Peace]

The hell with it. I'm calling truther on this guy. Bye.

Last one before I go. If I was a truther, I wouldn't have a problem admitting it. I could ask the same questions to any truther, and think they would still be valid.

Peace out. :)

[Architect]

What, you send out the NWO pay cheques?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Can you tell me why Bush and Osama, or a few of their people, can't strike a deal without other people knowing?

You're the one proposing they did. What would such a deal entail -and lets take it from there, shall we?

[Pope130]

Peace,
By your standard for suspecting President Bush is involved, we would be justified in suspecting anyone of being behind the conspiracy. I've seen no proof that you are not behind it. What exactly is your alibi?

[Jonnyclueless]

Are we still pretending someone is undecided? Someone let me know when we're done pretending so we can have a real discussion.

[DGM]

Are we still pretending someone is undecided? Someone let me know when we're done pretending so we can have a real discussion.
The issue is what would the discussion be about if he could not commit to an opinion on the subject. I think we established that his view on the subject is based on a belief. I say we leave it at that because trying to falsify someones belief is more or less pointless.

[gumboot]

I just had this image of George Bush calling Osama Bin Laden, and found it hysterical.

[Quad4_72]

Alright here is the real question for you Peace. What evidence presented to you would suffice for you to believe that Bush was not involved?

[Quad4_72]

I just had this image of George Bush calling Osama Bin Laden, and found it hysterical.

Bush: Hey Osama? What's been goin on man?

Osama: Oh not too much just plannin some more attacks, you know the usual.

Bush: Ah yes of course. Gotta make a living right? Well funny you should mention attacks...What does your schedule look like for the 11th of September?

Osama: Oh well lets see. I was gonna go Golfing with some of the fellas but I can cancel. What did you have in mind?

Bush: Well I really wanna go to war with Iraq and get some oil. Need something to give me an excuse for it. Can you help me out?

Osama: Sure can. Does the morning work for you?

Bush: Yeah that sounds great! You are such a good friend Osama. I don't know what I would do without you.

Osama: Oh stop it Bushy, you are makin me blush.

Bush: Well its true. I don't see why to good friends can't express feelings for each other.

Osama: True that.

Bush: Hey I gotta go, Condee is comin. Great talkin to you though.

Osama: Definitely. I will see ya.

[pomeroo]

Lol no, if I had proof, I wouldn't be undecided. How can we prove the government wasn't involved?


Welcome to the forum, Peace. Please understand that many people who are hopelessly wedded to these baseless conspiracy theories come here and announce that they are "undecided," or, to use the term favored by a particularly strident twoofer, "agnostics." The disingenuousness of this approach irritates many of us. If you have honest questions, we will be glad to discuss them with you.

One way to start examining the issue of the government's involvement is to appeal to critical thinking. What aims would the conspiracy have? How big would the conspiracy need to be? How could the evildoers hope to avoid detection?

[Finnegan]

I just had this image of George Bush calling Osama Bin Laden, and found it hysterical.

I see an immediate flaw in this CT*:

Bin Laden
أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لا دهذا المنزل من

George Bush
Hey Osama! I wondered if, of an evening, you'd like to swing by the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Interested?

Bin Laden
يا أيها الله

* Afterthought: This was from an English-Arabic translator, so heaven knows what it could actually mean. Apologies if I've been swearing/slandering or making assertations about another's sexuality.

[Alferd_Packer]

Another hit and run truther, I presume. :)

[twinstead]

You can't! That's my point. People say Bush or the government was involved, and others say him or them are innocent, but you can't prove it one way or the other. So how can anyone be so sure?

This is NOT a 50/50 situation. The overwhelming body of real evidence supports the idea that the government was NOT involved, so now it becomes a situation where you accept one account that has the most evidence to support it until you are presented with compelling evidence that the contrary is true.

Now this leads us into a debate on what exactly IS compelling evidence, doesn't it? That IMO is the only debate here.

[pomeroo]

Well for a start a lot of people are pointing fingers at Bush, I don't know anyone that thinks Brad Pitt was involved. There is also a lot of people that think the evidence points to Bush or the government. I know all the evidence could be wrong, but that still don't prove Bush wasn't involved.


Okay, I wrote my first post as I read your introductory comments. Matters have become much clearer. I'll state for the record that there is absolutely no evidence--zero, zilch, nada--pointing to any involvement by members of the U.S. government. Having gone through the motions, I will now state that I'm tired of this game. Bye.

[PhantomWolf]

I'd suggest the first motives you look at are your own. Why do you want Bush to be involved? Yes the guy is an idiot and should never have been let loose in charge of a paper bag, let alone a country, but is that sort of incompetence enough to blame him for something with zero proof?

Next you say "But you can't prove that he wasn't involved." Well true, nothing can be proven 100%, but there is still zero evidence for him being involved. Add to that, we know where the plans for the attack come from, Ramzi Yousef thought them up in the mid 90's while he was in the Philippines. He mentioned it to his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad who in turn grandised the plan and gave suggested it to Osama (who in turn trimmed it back a lot.) As such we don't have to speculate about Bush ringing up Osama on some imaginary hotline and suggesting such a plan to him. We also know that the plan was well under way long before Bush got into office, around the end of 1998 or beginning of 1999. This was before Bush even announced he was running for President, let alone had the republican Nomination of the Election itself won. Why would Osama, who had multiple times to that expressed his wishes to kill any Americans he could anywhere, work with the Governor of Texas on a plan that KSM had told him about on the chance that perhaps Bush would become President and then not actually be able to do anything to help him anyway?

This really doesn't make a lot of sense, in fact it makes zero sense.

So what we are left with is a proposed plan between two people who have zero reason to work together, creating a plan that makes zero sense, requiring both to have perfect knowledge of the future, resulting in no way to help without informing others, and for which there is zero proof of it ever happening.

No we can't proof 100% absolutely that it didn't, but then we can't prove absolutely that Dick Cheney wasn't Jack the Ripper either, does that mean that we should accuse him and then sit on the fence and say, "I'm undecided on it"?

[gumboot]

One thing I find odd is that people would think George Bush and Osama Bin Laden would actually be able to have a conversation. I mean, for starters they're mortal enemies.

I have this theory about Presidents of the USA in general. There's a lot of notions about personal secret ambitions and things like that, but as a rule I don't buy them. Being President does bring you certain powers, but those powers are really quite limited, and with them comes some major problems - firstly you immediately become a juicy assassination target for a large number of people. Every move you make is going to be ripped to pieces and the worst intentions always assumed. You'll have to put up with being ridiculed, with having your family mocked in the most disrespectful and hurtful ways...

And for what? I don't know how much a President gets paid, but I doubt you'd recover the costs of running in the elections. In terms of actual power you probably have more as a CEO of a major corporation or heading a government agency.

