PDA

View Full Version : Loose Change


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 12:42 PM
(Terrorcell @ May 11 2006, 07:08 PM)
LMAO!!!!! Now I know exactly what you are. That is Mcnamara's biography, Here's more places where you can confirm my findings that the opening statement in the "debunking" post you linked is a flat out lie :

QUOTE
McNamara left office on 29 February 1968; for his dedicated efforts, the president awarded him both the Medal of Freedom and the Distinguished Service Medal. He served as head of the World Bank from 1968 to 1981.

Source : http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef...os/mcnamara.htm


This guy is incredible, he's completely putting Gravy's comment out of context!

From Gravy's paper:

But the suggestion that he was removed for submitting this plan is misleading. It certainly didn’t endear him to McNamara and Kennedy, though, and when his term ran out he was transferred to Europe to become the head of NATO.

emphasis mine


If you look at the entire Gravy text, Gravy IS talking about Leimnitzer! he=Leimnitzer
That's just antoher proof how conspiracists are misquoting everyone and distorting everything!!!!!

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 12:51 PM
This "Terrorcell" (gotta love his name) really can't read english!

juryjone
11th May 2006, 12:54 PM
WOW, how can you keep your cool with such garbage from the LC forum, Dubfan? You are terrific!

I forced myself to read through that entire thread, the first one that I made my way through, and I have to bow down to anyone who is able to remain civil in the face of such willful ignorance.

Going over and over the same debunked evidence, like a pack rat with a precious gum wrapper. And all the d**n smileys, like their mere presence proves anything!

But the crowning idiot is roxdog, asking again and again for proof when he offers offers none himself, accusing dubfan of the same hit and run tactics that he indulged in here in his brief appearances as conspiracybeliever.

But is he stupider than the people who seem to claim that they have been banned from here from stating the "trooth"?

GAAAAAAH!!!!!!

dissonance
11th May 2006, 12:55 PM
OMG, Gravy, I found a spelling mistake in your debunking! That makes the WHOLE THING WRONG!!!!!!

/whackjob cospiracy theorist

Seriously, great job. It's quite telling that so far the responses haven't come up with any substantial criticisms or rebuttles.

dubfan
11th May 2006, 12:56 PM
Can someone who is following that thread tell me what in the HELL Terrorcell is on about with this McNamara and the world bank business?

What am I missing?

It looks to me like he confused a quote about Leimnitzer with a quote about McNamara and from there's it's been one long confused descent into the incoherence.

CurtC
11th May 2006, 12:57 PM
Not at all. I can get to invisionfree, directory and all. It's when I try to go to the LC forum that I get the above message. Since I was banned, I haven't even be able to read what others have written there. Frustrating, but very telling.Nooby, I'll assume you're using Internet Explorer (since I think otherwise you'd be more aware of your cookies). Click Tools, Internet Options, and on the General tab, under Temporary Internet Files, click Settings. Click the View Files button, and it will open up an explorer window with the files that IE uses to store your cookies (this is so much more clumsy than Firefox!).

Now keep that window open, but close Internet Explorer. Find the cookie called "Loose_Change_Forum" and delete it. Now go back into IE and see if you can see the contents over there.

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 12:58 PM
Can someone who is following that thread tell me what in the HELL Terrorcell is on about with this McNamara and the world bank business?

What am I missing?

It looks to me like he confused a quote about Leimnitzer with a quote about McNamara and from there's it's been one long confused descent into the incoherence.

He is quoting Gravy without the context. He thinks the "he" in the paragraph he is quoting, is McNamara, but it IS in fact Leimnitzer if you read the entire paragraph!

From gravy's debunk:

The plan was rejected by McNamara, and President John F. Kennedy personally removes Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Good move. But the suggestion that he was removed for submitting this plan is misleading. It certainly didn’t endear him to McNamara and Kennedy, though, and when his term ran out he was transferred to Europe to become the head of NATO.

chipmunk stew
11th May 2006, 01:00 PM
Can someone who is following that thread tell me what in the HELL Terrorcell is on about with this McNamara and the world bank business?

What am I missing?

It looks to me like he confused a quote about Leimnitzer with a quote about McNamara and from there's it's been one long confused descent into the incoherence.No, you're not missing a thing. Try re-quoting the Leimnitzer quote in a context that makes it clear that it's about Leimnitzer, not McNamara, and ask him why McNamara's appointment to the world bank proves it a lie.

CurtC
11th May 2006, 01:01 PM
A 14-year old HS student is asked on a test who was responsible for 9/11. He answers "George Bush". The kid is sent to see a psychiatrist. Loosers get wind of the story; hilarity ensues.I wonder who made that up? It's the stereotypical urban legend ideally designed to propagate in that sub-culture. I guess it could conceivably be true, but my I'd put up money that it's not.