I think people run for President, and act as President, because they genuinely think they can improve their country and make it better. I think their opinions on what the direction the country should go are not always good ones, and I think often their goals don't always unfold as expected, but I think their intentions are always to improve the nation.

So the problem here is, when you suggest that Bush made this deal with Osama Bin Laden, it doesn't make sense. Each has to offer the other something they want, or there can be no deal.

Now, we're expected to believe that Bush wanted 3,000 of his fellow citizens to be murdered, and their economy to be flushed down the toilet some more. I don't buy it. Sorry. Say what you want about the man and his policies, but I see ample evidence that he loves the USA and wants to improve it. And as unpleasant as some of his notions of "improvement" are to me, I don't see "slaughter my citizens and trash my largest city" as one of them.

Then on the other side of that you've got Osama Bin Laden. What does he want? Well, he wants the USA out of the Middle East, for starters. So Bush apparently wants to slaughter his fellow man to have an excuse to get more involved in the Middle East, and Osama Bin Laden is meant to see this as a good thing? Explain that one, please.

[DGM]

Welcome to the forum, Peace. Please understand that many people who are hopelessly wedded to these baseless conspiracy theories come here and announce that they are "undecided," or, to use the term favored by a particularly strident twoofer, "agnostics." The disingenuousness of this approach irritates many of us. If you have honest questions, we will be glad to discuss them with you.

One way to start examining the issue of the government's involvement is to appeal to critical thinking. What aims would the conspiracy have? How big would the conspiracy need to be? How could the evildoers hope to avoid detection?
Ron, are you posting for pomeroo now? Let me guess your exorcising you tolerant side for your interview with Ace this week.

Actually I'm kind of intrigued to see how that works out. Ace although he is a no-planer nut is for the most part at least lucid/civil in his behavior. Good luck with that, I'm looking forward to seeing it on the net (no more "technical" problems please):D

[hellaeon]

Peace, these two posts sum it up :

I'd suggest the first motives you look at are your own. Why do you want Bush to be involved? Yes the guy is an idiot and should never have been let loose in charge of a paper bag, let alone a country, but is that sort of incompetence enough to blame him for something with zero proof?

Next you say "But you can't prove that he wasn't involved." Well true, nothing can be proven 100%, but there is still zero evidence for him being involved. Add to that, we know where the plans for the attack come from, Ramzi Yousef thought them up in the mid 90's while he was in the Philippines. He mentioned it to his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad who in turn grandised the plan and gave suggested it to Osama (who in turn trimmed it back a lot.) As such we don't have to speculate about Bush ringing up Osama on some imaginary hotline and suggesting such a plan to him. We also know that the plan was well under way long before Bush got into office, around the end of 1998 or beginning of 1999. This was before Bush even announced he was running for President, let alone had the republican Nomination of the Election itself won. Why would Osama, who had multiple times to that expressed his wishes to kill any Americans he could anywhere, work with the Governor of Texas on a plan that KSM had told him about on the chance that perhaps Bush would become President and then not actually be able to do anything to help him anyway?

This really doesn't make a lot of sense, in fact it makes zero sense.

So what we are left with is a proposed plan between two people who have zero reason to work together, creating a plan that makes zero sense, requiring both to have perfect knowledge of the future, resulting in no way to help without informing others, and for which there is zero proof of it ever happening.

No we can't proof 100% absolutely that it didn't, but then we can't prove absolutely that Dick Cheney wasn't Jack the Ripper either, does that mean that we should accuse him and then sit on the fence and say, "I'm undecided on it"?

One thing I find odd is that people would think George Bush and Osama Bin Laden would actually be able to have a conversation. I mean, for starters they're mortal enemies.

I have this theory about Presidents of the USA in general. There's a lot of notions about personal secret ambitions and things like that, but as a rule I don't buy them. Being President does bring you certain powers, but those powers are really quite limited, and with them comes some major problems - firstly you immediately become a juicy assassination target for a large number of people. Every move you make is going to be ripped to pieces and the worst intentions always assumed. You'll have to put up with being ridiculed, with having your family mocked in the most disrespectful and hurtful ways...

And for what? I don't know how much a President gets paid, but I doubt you'd recover the costs of running in the elections. In terms of actual power you probably have more as a CEO of a major corporation or heading a government agency.

I think people run for President, and act as President, because they genuinely think they can improve their country and make it better. I think their opinions on what the direction the country should go are not always good ones, and I think often their goals don't always unfold as expected, but I think their intentions are always to improve the nation.

So the problem here is, when you suggest that Bush made this deal with Osama Bin Laden, it doesn't make sense. Each has to offer the other something they want, or there can be no deal.

Now, we're expected to believe that Bush wanted 3,000 of his fellow citizens to be murdered, and their economy to be flushed down the toilet some more. I don't buy it. Sorry. Say what you want about the man and his policies, but I see ample evidence that he loves the USA and wants to improve it. And as unpleasant as some of his notions of "improvement" are to me, I don't see "slaughter my citizens and trash my largest city" as one of them.

Then on the other side of that you've got Osama Bin Laden. What does he want? Well, he wants the USA out of the Middle East, for starters. So Bush apparently wants to slaughter his fellow man to have an excuse to get more involved in the Middle East, and Osama Bin Laden is meant to see this as a good thing? Explain that one, please.

It just makes no sense that Bush would be involved, he has nothing to gain except more enemies within his own country....seriously what can you tell me he has gained over the last 7 years?

Cheers

[bynmdsue]

This is the stupidest goddamn thread I have ever read here.Surely it belongs in Philosophy.Tho that's insulting to the posters there, since this kind of pot-head "How can we really >KNOW< anything?" evasion isn't even philosophy.It's not even JAQing off.It's too impotent for even that.

[Cylinder]

Can you tell me why Bush and Osama, or a few of their people, can't strike a deal without other people knowing?

Because the President does not, for instance, prepare and launch alert aircraft or search air passengers against a no-fly list or deliver the mail.

Who do you think can provide the most accurate narrative of your daily work routine - you or the President of the United States?

Let's pretend for a second that the conspiracy was prefaced on all of the outgoing mail at your post office being mis-routed on a particular day while maintaining the appearance of a regular day of work. How would the President do this without anyone knowing about it for almost seven years? How would he do it at all without tipping off some workers without any investment in the conspiracy?

[Quad4_72]

This is the stupidest goddamn thread I have ever read here.Surely it belongs in Philosophy.Tho that's insulting to the posters there, since this kind of pot-head "How can we really >KNOW< anything?" evasion isn't even philosophy.It's not even JAQing off.It's too impotent for even that.

Agreed. Peace says that he is 40 years old, but his thought process is similar to that of a child.

[stilicho]

Last one before I go. If I was a truther, I wouldn't have a problem admitting it. I could ask the same questions to any truther, and think they would still be valid.