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 01:02 PM
No, you're not missing a thing. Try re-quoting the Leimnitzer quote in a context that makes it clear that it's about Leimnitzer, not McNamara, and ask him why McNamara's appointment to the world bank proves it a lie.

And that's it's a matter of reading a text thourougly!

Manny
11th May 2006, 01:03 PM
Can someone who is following that thread tell me what in the HELL Terrorcell is on about with this McNamara and the world bank business?

What am I missing?

It looks to me like he confused a quote about Leimnitzer with a quote about McNamara and from there's it's been one long confused descent into the incoherence.Yep. Hard to tell if it's intentional, to distract anything substantive onto the 7th page. Maybe try posting a brief sysopsis of Lemnitzer's career, bolding the Europe service? http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lemnitz.htm

chipmunk stew
11th May 2006, 01:08 PM
Ruh-roh, Rerrorcell! Now what?
I'm trying to follow along here. Terrorcell, I don't see what you're talking about. He doesn't say anything boaut Macnamara in 1968. He says Lemnitzer went to become the head of NATO. Are we looking at the same "debunk?"

Which version are you reading? I'm looking at the HTML.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3983&view=findpost&p=4339102

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 01:12 PM
Here's "Terrocell's" quote of Gravy's text:


The Lie :

QUOTE
Good move. But the suggestion that he was removed for submitting this plan is misleading. It certainly didn't endear him to McNamara and Kennedy, though, and when his term ran out he was transferred to Europe to become the head of NATO.


And now Gravy's text:

The plan was rejected by McNamara, and President John F. Kennedy personally removes Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Good move. But the suggestion that he was removed for submitting this plan is misleading. It certainly didn’t endear him to McNamara and Kennedy, though, and when his term ran out he was transferred to Europe to become the head of NATO.

"he"=Lemnitzer

I can't believe how stupid Terrorcell is!

Gravy
11th May 2006, 01:20 PM
I just took a peek over there. Someone else is defending me. My honor is intact...for now!

Dubfan, you are my hero. I just looked at that stuff for 3 minutes and thought I would get a migraine. And I've never had a migraine.

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 01:26 PM
I just took a peek over there. Someone else is defending me. My honor is intact...for now!

Dubfan, you are my hero. I just looked at that stuff for 3 minutes and thought I would get a migraine. And I've never had a migraine.

And "Terrorcell" is still thinking he as proven Gravy to have lied. F**k! Can't anyone tell that idiot to READ THE TEXT THOUROUGHLY!

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 01:29 PM
Finally, someone told him... Boy, am I exausted reading that thread...:faint:

I think I'll go feed my budgies...

dissonance
11th May 2006, 01:33 PM
And even if Gravy had been wrong on that point, how does that invalidate the rest of the debunking?

Gravy
11th May 2006, 01:33 PM
Finally, someone told him... Boy, am I exausted reading that thread...:faint:

I think I'll go feed my budgies...
Don't you mean "eat my budgies?"

Gravy
11th May 2006, 01:36 PM
And even if Gravy had been wrong on that point, how does that invalidate the rest of the debunking?
It's the equivalent of me picking out a statement in "Loose Change," finding it wrong, and then assuming that everything else is wrong.

Okay, that's a really bad example.

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 01:40 PM
Don't you mean "eat my budgies?"

"I'll go feed my budgies" as in "I'll go and do a stress-free activity";)

dubfan
11th May 2006, 01:40 PM
It's the equivalent of me picking out a statement in "Loose Change," finding it wrong, and then assuming that everything else is wrong.

Okay, that's a really bad example.

:D

dissonance
11th May 2006, 01:42 PM
Hahahaha! That's exactly what I was thinking. If I posted over there that I'd found an error in the first 2 minutes of Loose Change and decided not to watch the rest because of that, they'd mock me for pages.

Hmmmmm, suddenly considering registering an account...

Gravy
11th May 2006, 01:51 PM
"I'll go feed my budgies" as in "I'll go and do a stress-free activity";)
Ah, that makes sense. Real budgies certainly wouldn't be safe around a cat like you. I really like that phrase. Very soothing. I almost smell cookies baking.
If I could post over there I'd tell Terrorcell, "Somebody needs to feed their budgies!"

Walk The Line
11th May 2006, 01:58 PM
How do the folks at Loose Change explain why they haven't been shut down by the government yet?

After all, if it's all one giant government conspiracy with people being intimidated and shut up, it's awfully odd that the Loose Changers are being allowed to have their own website/forum/open lounges/meetings across the country.

sat556
11th May 2006, 02:04 PM
May not be suitable for idjits.



Well I managed to read it, so it's not all 'idjits' :D

Great job btw. Thanks.

dubfan
11th May 2006, 02:18 PM
OMG, now they're saying the anthrax attacks were intended to kill some photographer who found some bad pictures of the Bush twins.

How can they say this stuff and keep a straight face?