Peace out. :)
I am sorry to see someone leave if they are truly undecided about US government involvement with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Unlike a lot of the people on this forum, my approach has not been that of critical analysis of the scientific means by which the WTC buildings fell. I am an accountant, now, and obtained my first graduate degrees in history and political philosophy.

I encourage people who really are undecided to read books such as Ahmed Rashed's Taliban , published in 2000 and featuring an entire chapter on Osama Bin Laden. Or I would recommend looking at past issues of the online "Parameters", where in 1999 they explained the role of Arab irregulars in the military structure of the Afghan armed forces. There are literally dozens of books and scores of periodicals preceding the 9/11 attacks, many by dispassionate non-American writers, detailing the workings of various militant Islamic terrorist individuals and groups.

Of course none of them mention the Bush Administration because it wasn't even in power at the time of, for examples, the USS Cole attack, the Khobar towers bombing, or the demolition of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. None of those incidents spark even the remotest interest in conspiracy theorists and one has to wonder why that is.

[PhantomWolf]

the Khobar towers bombing

Just a nitpick. There is no evidence that OBL was behind these attacks, even though he claimed it, in fact the evidence pointed at the Iranian sponsered Hizballah Al-Hijaz group.

[stilicho]

Just a nitpick. There is no evidence that OBL was behind these attacks, even though he claimed it, in fact the evidence pointed at the Iranian sponsered Hizballah Al-Hijaz group.
I included those examples as ones that don't merit conspiracy theories and not necessarily that they involved OBL or KSM. None of the myriad terrorist acts by the LTTE or the PKK attract the sentinels of conspiracy either. One has to wonder why this is.

[uk_dave]

I'll try to answer, and keep it simple (for me). :)

Bush calls Osama. "hi Osama I have a plan and need you to crash some planes for me, and you'll get what you asked for."

Very risky plan. Some kids on the internet might figure it out!!

But seriously, think about it.

The Bush admin has a sooper seekrit plan which they've apparently published details of online.

For their plan to work they need to accurately predict the public reaction to the forthcoming attack. Don't forget, the US government is expected to protect it's citizens and if it could be shown that those in charge were asleep at the wheel on 9-11 they might not last long enough to implement their plan.

Also, if they feel that they can accurately predict public sentiment after the attacks, then they are going to need to have complete control over those attacks. Too little and the will to strike back may not be there. Too much and there really could be a revolution on their own soil to kick them out of office and get someone in charge who will do the job properly.

So just 'letting it happen' raises a number of difficulties:

1. What if it fails and their contacts and involvement are exposed?
2. What if it's only partially successful but fails to rally public opinion sufficiently for full support of their aims? (the 93 bombing didn't lead to an attack on afghanistan)
3. What if it's too successful, too extreme, too many deaths, too much incompetence (or worse) on show for the world to see?

Whereas, AQ working on their own just have to attempt the attacks. If they fail, so what? They live to fight another day.

The planes could have missed their targets, but they will certainly still have managed to kill americans and they will likely hit something. Even if they are discovered before even boarding the planes, the exposure of the plot would send a chill of fear through the travelling public. Americans will know that they are targets in their own country, not just abroad. AQ wins.

[Peace]

No need to get nasty just because my opinion is different, even if you think it is silly. Someone else said in this thread, "you can't be 100% sure." With so many American people pointing the finger at Bush or the government, not me or Brad Pitt. Maybe they are right and you could be wrong.


1. What if it fails and their contacts and involvement are exposed?
2. What if it's only partially successful but fails to rally public opinion sufficiently for full support of their aims? (the 93 bombing didn't lead to an attack on afghanistan)
3. What if it's too successful, too extreme, too many deaths, too much incompetence (or worse) on show for the world to see?



1. Does that stop people committing crime and being killed for it?
2. Do it again?
3. I'm not sure it could be more extreme.

[uk_dave]

1. Does that stop people comitting crime and being killed for it?
:confused:

2. Do it again?
You mean allow it to be tried again and show the voting public that you really can't be trusted with their safety?

3. I'm not sure it could be more extreme.
It could. You open a window of opportunity for terrorists to carry out an attack which you believe you can control, but what if you can't? What if they decide to not play by the rules and instead escalate the attack so that hundreds of thousands are killed?
This is LIHOP right? How do you take the chance on letting something really bad be carried out by really bad people when you can't actually control it?

[eeyore1954]

Peace

OK if for the sake of agument we accept the premise that Bush is evil. Do you honestly believe that Osama would trust and be willing to go along with a plan from the president of the United States?

OK if for the sake of argument we accept the premise that Osama is evil. Do you honestly believe President Bush would be willing to take a chance by trusting him in a plan such as this.

Can you actually believe these things are even remotely possible?

[T.A.M.]

No need to get nasty just because my opinion is different, even if you think it is silly. Someone else said in this thread, "you can't be 100% sure." With so many American people pointing the finger at Bush or the government, not me or Brad Pitt. Maybe they are right and you could be wrong.



1. Does that stop people committing crime and being killed for it?
2. Do it again?
3. I'm not sure it could be more extreme.

1. Bush is merely a puppet for Cheney and the Neocons, for the most part.
2. Like I said to you before, none of us are likely 100% sure, but you have to figure it out for yourself, for your own peace of mind, what the MOST LIKELY version of events is.

TAM:)

[Panoply_Prefect]

1. Bush is merely a puppet for Cheney and the Neocons, for the most part.
2. Like I said to you before, none of us are likely 100% sure, but you have to figure it out for yourself, for your own peace of mind, what the MOST LIKELY version of events is.

TAM:)

I dub the "How can we really KNOW anything" the second Mark of Woo.

It seems to take but a few pages from the first Mark to get here...

[VespaGuy]

Another woo-tral, er...I mean "neutral", poster, who doesn't understand the difference between probability and possibility.

Peace,

1) Do you think it's possible that 9/11 was an inside job?

2) Do you think it's probable that 9/11 was an inside job? Why?

Do you understand that these are different questions and that the evidence for question #2 is not question #1?

[Quad4_72]

Again Peace I ask you, what evidence would presented to you would be sufficient enough to appease your worries that Bush planned it?

[bynmdsue]

alot of people believe the Earth is flat(more than believe 9/11 was an inside job) and there is no evidence that the Earth is flat,therefore... can we really ever know whether the earth is flat?

[Peace]

Another woo-tral, er...I mean "neutral", poster, who doesn't understand the difference between probability and possibility.

Peace,

1) Do you think it's possible that 9/11 was an inside job?

2) Do you think it's probable that 9/11 was an inside job? Why?

Do you understand that these are different questions and that the evidence for question #2 is not question #1?


1. Yes anything is possible.
2. With the evidence I would have to say no, but that doesn't make it right.

If it was so black or white there wouldn't be so many people split over this.

[Brainache]

1. Yes anything is possible.
2. With the evidence I would have to say no, but that doesn't make it right.

If it was so black or white there wouldn't be so many people split over this.

Dude! There are people on the internet who believe in Unicorns for ****'s sake. There are people who believe reptiles rule the Earth. There are people who claim to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra.

They all have one thing (at least) in common with the 9/11 Truthers: They are all selling books/videos/merchandise to anyone gullible enough to buy it.

[Peace]

Dude! There are people on the internet who believe in Unicorns for ****'s sake. There are people who believe reptiles rule the Earth. There are people who claim to be the reincarnation of Cleopatra.

They all have one thing (at least) in common with the 9/11 Truthers: They are all selling books/videos/merchandise to anyone gullible enough to buy it.

The difference is only a handful of people in America believe in unicorns, and have no evidence. The many people that believe 9-11 was an inside job feel they do have evidence.

Let's take the buildings falling for example.

You listen to a twoofer and their experts put their spin on it, and a common man like myself would think, they was right.

Then you listen to the debunker's, again their experts, spin, and most men like myself would think they are right.

I know this..

The buildings fell and was hit by a plane.

Did it look like a demolition? Yes.
Could the fire have weakened the steel and made the building collapse? Yes sounds plausible to me.
Could explosives have been placed to make the building fall? Bit far fetched maybe, but yes.

The only difference I see between a debunker and twoofer, is what they want to believe.

[bynmdsue]

"The many people that believe 9-11 was an inside job"

Many?
4.6% is fewer than the number of people who believe Elvis is still alive.

[Drudgewire]

I just wanted to know if there was anyone like me that is undecided if the 9-11 conspiracy is true or not?

Undecided "like you?" No. I find it hard to believe your mind isn't made up.

However, I'm a skeptic. I have no final decision. If someone can provide evidence of an inside job/controlled demolition/stand-down order/whatever... I could change my mind tomorrow.

The difference between you and me is I demand ACTUAL evidence of any of these, and that it be stronger than the legitimate evidence which disproves every stupid theory that's come down the pipe over the last several years.

So while I never rule out the possibility, BASED ON ALL INFORMATION CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 9/11 was not an inside job and all evidence not only proves this, but proves the truth movement is built on a mountain of lies and paranoia.

[Brainache]

The difference is only a handful of people in America believe in unicorns, and have no evidence. The many people that believe 9-11 was an inside job feel they do have evidence.
The people who believe in Unicorns have exactly as much evidence as the people who believe 9/11 was an inside job. There are probably just as many of them too.


Let's take the buildings falling for example.

You listen to a twoofer and their experts put their spin on it, and a common man like myself would think, they was right.

Then you listen to the debunker's, again their experts, spin, and most men like myself would think they are right.

The problem here is that the Truther "experts" are not actually experts. Some of them have an education, but they are all talking outside of their field. The "debunker" experts are people working within their fields of expertise, like the engineers at NIST, Perdue, ARUP etc etc.


I know this..

The buildings fell and was hit by a plane.

Did it look like a demolition? Yes.
Could the fire have weakened the steel and made the building collapse? Yes sounds plausible to me.
Could explosives have been placed to make the building fall? Bit far fetched maybe, but yes.

The only difference I see between a debunker and twoofer, is what they want to believe.

No, the difference is the amount of evidence that debunkers have on their side and the total absence of evidence for the Truthers.

[uk_dave]

Did it look like a demolition? Yes.


It did? How so?

[twinstead]

This is indeed NOT a debate between two sides that have equal evidence to support their position. The amount of evidence to support the 'official story' really is SO overwhelming that all most truthers can do when confronted with the body of it is declare it faked or planted.

Simply claiming DNA evidence was planted or that phone calls were faked, for example, does nothing to legitimize ones argument; it just make one look desperate.

[Sabrina]

Reading through this thread, I'm reminded of a saying I learned while serving on active duty... namely, "Common sense ain't so common."

Peace, I am utterly at a loss as to how you can sit there and say "well yeah, there's no proof that Bush is evil and came up with 9/11, but there's no proof he didn't either" and call that common sense. By the same token, despite the fact that I've read your posts and seen people responding to them, I have no proof you're not an internet 'bot cleverly disguised as a real person in order to pursue a weird version of a Turing test. Same could be said of me for you, granted, but I hope you take my point. Lack of evidence DOES NOT EQUAL evidence of guilt in this instance.

You have to understand; the majority of the skeptics on this forum are well-educated people who demand EVIDENCE, not speculation. We could go round and round for the rest of our natural lives saying what is POSSIBLE, but probable is an entirely different story. Is it possible Bush was involved? Yes; just about anything's possible. But the PROBABILITY, based on the available evidence, is so low as to be infinitesimal. And skeptics will always be more interested in the PROBABILITY versus the POSSIBILITY of something. Do you understand now? So, quite frankly, you're not likely to find anyone sympathetic to your viewpoint here simply because we don't deal in possibilities, for the most part.

Now, we can debate the possibilities all day long... but I for one would like to know what evidence leads you to your viewpoint. And cite sources please and thank you.

[HeyLeroy]

Ok, lets look at what you have just said.

Now:

1. Why would you suspect Bush and Obama in on it together?
2. What proof do you have they were in on it together?

You see it is not enough for you to say "well they might have, who knows?"

I mean, how do we know the Russian's weren't involved? How about Canada, how do we know they didn't get OBL and Al-Qaeda to do it??

TAM:)


Pssst...

[Apathia]

Peace,

Assuming you have a romantic partner,

I tell you s/he's sleeping with your best friend.
There's no evidence, And people get away with infidelity often, sometimes for years.
So, maybe s/he is, right?
Making a fool of you.
S/he says she isn't, but she could be lying.
There's no evidence s/he is, but there's no evidence S/he isn't.
So, will you remain undecided?
Will she remain under question because you refuse to make a valid, honest determination?

[CptColumbo]

Pssst...
There must be a spill on the floor for Freud... I mean TAM to slip like that.

[gumboot]

Did it look like a demolition? Yes.

Serious question; have you ever seen a building implosion? Because the collapse of WTC1 and 2 looked absolutely nothing like a building implosion. In fact in pretty much every respect other than "they fell down" they were the exact opposite of a building implosion.

[PhantomWolf]

Peace

OK if for the sake of agument we accept the premise that Bush is evil. Do you honestly believe that Osama would trust and be willing to go along with a plan from the president of the United States?

OK if for the sake of argument we accept the premise that Osama is evil. Do you honestly believe President Bush would be willing to take a chance by trusting him in a plan such as this.

Can you actually believe these things are even remotely possible?