Edit: "found" (apparently), not "took"

Regnad Kcin
11th May 2006, 02:31 PM
Gravy, someone on that thread criticized your "10 takeoffs and 13 landings" comment (and then said he/she went no further with your work because of it) due to your ignorance of touch-and-go practice. That may be something to consider.Consider? What's wrong with the comment? I used to fly planes, way back in the '70s, but even way back then we had touch-and-go practice. If you count the "touch" as a landing, you'd have to count the "go" as a takeoff!
I know what he meant, you know what he meant, and I'll even guess the poster at LC knew what he meant. The risk, when critiquing the accuracy of another's cherished doctrine, is that you will be criticised yourself, so it's best to strive to be above it.

Look, I'm in awe of Gravy's efforts; he's to be applauded and toasted. My comment above is merely an observation. Something along the lines of "'Loose Change' claims there were 10 takeoffs and 13 landings. Seems like an error right there. Unless they forgot to indicate that some of these were accomplished during touch-and-go practice. It would be nice if 'Loose Change' was clear and thorough on all such points so a viewer would not have to guess. Moving on..." would have preserved Gravy's wry observation, as well as pre-empted the suggestion his critique is flawed.

dubfan
11th May 2006, 02:36 PM
I'm really enjoying the gleeful pride they're taking in shutting down all the United 93 forums, too. Not discussing their evidence and opinions civilly -- but actually getting them SHUT DOWN.

Who, I wonder is really stifling all the dissent here? Who are the real fascists?

aggle-rithm
11th May 2006, 02:48 PM
"I'll go feed my budgies" as in "I'll go and do a stress-free activity";)

Another good one is "keed the fats", from a conversation my under-aged brother had with my dad when he came home drunk one night.

DAD: What are you doing out here?
BROTHER: I was just going to keed the fats. (feed the cats)
DAD: (After tense pause) Don't let your mother see you like that.

Xraye
11th May 2006, 02:49 PM
Gravy:
Watched it. Xraye, you're going to have to do much, much better than that unless you're just here, like geggy, to express your opinions. This video is your "evidence?"

No, it wasn't "my" evidence but it's certainly a piece of evidence which I find interesting. I concede to the fact that I haven't properly researched the data, as evident in the fact that I'm coming across many things in this forum which I haven't seen yet.


Kookbreaker:
Its very rude to blunder into a thread without having at least read part of it. Loose Change is a bad joke, even your beloved 'Scholars' aren't too fond of it. Gravy's work has throughly debunked the LC nonsense.

Ya, I didn't want to wade through all the masses of posts in this thread, but I realize that if I want to make any type of intelligable argument I have to become familiar with the debate. I'm currently only on the 5th page, making notes and checking the links, and I intend on doing thorough research of the points discussed here and on the debunking websight that was created before posting further.

CurtC
You've brought up a lot of points in your first post, so I think it's going to be a little messy and hard to follow here with all the point-specific replies, but we can handle it if you can.

LOL Ya, deffinatly not a good strategy to confront a forum full of people to debate with, to throw mass amounts of evidence, or rather ammo, at the people I'm about to debate with. I admit that in my previous post I didn't present any substantial arguments.

I value this forum as a resource in understanding responses to the arguments that I'm thus far familiar with, exposure to different interpretations of current evidence, as a possible source of additional evidence that may surface which would be overlooked by the other side, and particularly as a fire-test of evidence that's used to debunk the official story.

Dialectical debate is essential when dealing with such issues, and I believe it's the only way that we can really come to a larger picture of what happened.

Regnad Kcin
11th May 2006, 02:55 PM
...Dialectical debate is essential when dealing with such issues, and I believe it's the only way that we can really come to a larger picture of what happened....Unless there is no "larger picture" to begin with.

Sword_Of_Truth
11th May 2006, 03:11 PM
One good thing from that forum and the Huffington blog is that we were correct from the start regarding Gravy, Chipmunkstew, et al. They are professional trolls; as in paid trolls. They have way too much time on their hands and seem much more passionate about 'debunking' us than the average person would be.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3962

It's amazing what a warped little world these people live in, isn't it?

I've been accused of being a CIA plant about a dozen times in the last week or so. I've even been accused of being a blood-sucking alien shape-shifter (they have a few David Icke followers in the crowd).

I hate to tell them this... but I ain't gettin paid enough. :p

Xraye
11th May 2006, 03:12 PM
By the way, regardless of which side is right in this debate, I think only a positive result can come from it becoming widly known and widely debated. If it is a governmental conspiracy, the reasons are obvious why that should be known. If it is just a bunch of conspiracy theorists who got all freaked out because they think they have evidence of a cover up, it's also good that the debate becomes more public so that those who get caught up in the conspiracy will be confronted with the truth.

Xraye
11th May 2006, 03:19 PM
...Unless there is no "larger picture" to begin with.