As I pointed out in a previous posting, the start of the 9/11 plot was before Bush was president, in fact before he even announced his intention to run. 9/11 was planned between Nov '98 and Feb '99. Bush didn't announce his running until March 17th between 1 and 4 months after the plot started. For Bush to be involved, Osama would not have been dealing with the President of the US, but rather the Governor of Texas with no guarantee of Bush becoming even the Republican Nominee let alone President.

Now you could introduce some more conspiracies into the mix here and say it was known by Nov '98 that Bush was going to win, but as soon as you do, you defeat the initial premise that this scenario was based on, reducing the people in the know to just a half dozen individuals.

I was hoping that Peace would address this seriously gapping flaw in his theory, but he seems to have decided to just ignore the 800 pound gorilla
instead.

[Undesired Walrus]

Peace, I can't prove conclusively that you are a previous poster in disguise, but given the evidence of many threads which start off with earnest questions turning into "The buildings looked like blah blah" being identical to this one, I'm calling BS on you.

Everyone, I think we all know exactly what is going on here.

[VespaGuy]

1. Yes anything is possible.

2. With the evidence I would have to say no,

So it is possible, but not probable. So why believe it?

but that doesn't make it right.

What, in your opinion, would make it right?

If it was so black or white there wouldn't be so many people split over this.

"So many people"? Really? You highly overestimate how many people truly believe the conspiracy nonsense. There is a very, very small percentage of the population that think that their is a conspiracy behind the events of 9/11. (Personally, I've never even met a Truther in real life).

[dudalb]

People are not split. The Truthers are very small in number but they do have the talent..and it's about the only talent they have...for making a lot of noise.

[Jonnyclueless]

The difference is only a handful of people in America believe in unicorns, and have no evidence. The many people that believe 9-11 was an inside job feel they do have evidence.

Let's take the buildings falling for example.

You listen to a twoofer and their experts put their spin on it, and a common man like myself would think, they was right.

Then you listen to the debunker's, again their experts, spin, and most men like myself would think they are right.

I know this..

The buildings fell and was hit by a plane.

Did it look like a demolition? Yes.
Could the fire have weakened the steel and made the building collapse? Yes sounds plausible to me.
Could explosives have been placed to make the building fall? Bit far fetched maybe, but yes.

The only difference I see between a debunker and twoofer, is what they want to believe.

I see we're still pretending to be on the fence eh?

First of all there are probably more people who believe in unicorns than there are truthers, and those unicorn believers also have as much evidence as 9/11 cultists.

And the ifference between the experts is that the debunkers use actual experts who are actually qualified and use testing and scientific method for all to see and prove. The cultists don't use real experts and they don't use scientific method.

The fact that you don't even understand this proves you are by no means on the fence at all. Please stop insulting our intelligence. These threads get old really fast.

[VespaGuy]

[QUOTE=Peace;3638471]The difference is only a handful of people in America believe in unicorns, and have no evidence. The many people that believe 9-11 was an inside job feel they do have evidence.

By that logic, I'm assuming you are a creationist? There are many people (more than 9/11 CTs) who believe in Creation and feel that they have evidence. Does that make their beliefs more valid?

Let's take the buildings falling for example.

You listen to a twoofer and their experts put their spin on it, and a common man like myself would think, they was right.

If that were true, there would be a lot more truthers in the world. I think you underestimate the "common man"

Then you listen to the debunker's, again their experts, spin, and most men like myself would think they are right.

I know this..

The buildings fell and was hit by a plane.

Many Truthers would argue that you are already mistaken. Why do you disregard the "no-planers" but not the other CTs?

Did it look like a demolition? Yes.

Was it pre-wired like a demolition?
Did it sound like a demolition?
Were there audible and visible charges immediately prior to the collapse like a demolition?
Was there wiring in the rubble like a demolition?
Was there explosive residue like a demolition?

Could the fire have weakened the steel and made the building collapse? Yes sounds plausible to me.

I hate to sound crass, but who gives a flip what you think is plausible? You should be asking if it is plausible to experts. The answer is yes.

Could explosives have been placed to make the building fall? Bit far fetched maybe, but yes.

Perhaps you need to expand on this line of thought.

The only difference I see between a debunker and twoofer, is what they want to believe.

Wrong. The difference is evidence. There is no evidence of a demolition. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Bupkis.

[dudalb]

"Just Asking Questions," Again.
The Song Remains the Same,Though The Singers Change.

[LukeB]

Peace Sells... But Who's Buying?

[Peace]

It did? How so?

Serious question; have you ever seen a building implosion? Because the collapse of WTC1 and 2 looked absolutely nothing like a building implosion. In fact in pretty much every respect other than "they fell down" they were the exact opposite of a building implosion.

To me a non expect looking at the tower falling, and a demolition, they looked similar. The only difference I noticed was it might have started falling higher up, and particles spread out more.


Peace,

Assuming you have a romantic partner,

I tell you s/he's sleeping with your best friend.
There's no evidence, And people get away with infidelity often, sometimes for years.
So, maybe s/he is, right?
Making a fool of you.
S/he says she isn't, but she could be lying.
There's no evidence s/he is, but there's no evidence S/he isn't.
So, will you remain undecided?
Will she remain under question because you refuse to make a valid, honest determination?

Well the truthers claim to have evidence, sure it might not be solid. Weak evidence combined with a few friends telling me the same thing. Yea I would have doubts in my mind. Wouldn't most men?

[PhantomWolf]

The only difference I noticed was it might have started falling higher up, and particles spread out more.

You should go to Implosion.com and look and listen to their videos of real demolitions. You'll see a lot of differences, and hear a few too.

[Slayhamlet]

To me a non expect looking at the tower falling, and a demolition, they looked similar. The only difference I noticed was it might have started falling higher up, and particles spread out more.

How do you think the towers' collapses would have looked had they been caused by the combined effects of direct structural damage from the airplane impacts and structural deformation from the subsequent fires? Would they have looked less like controlled demolitions?

[Drudgewire]

Peace Sells... But Who's Buying?

This IS the news. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/rock.gif

[stilicho]

To me a non expect looking at the tower falling, and a demolition, they looked similar. The only difference I noticed was it might have started falling higher up, and particles spread out more.
From layman to layman, Peace, I've seen both controlled demolitions (even witnessed one) and the footage of the WTC destruction and I can't see the remotest similarity. I've never seen fuel-laden airliners crashed into a building carefully prepared for demolition, nor raging fires in one.

Have you ever seen the interior of a building set for demolition?

[Peace]

How do you think the towers' collapses would have looked had they been caused by the combined effects of direct structural damage from the airplane impacts and structural deformation from the subsequent fires? Would they have looked less like controlled demolitions?

I have no idea, and I'm not saying they wouldn't have fell the way they did.

[Peace]

Have you ever seen the interior of a building set for demolition?