I intended to presume that we don't know what happened and thus by "larger picture" I meant the interpretation which accomidates the facts from both sides of the debate.

juryjone
11th May 2006, 03:24 PM
LOL Ya, deffinatly not a good strategy to confront a forum full of people to debate with, to throw mass amounts of evidence, or rather ammo, at the people I'm about to debate with. I admit that in my previous post I didn't present any substantial arguments.

I value this forum as a resource in understanding responses to the arguments that I'm thus far familiar with, exposure to different interpretations of current evidence, as a possible source of additional evidence that may surface which would be overlooked by the other side, and particularly as a fire-test of evidence that's used to debunk the official story.

Dialectical debate is essential when dealing with such issues, and I believe it's the only way that we can really come to a larger picture of what happened.

I believe as you go through the remaining pages, and as you read Gravy's debunking doc, that you will see that there are no substantial arguments for the LC version of events. You should also see that the Alek, roxdog and geggy are not really arguing in good faith here - they present a "question", but then do not provide any substantive argument before moving on to their next "question".

People here can be remarkably patient. If you present a single idea and thoroughly discuss it, without resorting to "automatic gainsaying", then truly interesting exchanges can take place.

By the way, I appreciated the way you actually asked, over at the LC forum, for evidence that any LCer had been banned from this board with no explanation and no warning. I can assure you, that has not happened.

Good luck at catching up! I routinely find myself 5-10 pages behind on this thread. A lot of people here care deeply about this subject.

dubfan
11th May 2006, 03:31 PM
For those following at home, they've moved the thread.

They created a "SKEPTICS Forum" under the "Loose Change Movie" subheading and moved several threads there -- including the one discussing Gravy's debunking document.

DavidJames
11th May 2006, 03:33 PM
By the way, regardless of which side is right in this debate, I think only a positive result can come from it becoming widly known and widely debated. If it is a governmental conspiracy, the reasons are obvious why that should be known. If it is just a bunch of conspiracy theorists who got all freaked out because they think they have evidence of a cover up, it's also good that the debate becomes more public so that those who get caught up in the conspiracy will be confronted with the truth.Very well said and I don't think anyone here will argue with that logic. One thing though, unless you are an expert in the various fields discussed in the supporting documentation (structural engineering, for example), you will need to rely on professional, expert, opinions of others.

It will be very interesting to hear your views regarding the facts and evidence on "both sides of the debate", especially considering the knowledge, experience and credentials of those analyzing the evidence.

Regnad Kcin
11th May 2006, 03:44 PM
I intended to presume that we don't know what happened and thus by "larger picture" I meant the interpretation which accomidates the facts from both sides of the debate. As for "facts from both sides," I'm not aware of any from proponents of "Loose Change," at least in respect to advancing their premise.

I welcome your contribution to the discussion.

gmanontario
11th May 2006, 03:44 PM
I sure wish I could resist those links to the loose screws board. My eyes bleed every time I go there and then I can't watch hockey playoffs.:(

Anyways my 15 year old daughter has come up with what seems to be a sure way of getting aliens to notice us here on earth. All they have to do is set up a dish to detect "Stupid Waves" rather than gravity waves. That will lead them to the black hole of stupidity and ignorance known as loose change. I mean really is there any other place on earth where people actually take pride and revel in their ignorance and dopeyness?

Wonder what would happen if they actually did get their investigation and it turns out that what did happen was in fact correct? Can you say nuclear implosion?

ETA: or is that nukular?

dubfan
11th May 2006, 03:47 PM
How do the folks at Loose Change explain why they haven't been shut down by the government yet?

After all, if it's all one giant government conspiracy with people being intimidated and shut up, it's awfully odd that the Loose Changers are being allowed to have their own website/forum/open lounges/meetings across the country.

The basic line of thinking goes something like this:

Whenever a bit of evidence or a fact pops up that appears to contradict the conspiracy theory, that fact is obviously "disinformation" deliberately planted by the conspirators to discredit the conspiracy theorist.

So, the mere existence of the LC forums is conclusive evidence -- simply by virtue of the fact that they haven't been shut down -- that their conspiracy theory must be true.

Q. E. D.

You see this going on with the 757 vs. no-757 camps. One bunch of CTs believes the evidence that an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon is so overwhelming that any CT to the contrary must be part of a deliberate misinformation campaign. The other bunch clings tightly to the notion that it wasn't a 757 at all, but merely a 757-shaped object, and yells "liar! liar! pants on fire!" at the other bunch.

It's a strange world they live in.

Stellafane
11th May 2006, 04:13 PM
By the way, regardless of which side is right in this debate, I think only a positive result can come from it becoming widly known and widely debated. If it is a governmental conspiracy, the reasons are obvious why that should be known. If it is just a bunch of conspiracy theorists who got all freaked out because they think they have evidence of a cover up, it's also good that the debate becomes more public so that those who get caught up in the conspiracy will be confronted with the truth.

I agree with your sentiments to a certain extent. Debate is good, so long as it is honest. The problem is, I do not believe most CT'ers are in fact honest in their debate. They repeat the same unverified, totally debunked claims over and over, and either shout down, condemn, or ignore the responses that prove them wrong. In fact, they do all in their power to stifle true debate, banning people for no other reason than they disagree with the CT orthodoxy (such as it is). It's impossible to respect anyone who does this.

Finally, I must frankly question how much serious attention CT'ers actually merit. For example, imagine that I started a baseless rumor that you are a dog-kicking drunk who cheats on his taxes and sleeps with sheep. And no matter how much evidence you provided to the contrary, my cronies and I kept spreading these rumors across the internet. Would you still feel that both sides of the "debate" deserved widespread public airing and attention? Some theories are too stupid to deserve consideration, and for me, the 9/11 "Bush did it" theory is very much one of them.

Gravy
11th May 2006, 04:15 PM
By the way, regardless of which side is right in this debate, I think only a positive result can come from it becoming widly known and widely debated. If it is a governmental conspiracy, the reasons are obvious why that should be known. If it is just a bunch of conspiracy theorists who got all freaked out because they think they have evidence of a cover up, it's also good that the debate becomes more public so that those who get caught up in the conspiracy will be confronted with the truth.
One issue we've been facing is that the CTs have a HUGE head start in terms of getting their views "widely known." If someone new to these issues Googles a topic, they will see dozens of CT sites and probably no anti-CT sites. That amounts to an argumentum ad numerum in favor of conspiracy theories.

When I first heard of these CT claims 6 weeks ago, I assumed that they were limited to a small group of believers. Well, I certainly "misunderestimated" the power of the internet. 'Loose Change" is in the top 5 of Google Video views.

A time-tested CT technique has been to make wild allegations first and worry about evidence if anyone challenges the claims later. Meanwhile, lots of books and videos get sold. That's an extremely dishonest way of presenting a case to the public, and I resent the fact that if we don't respond to that dishonesty, more people are going to be duped every day.

Speaking of dishonesty, I noticed that you brought up, on the LC forum, the issue of people being banned there as opposed to here. A few people, such as Roxdog, said that the JREF mods are LESS tolerant than the LC mods. As usual, Roxdog and his cohorts are lying. The ONLY reason Loose Change people have been banned here is that some chose to deliberately break the forum rules more than once and then say to the mods, "Go ahead, ban me." And they received fair warning. If you hang with the Loosers you'll be with an incredibly dishonest crowd. I don't get it.

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 04:21 PM
Gravy:


No, it wasn't "my" evidence but it's certainly a piece of evidence which I find interesting. I concede to the fact that I haven't properly researched the data, as evident in the fact that I'm coming across many things in this forum which I haven't seen yet.


Kookbreaker:


Ya, I didn't want to wade through all the masses of posts in this thread, but I realize that if I want to make any type of intelligable argument I have to become familiar with the debate. I'm currently only on the 5th page, making notes and checking the links, and I intend on doing thorough research of the points discussed here and on the debunking websight that was created before posting further.

CurtC


LOL Ya, deffinatly not a good strategy to confront a forum full of people to debate with, to throw mass amounts of evidence, or rather ammo, at the people I'm about to debate with. I admit that in my previous post I didn't present any substantial arguments.

I value this forum as a resource in understanding responses to the arguments that I'm thus far familiar with, exposure to different interpretations of current evidence, as a possible source of additional evidence that may surface which would be overlooked by the other side, and particularly as a fire-test of evidence that's used to debunk the official story.

Dialectical debate is essential when dealing with such issues, and I believe it's the only way that we can really come to a larger picture of what happened.

Well, I think we got ourselves here a sincere person who is genuinely willing to debate. It'll be nice for a change to have an intelligent exchange of ideas over this subject. I am looking forward to it Wraye! :D

dubfan
11th May 2006, 04:34 PM
One issue we've been facing is that the CTs have a HUGE head start in terms of getting their views "widely known." If someone new to these issues Googles a topic, they will see dozens of CT sites and probably no anti-CT sites. That amounts to an argumentum ad numerum in favor of conspiracy theories.

When I first heard of these CT claims 6 weeks ago, I assumed that they were limited to a small group of believers. Well, I certainly "misunderestimated" the power of the internet. 'Loose Change" is in the top 5 of Google Video views.

A time-tested CT technique has been to make wild allegations first and worry about evidence if anyone challenges the claims later. Meanwhile, lots of books and videos get sold. That's an extremely dishonest way of presenting a case to the public, and I resent the fact that if we don't respond to that dishonesty, more people are going to be duped every day.


Agree with this totally. 9/11 conspiracies weren't even on my radar two months ago. I think there's a perfect conspiracy-storm brewing here. I just read on the LC forum that they've arranged to have British Labour MP Michael Meacher screen the film.

This junk is spreading, and spreading like wildfire. I don't think it can be ignored.