No I haven't. :(

[PhantomWolf]

I have no idea, and I'm not saying they wouldn't have fell the way they did.

Well if you can't say that they wouldn't have fallen as they did, how can you say that there is anything suspisous about the way they fell?

[Peace]

Well if you can't say that they wouldn't have fallen as they did, how can you say that there is anything suspisous about the way they fell?

I'm not saying there is, but the few videos I have seen of a demolition, they do look similar, with my untrained eye.

[Peace]

I see we're still pretending to be on the fence eh?



Not sure what else I can say, except I don't believe their side of the story to be fact. If I was speaking to a truther I would have the same problems you guys are bringing up.

I see two sides of the story. Both sides claim their evidence and experts are right.

On top of that you have the human element thrown into the equation.

[Slayhamlet]

I'm not saying there is, but the few videos I have seen of a demolition, they do look similar, with my untrained eye.

Well, don't you think the similarity might have something to do with the fact that in both cases tall buildings are collapsing due to structural failure?

[PhantomWolf]

I see two sides of the story. Both sides claim their evidence and experts are right.

Well I guess that depends on which experts are likely to be right then. Which would you rather have design and build your apartment block? A Structural Engineer, or a Professor of Religion?

[Peace]

Well, don't you think the similarity might have something to do with the fact that in both cases tall buildings are collapsing due to structural failure?

Exactly. That's why when I hear it was weak steel, or a demolition, I can't make my mind up.

[gumboot]

To me a non expect looking at the tower falling, and a demolition, they looked similar. The only difference I noticed was it might have started falling higher up, and particles spread out more.

Well those two points alone are quite fundamental, but they're not the only differences. I recommend using your ears, because that's the most obvious difference.

Another difference is that as well as hearing explosive charges going off, you can see them.

What's important to note about the WTC towers, and what made them different to most buildings, is that 50% of the load bearing columns were on the exterior of the building. This means half the charges would have to be on the perimeter, rather than a typical scenario in which the columns are evenly spaced through the footprint and therefore so are the charges. What this means is that charges in an implosion of the WTC would be more audible and more visible than a typical implosion.

There's another key difference. Typically in a building implosion the columns are blown at multiple points inside the building resulting in a loss of resistance, so that the entire structure collapses intact. What you'll typically see is that the exterior of the building drops into the ground without breaking up until impact with said ground.

In contrast, the WTC towers didn't collapse at all. They fell apart. Literally. The outside of the building was smashed to pieces and thrown all over the show - the exact opposite of a building implosion.

[stilicho]

Well those two points alone are quite fundamental, but they're not the only differences. I recommend using your ears, because that's the most obvious difference.

Another difference is that as well as hearing explosive charges going off, you can see them.
The sound is the big point. I agree. I've seen and heard one and it is very distinct. None of the sound from the 9/11 live videos record any such thing.

Also, gumboot, do you have photographs of the interiors of buildings wired for demolition? I think if you showed those to Peace then he might understand that there's no way that office workers would come to work and not notice their building was about to be demolished. I had some but not on this machine I'm using right now.

[gumboot]

The sound is the big point. I agree. I've seen and heard one and it is very distinct. None of the sound from the 9/11 live videos record any such thing.

Also, gumboot, do you have photographs of the interiors of buildings wired for demolition? I think if you showed those to Peace then he might understand that there's no way that office workers would come to work and not notice their building was about to be demolished. I had some but not on this machine I'm using right now.

This (http://www.phillyblast.com/HollanderRidge/hrt-prep.htm) page has a pretty good summary of the prep work for the implosion of a 21 storey building. My favourite is the photo of the bobcat with a drilling bore mounted on it... you think the folks in the WTC might have noticed a construction vehicle trundling down their corridors... ;)

[VespaGuy]

I see two sides of the story. Both sides claim their evidence and experts are right.


What you are claiming is identical to what the proponents of ID/Creationism proclaim. Since their views are easily dismissed as non-scientific, they argue that "both sides" should be looked at.

So, what is your stance on evolution? Do you believe that creationism/ID has equally valid evidence and experts? Why or why not?

[Apathia]

the truthers claim to have evidence, sure it might not be solid. Weak evidence combined with a few friends telling me the same thing. Yea I would have doubts in my mind. Wouldn't most men?

So your not going to get to the bottom of it but just let your uncertainty fester? When the accusations are baseless, your're going to continue to think it's very likely s/he's cheating on you?
I would tell him or her to dump you.

[Peace]

So, what is your stance on evolution? Do you believe that creationism/ID has equally valid evidence and experts? Why or why not?

I believe evolution to be true, some of it might be wrong. Did a Creator start the big bang or the universe? I have no idea.


So your not going to get to the bottom of it but just let your uncertainty fester? When the accusations are baseless, your're going to continue to think it's very likely s/he's cheating on you?
I would tell him or her to dump you.

You can't always get to the bottom of it.

[VespaGuy]

I believe evolution to be true, some of it might be wrong.

Fantastic! Now we're getting somewhere.

Now, take the next step... why do you believe evolution over ID/Creationism? There are more experts who support ID/Creationism than experts who support 9/11 Conspiracies. Why have you accepted evolution, yet seem to think that their are two equal sides to the 9/11 debate?

Can you please explain why you accept one and not the other? What, to you, is the difference between the evidence for creationism and the evidence for 9/11 CT?

Did a Creator start the big bang or the universe? I have no idea.

Irrelevant.

[Peace]

Fantastic! Now we're getting somewhere.

Now, take the next step... why do you believe evolution over ID/Creationism? There are more experts who support ID/Creationism than experts who support 9/11 Conspiracies. Why have you accepted evolution, yet seem to think that their are two equal sides to the 9/11 debate?

Can you please explain why you accept one and not the other? What, to you, is the difference between the evidence for creationism and the evidence for 9/11 CT?

Irrelevant.

Tough questions. :)

I believe in evolution, at the same time I'm not going to say all of creationism is wrong.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Tough questions. :)

I believe in evolution, at the same time I'm not going to say all of creationism is wrong.

What parts do you think have merit?

[chillzero]

There's a religion forum for that discussion, please keep this one to CTs.

[Peace]

Sorry, chillzero.

[Drudgewire]

Well I guess that depends on which experts are likely to be right then. Which would you rather have design and build your apartment block? A Structural Engineer, or a Professor of Religion?
It really is the whole argument in a nutshell. A doctor tells you that you need an operation. You go for a second opinion and get the same answer. You go to WebMD and check your symptoms and see that he has likely diagnosed you properly. You read up on a few medical journals and see that surgery is the best way to go.

Then a plumber tells you surgery is a scam, and he has a book of alternative medicine which says your problem can be treated with leeches. Hey, it was written by a nutritionalist, so that's sort of an expert, right?