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 04:36 PM
How come I can't have access to the LC thread anymore? Have I been banned? I wasn't even in, how can I be outed?

dubfan
11th May 2006, 04:38 PM
How come I can't have access to the LC thread anymore? Have I been banned? I wasn't even in, how can I be outed?

They moved it.

Created a "SKEPTICS Forum" under the "Loose Change Movie" subheading on the home page, at the very bottom.

Exercise for the reader as to why.

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 04:39 PM
They moved it.

Created a "SKEPTICS Forum" under the "Loose Change Movie" subheading on the home page, at the very bottom.

Exercise for the reader as to why.

:boggled:

Gravy
11th May 2006, 04:43 PM
Heh you crack me, up, gravy. Keep the lies coming, why don't you?
I just noticed this.

Where I live if you're going to call someone a liar, you'd better be able to back it up. Name a single lie I've told, geggy.

I'll make it easier for you. Point me to a single exchange that you and I have where you were right about a factual matter and I was wrong.

If you can't do that, I'd appreciate an apology.

And you might want to answer some of the questions that were posed to you today, just to show that you're sincere and not a troll.

Dr Adequate
11th May 2006, 04:43 PM
By the way, regardless of which side is right in this debate, I think only a positive result can come from it becoming widly known and widely debated. If it is a governmental conspiracy, the reasons are obvious why that should be known. If it is just a bunch of conspiracy theorists who got all freaked out because they think they have evidence of a cover up, it's also good that the debate becomes more public so that those who get caught up in the conspiracy will be confronted with the truth. Sir you are a gentleman.

Another possibility which you do not mention is that some but not all of the conspiracy theory is true --- indeed this must be so since there is more than one conspiracy theory.

If this is the case, then it would be as well to separate the solid facts from the unsubstantiated rumors; and how else to achieve that but open debate and critical analysis of each aspect of the theory?

ob986s
11th May 2006, 04:45 PM
Well, I think we got ourselves here a sincere person who is genuinely willing to debate. It'll be nice for a change to have an intelligent exchange of ideas over this subject. I am looking forward to it Wraye! :D

I thought the same thing about geggy at first, and we all see how that turned out.

I hope I am wrong with this guy, but either way this thread, and the links I have followed from it has provided laughs, head shaking at insane stupidity and a great deal of entertainment. thanks guys



Jon

Walk The Line
11th May 2006, 04:51 PM
The basic line of thinking goes something like this:

Whenever a bit of evidence or a fact pops up that appears to contradict the conspiracy theory, that fact is obviously "disinformation" deliberately planted by the conspirators to discredit the conspiracy theorist.

So, the mere existence of the LC forums is conclusive evidence -- simply by virtue of the fact that they haven't been shut down -- that their conspiracy theory must be true.

Q. E. D.

You see this going on with the 757 vs. no-757 camps. One bunch of CTs believes the evidence that an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon is so overwhelming that any CT to the contrary must be part of a deliberate misinformation campaign. The other bunch clings tightly to the notion that it wasn't a 757 at all, but merely a 757-shaped object, and yells "liar! liar! pants on fire!" at the other bunch.

It's a strange world they live in.


Fascinating. Not only do they believe in a government conspiracy, anything that contradicts that theory is evidence OF the conspiracy. What beautiful circular logic.

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 04:52 PM
They moved it.

Created a "SKEPTICS Forum" under the "Loose Change Movie" subheading on the home page, at the very bottom.

Exercise for the reader as to why.

If you could post me a link that'd be very appreciated, I can't seem to find it...:o

dubfan
11th May 2006, 05:01 PM
If you could post me a link that'd be very appreciated, I can't seem to find it...:o

Funny....they didn't exactly make it easy to find, did they? Wonder why...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3983

Gravy
11th May 2006, 05:22 PM
...Meanwhile, on the LC forum, they're STILL arguing over what constitutes a takeoff and a landing. However, no one there has emailed me to see what I think. See, if they hadn't banned me, I could just say, "Hey, that was an attempt to keep things light. I don't care how many times a plane landed or took off. I'll gladly remove that comment if you're hung up on it."

hellaeon
11th May 2006, 05:27 PM
Guys, this is an awesome thread, and I have sat on the fringe but felt the warmth of satisfaction watching truly intelligent people carve this up like a knife to a sandwich. Funny thing is, all it comes down to is patience, keeping rational and finding facts. Basic stuff.

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 05:28 PM
Funny....they didn't exactly make it easy to find, did they? Wonder why...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3983

I can't see the thread, I always get this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/88864463d5dad1f27.jpg

Since I can see other threads fine, I imagine there's a limited number of times a lurker can watch a particular thread.

dubfan
11th May 2006, 05:38 PM
I can't see the thread, I always get this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/88864463d5dad1f27.jpg

Since I can see other threads fine, I imagine there's a limited number of times a lurker can watch a particular thread.

Those sons of bitches. You have to be logged in to see it.

ETA: trying to get an answer. I'm at a loss as to how Gravy can see it if he's been banned, though.