Both sides have evidence. Both sides have experts. Only one has science to back it up, and only one has qualified expertS worldwide who accept the surgery route while a few dissenters think everyone else is wrong and are probably in on a global scam to milk the insurance companies.

Are you just going to flip and coin to see whether you choose surgery or leeches, or are you going to take a real close look at the few "experts" who need that qualified with quotation marks before giving them anything resembling equal weight?

[Jonnyclueless]

Not sure what else I can say, except I don't believe their side of the story to be fact. If I was speaking to a truther I would have the same problems you guys are bringing up.

I see two sides of the story. Both sides claim their evidence and experts are right.

On top of that you have the human element thrown into the equation.


I rest my case.

[Jonnyclueless]

Like Drudge said. His argument is like not being able to decide between the advice from a heart surgeon or a bunch of kids on Youtube when it comes to his heart condition. He thinks they both make compelling argument and doesn't know which "expert" to listen to. The Heart Surgeon with 40 years experience, or the HS kids on youtube.

[KoihimeNakamura]

It is natural to have doubts, but... you must eventually come to a conclusion.

[Apathia]

You can't always get to the bottom of it.

Peace,

Your partner is cheating on you.
You'll never know!

[VespaGuy]

Tough questions. :)

I believe in evolution, at the same time I'm not going to say all of creationism is wrong.

Sorry, Peace, but I'm not going to let you wriggle out of this. You avoided most of the questions. If I was cynical, I'd say that you already have your mind made up about 9/11 and you are dodging.

Let's continue: You believe in evolution, meaning you believe that humans and apes share a common ancestor, correct?

If so, why do you believe this as opposed to the creationist explaination? Both sides have evidence and experts. Why do you choose one side over the other.

Please tell me what the difference is between the evidence for creationism that you feel is invalid, and the evidence for 9/11 ct that you feel is valid?

There's a religion forum for that discussion, please keep this one to CTs.

Sorry, Chillzero, I'm responsible for steering in that direction. But I am not attempting to debate the merits of creationism, but trying to get Peace to understand the similarities between 9/11 cts and creationism. If he can understand why he rejects one, he may understand why we reject the 9/11 cts. I believe these questions have more to do with CTs than religion.

[Edmund Standing]

I have no idea.

This seems to be the underlying basis of everything Peace has posted in this thread. If this isn't a troofer trolling, then it's someone asking an endless series of questions that can't possibly be answered. After five pages of attempts to explain basic logic and the notion of backing claims up with actual evidence, it seems no-one has got any further.

[TheDaver]

Thanks Gumboot.
2. The answers to everything attached to 9-11 are very strong, and make a lot of sense. Does that make them right? I'm not sure.
This is where CTs can often trick you. What they do is, they completely make up some “facts” – really just pull them out of thin air – and then make some pretty strong rationalizations based around those fake facts. I’d bet that 99% of the time you encounter a CT, if you ignore the sophistry and jump straight to the “facts” that it’s based on, you’ll realize they’re terribly warped if not outright false.

[GregoryUrich]

Ok, lets look at what you have just said.

Now:

1. Why would you suspect Bush and Obama in on it together?
2. What proof do you have they were in on it together?

You see it is not enough for you to say "well they might have, who knows?"

I mean, how do we know the Russian's weren't involved? How about Canada, how do we know they didn't get OBL and Al-Qaeda to do it??

TAM:)

Obama may have said he was for change, but not that kind of change.

[GregoryUrich]

Not sure what else I can say, except I don't believe their side of the story to be fact. If I was speaking to a truther I would have the same problems you guys are bringing up.

I see two sides of the story. Both sides claim their evidence and experts are right.

On top of that you have the human element thrown into the equation.

Greetings Peace,

Unfortunately, being undecided is not respected on this forum but don't let the binary types bully you. There are a number of weaknesses in the "official version" (meaning FEMA, NIST, FBI, Bush Administration, Congressional Inquiry, 9/11 Commission, etc.). Nonetheless, the truth movement has promulgated a huge amount of misinformation regarding just about every issue. Many here consider this disinformation (meaning intentional deceit) and some of it may very well be that. My take on the misinformation is that the truth movement has not been careful to check their facts or validate their analyses and I think this is irresponsible.

Personally, I started off undecided regarding controlled demolition. The original explanations offered by Bazant and FEMA didn't find accord with my intuition and rightly so. Bazant claimed an overload factor of 31 and FEMA claimed a pancake collapse. After my own analyses I have concluded that the overload factor was closer to 2 and NIST has concluded that the pancake model was not appropriate. Nonetheless after many hours of studying the collapses I feel pretty much assured that WTC1 and 2 could not have been assisted in any way other than airplanes and fire. WTC7 is difficult to prove one way or the other using engineering mechanics. NIST has not released their report yet so we only know their working theory. Some of the problems with any assisted collapse theory for WTC7 are motive, planning and execution. I remain undecided here, but I am leaning towards the official story.

Clearly there was incompetence and a cover-up of that incompetence. Still, a potential conspiracy involving only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld is possible. They could have just let things play out to their perceived advantage rather than pro-actively trying to protect us from terrorism. I find it suspicious that Bush was in office for nearly 8 months before convening a cabinet level meeting to discuss the al Qaeda threat (described as urgent in a memo from then counter-terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke in Jan. 2001). We may never know the answer to this type of question. Nevertheless, I remain undecided (some might say skeptical) and continue to do research.

[T.A.M.]

Obama may have said he was for change, but not that kind of change.

lol....

:o

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

Unfortunately, being undecided is not respected on this forum but don't let the binary types bully you.

It's not being undecided that isn't respected, it's pretending to be undecided so that you can ask a litany of CT questions read off of numerous CT websites until you hit one that can't be answered to your satisfaction at which point you go, "Ahuh, so it was a conspiracy." (please note the you here is a general you, not a personal one.)

There are a number of weaknesses in the "official version" (meaning FEMA, NIST, FBI, Bush Administration, Congressional Inquiry, 9/11 Commission, etc.).

No one ever said that any of these were perfect. Many of these things have build on previous inquires and tried to fill in the gaps in the previous one, such as NIST being prepared to deal with the details that FEMA didn't cover well or appeared to get wrong. In the end the NIST report does correct things in the FEMA one, that's what science is all about, but the overall picture wasn't changed by the NIST report. In the future I an sure that we will see more papers and reports that fill in areas that the NIST Report didn't take into account, such as the affect of the steel expansion and contraction due to heating and cooling on the structure. This wasn't covered in the NIST report but may be a major factor in the collapse. We do know that their figures were off a number of times where they played it based on caution, using lighter fire loading that many say they should have and such. In the end, it is unlikely that the result of this further study will nullify NIST's conclusion. If we take Quintere's work for example, he shows that unlike NIST states, that the buildings would have collapsed even if the fire proofing had not been damaged.