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 05:43 PM
Those sons of bitches. You have to be logged in to see it.

Sensitive material?

Or maybe it's just me, I ain't got a degree in Computer science;)

I wonder if anyone else who's not registered can see the thread.

dubfan
11th May 2006, 05:46 PM
Sensitive material?

Or maybe it's just me, I ain't got a degree in Computer science;)

Hey man, that degree and 25 cents will qualify you to .... DEBUNK LOOSE CHANGE!!!

LOL

I wonder if anyone else who's not registered can see the thread.

Can anybody else confirm this? I can't see it if I'm logged out of the LC forum software.

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 05:51 PM
Maybe just a glitch because the thread was moved, I'll try again tomorrow.


ETA: Ah, working now...

dubfan
11th May 2006, 06:00 PM
Maybe just a glitch because the thread was moved, I'll try again tomorrow.

Fixed now. One of the mods there said it was a setup error they have corrected.

Gravy
11th May 2006, 06:05 PM
Those sons of bitches. You have to be logged in to see it.

ETA: trying to get an answer. I'm at a loss as to how Gravy can see it if he's been banned, though.

Don't know. I definitely can't post. Anyway, I'm not sure that being able to view has made me a better person!. It's sad over there. Some "Truth Movement" they have going. Why don't they pool their money and purchase a nice bunker and some weapons?

Xraye
11th May 2006, 06:23 PM
I agree with your sentiments to a certain extent. Debate is good, so long as it is honest. The problem is, I do not believe most CT'ers are in fact honest in their debate. They repeat the same unverified, totally debunked claims over and over, and either shout down, condemn, or ignore the responses that prove them wrong. In fact, they do all in their power to stifle true debate, banning people for no other reason than they disagree with the CT orthodoxy (such as it is). It's impossible to respect anyone who does this.

Finally, I must frankly question how much serious attention CT'ers actually merit. For example, imagine that I started a baseless rumor that you are a dog-kicking drunk who cheats on his taxes and sleeps with sheep. And no matter how much evidence you provided to the contrary, my cronies and I kept spreading these rumors across the internet. Would you still feel that both sides of the "debate" deserved widespread public airing and attention? Some theories are too stupid to deserve consideration, and for me, the 9/11 "Bush did it" theory is very much one of them.

I do aknowledge that many CT people make many baseless claims because they draw hasty conclusions. However there are also skeptics who will never believe no matter what evidence is shown. It's the same phenomena in both cases, a refusal to look at the facts due to an attatchment to one's point of view. But for those of us who are attatched to our ideas in such a way, public debate forces one to confront the facts or else withdraw from the debate (or of course engage in slander and summon up the herd to bolster one's own sense of rightousness).

Xraye
11th May 2006, 06:41 PM
One issue we've been facing is that the CTs have a HUGE head start in terms of getting their views "widely known." If someone new to these issues Googles a topic, they will see dozens of CT sites and probably no anti-CT sites. That amounts to an argumentum ad numerum in favor of conspiracy theories.

When I first heard of these CT claims 6 weeks ago, I assumed that they were limited to a small group of believers. Well, I certainly "misunderestimated" the power of the internet. 'Loose Change" is in the top 5 of Google Video views.

A time-tested CT technique has been to make wild allegations first and worry about evidence if anyone challenges the claims later. Meanwhile, lots of books and videos get sold. That's an extremely dishonest way of presenting a case to the public, and I resent the fact that if we don't respond to that dishonesty, more people are going to be duped every day.

Speaking of dishonesty, I noticed that you brought up, on the LC forum, the issue of people being banned there as opposed to here. A few people, such as Roxdog, said that the JREF mods are LESS tolerant than the LC mods. As usual, Roxdog and his cohorts are lying. The ONLY reason Loose Change people have been banned here is that some chose to deliberately break the forum rules more than once and then say to the mods, "Go ahead, ban me." And they received fair warning. If you hang with the Loosers you'll be with an incredibly dishonest crowd. I don't get it.

That's very true, this conspiracy theory is recieving a lot of attention. The other side of the debate, however, is being recieved through the mass media in a much larger and much less informative way than the CT documentaries.

And as for misinformation, perhaps you're right and perhaps not. I'm still researching that claim, but I do have to say that thus far it looks like y'all bring up some good points. However I by no means agree with everything and intend to formulate my case to substantiate that.

Xraye
11th May 2006, 06:45 PM
Another possibility which you do not mention is that some but not all of the conspiracy theory is true --- indeed this must be so since there is more than one conspiracy theory.

If this is the case, then it would be as well to separate the solid facts from the unsubstantiated rumors; and how else to achieve that but open debate and critical analysis of each aspect of the theory?

Good point.

Gravy
11th May 2006, 06:46 PM
That's very true, this conspiracy is recieving a lot of attention. The other side of the debate, however, is being recieved through the mass media in a much larger and much less informative way than the CT documentaries.