Nonetheless, the truth movement has promulgated a huge amount of misinformation regarding just about every issue. Many here consider this disinformation (meaning intentional deceit) and some of it may very well be that. My take on the misinformation is that the truth movement has not been careful to check their facts or validate their analyses and I think this is irresponsible.

I have to agree totally here. The majority of the truth movement read stuff off a website and take it for gospel, even if it contradicts other things they believe. They rarely bother to go to the reports and look for themselves and continue to use canards long after they have been shown to be false. (we're still hearing people claim that the buildings fell at free fall speeds!) If they actually did some real research and made a noise about the legitimate issues rather than the outright lies, then they'd get a lot more respect.

Personally, I started off undecided regarding controlled demolition. The original explanations offered by Bazant and FEMA didn't find accord with my intuition and rightly so. Bazant claimed an overload factor of 31 and FEMA claimed a pancake collapse. After my own analyses I have concluded that the overload factor was closer to 2 and NIST has concluded that the pancake model was not appropriate. Nonetheless after many hours of studying the collapses I feel pretty much assured that WTC1 and 2 could not have been assisted in any way other than airplanes and fire. WTC7 is difficult to prove one way or the other using engineering mechanics. NIST has not released their report yet so we only know their working theory. Some of the problems with any assisted collapse theory for WTC7 are motive, planning and execution. I remain undecided here, but I am leaning towards the official story.

And this is one of the reasons I respect your posts more than the likes of LastChild or Tweeter. You actually get off your butt and do the research and see for yourself. They nitpick and never got past the Truther website reading.

Clearly there was incompetence and a cover-up of that incompetence.

And in other news Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Still, a potential conspiracy involving only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld is possible. They could have just let things play out to their perceived advantage rather than pro-actively trying to protect us from terrorism.

This however relies on them a) knowing that the people below them wouldn't do their jobs right, or b) that they themselves knew an attack was coming while those under them didn't know. These scenarios don't make a lot of sense.

I find it suspicious that Bush was in office for nearly 8 months before convening a cabinet level meeting to discuss the al Qaeda threat (described as urgent in a memo from then counter-terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke in Jan. 2001). We may never know the answer to this type of question.

It's really a simple matter actually. Bush didn't consider Terrorism, and especially Terrorism by Al Qaeda in the Continetal US an issue. Virtually no one did. There were three people out there trying to raise the alarm, John O'Neill, Richard Clarke, and Michael Scheuer. All of them were abrasive personalities and managed to rub people the wrong way and so no one was willing to listen to them, heck Scheuer and O'Neill even hated each other, so much so that Scheuer when out of his way to make sure his CIA Anti-Terror Unit would not co-operate with the O'Neill's FBI Unit in any way shape or form unless they were directly ordered to do so. The in fighting in the intelligence agencies and the lack of Administration interest, even during Clinton's years (Clinton's Administration never once broached the topic of Bin Laden or Terrorism as their number one issue with the Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or the Taliban even though they had many opportunities to do so. They were more interested in pursuing the Nuclear weapons issue and some sort of stabilisation in Afghanistan through negotiation of all parties) meant no-one did squat about Bin Laden and AQ. Even when the CIA had OBL in their sights, the administration denied them permission to fire (including Clarke himself on at least one occasion) because of the possiblity of civilian deaths during the operation.

When Bush stood for Election he never mentioned terrorism once. When asked, he didn't even know who Osama or the Taliban were. Like Clinton his outlook for global security was the threat of Nuclear weapons. Terrorism was considered to be the domain of state sponsored groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah and attacks on the US mainland seen as something out of Hollywood. Even the WTC and Oklahoma City bombings, along with the LA Airport Plot didn't change this attitude. Those instigators were seen as single one off loons. Al Qaeda was a threat only to overseas interests and as such not an issue, whereas nuclear proliferation to US unfriendly states and states that sponsored terrorist groups were seen as a serious threat, and as such, the number one priority. It wasn't until things started to become clear, the CIA reporting that AQ wanted to strike in the US, connections between AQ and the USS Cole, and such, that Bush and co were willing to switch their focus from State Sponsored to independently funded groups such as AQ. That's why it took them 8 months to do something about it.

Nevertheless, I remain undecided (some might say skeptical) and continue to do research.

From the looks of it, you're really only undecided about WTC 7 now and once that is sorted out to your satisfaction you think you will likely fall onto the "AQ did it" side of things. That sort of scepticism is fine because you are evaluating the data and slowing reaching a conclusion based on that data, that is good scepticism. The issue we tend to have is with those that turn up claiming to be undecided and then refuse to drop their claims even after being shown why they are wrong 50 times.

[Jonnyclueless]

Greetings Peace,

Unfortunately, being undecided is not respected on this forum but don't let the binary types bully you. There are a number of weaknesses in the "official version" (meaning FEMA, NIST, FBI, Bush Administration, Congressional Inquiry, 9/11 Commission, etc.). Nonetheless, the truth movement has promulgated a huge amount of misinformation regarding just about every issue. Many here consider this disinformation (meaning intentional deceit) and some of it may very well be that. My take on the misinformation is that the truth movement has not been careful to check their facts or validate their analyses and I think this is irresponsible.

Personally, I started off undecided regarding controlled demolition. The original explanations offered by Bazant and FEMA didn't find accord with my intuition and rightly so. Bazant claimed an overload factor of 31 and FEMA claimed a pancake collapse. After my own analyses I have concluded that the overload factor was closer to 2 and NIST has concluded that the pancake model was not appropriate. Nonetheless after many hours of studying the collapses I feel pretty much assured that WTC1 and 2 could not have been assisted in any way other than airplanes and fire. WTC7 is difficult to prove one way or the other using engineering mechanics. NIST has not released their report yet so we only know their working theory. Some of the problems with any assisted collapse theory for WTC7 are motive, planning and execution. I remain undecided here, but I am leaning towards the official story.

Clearly there was incompetence and a cover-up of that incompetence. Still, a potential conspiracy involving only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld is possible. They could have just let things play out to their perceived advantage rather than pro-actively trying to protect us from terrorism. I find it suspicious that Bush was in office for nearly 8 months before convening a cabinet level meeting to discuss the al Qaeda threat (described as urgent in a memo from then counter-terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke in Jan. 2001). We may never know the answer to this type of question. Nevertheless, I remain undecided (some might say skeptical) and continue to do research.

Your post is a legitimate on the fence view. Peace's is not. Saying you are on the fence while reciting old worn out conspiracy theories that are pretty much just copied form conspiracy sites is not being on the fence. And considering that 99% of the people who claim to be on the fence end up being flaming twoofers, the laws of probability are not on his side. This isn't so much just about his arguments, but the routineness of them. Take LastChild for example. He started the same way, now he is resident troll.