And as for misinformation, perhaps you're right and perhaps not. I'm still researching that claim, but I do have to say that thus far it looks like y'all bring up some good points. However I by no means agree with everything and intend to formulate my case to substantiate that.
I understand your second paragraph and it sounds reasonable, but I don't understand what you're saying in the second sentence of first paragraph. I'm not being coy...I don't know what you mean. And do you mean that "this conspiracy" is receiving attention, or "this conspiracy theory?"

Manny
11th May 2006, 06:55 PM
One issue we've been facing is that the CTs have a HUGE head start in terms of getting their views "widely known." If someone new to these issues Googles a topic, they will see dozens of CT sites and probably no anti-CT sites. Speaking of which, it wouldn't hurt things if people who have websites or blogs linked to both versions of the debunking. Maybe someone could even convince Randi to write some commentary about it and give it a front-page plug for a while? No offense to James van Praagh (well, OK, yes offense to James van Praagh) but I think this issue at this time poses a bigger threat to critical thinking than proving a third-rate "psychic" wrong for the millionth time.

Xraye
11th May 2006, 07:01 PM
I understand your second paragraph and it sounds reasonable, but I don't understand what you're saying in the second sentence of first paragraph. I'm not being coy...I don't know what you mean. And do you mean that "this conspiracy" is receiving attention, or "this conspiracy theory?"

ya, I meant conspiracy theory. I'll edit that.

what I was saying in the second paragraph is that the skeptics of the CT are supporting the official story of 9/11 comision (from what I understand) and that this position is supported by the mainstream news. therefor in one sense the skeptical position is already the status quo and the most popular postition. However, I do aknowledge also that by "skeptical" it means skeptical of the CT, which in effect is a reaction to the CT and is therefor different than the official story. So I also aknowledge that you're right, the skeptical point of view isn't understood on the same scale that the CT is.

Stellafane
11th May 2006, 07:07 PM
I do aknowledge that many CT people make many baseless claims because they draw hasty conclusions. However there are also skeptics who will never believe no matter what evidence is shown. It's the same phenomena in both cases, a refusal to look at the facts due to an attatchment to one's point of view. But for those of us who are attatched to our ideas in such a way, public debate forces one to confront the facts or else withdraw from the debate (or of course engage in slander and summon up the herd to bolster one's own sense of rightousness).

I will echo what others have already said, that thus far you seem to be approaching this debate with sincerity and honesty. And I apologize if there's an obvious sense of wariness on my part, but the behavior of other Loose Change members who have come here has not been exemplary. The evidence they present has been invariably weak and unconvincing. They refuse to acknowledge when they have been proven irrefutably and demonstrably wrong (not in matters of opinion, but in objective facts). They present theories that are at best far-fetched and internally inconsistent. They ignore direct questions. They are rude without provocation. The call others liars without cause. And so on.

But all that is nothing compared to how JREF members are treated in the Loose Change forum. They are banned for simply not agreeing with the prevailing theory. They are called monsters, liars, and worse. They are accused of being disinformation agents for the government. This treatment is so egregious and so obvious, that I'm having a difficult time with your earlier post expressing surprise that anyone would not feel welcome on the Loose Change forum.

And although I agree that there are closed-minded people of all persuasions, I'm not for a minute going to agree that "both sides" are equally at fault. The Loose Change people have been vastly more guilty of dishonesty, immaturity, and baseless claims than JREF members have been.

I say this not to heap all this on top of your head, but rather to explain why I may not have all the patience in the world when it comes to 9/11 CT'ers. I'm afraid your predecessors haven't exactly distinguished themselves here, so you have a rather uphill road to climb to gain my complete trust -- a road already made surpassingly difficult by my incredulity that any intelligent, reasonable person could review the available evidence and honestly believe that there's a viable possibility that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions, that a missile and not a commercial passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon, that the calls made by passengers on Flight 93 were faked and the real passengers were offloaded somewhere, and all the other fellow-traveller claims made by CT'ers.

Be that as it may, I wish you luck in your quest for the truth behind 9/11. If truth is what you truly seek, I believe in all sincerity that you have come to the right place. Good luck!

geggy
11th May 2006, 07:11 PM
I just noticed this.

Where I live if you're going to call someone a liar, you'd better be able to back it up. Name a single lie I've told, geggy.

I'll make it easier for you. Point me to a single exchange that you and I have where you were right about a factual matter and I was wrong.

If you can't do that, I'd appreciate an apology.

And you might want to answer some of the questions that were posed to you today, just to show that you're sincere and not a troll.

No time to talk but will post a link to dispute your claim that max cleland was angry at bush for not connecting saddam to the attacks. Don't know where you got that info from but it's the other way around...read transcript to radio interviw here...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

as you can see here, he was hinting that sept 11 may have been allowed to happen by the bush admin and the fact they've covered up the amount of information and evidence of foreknowledge they had heading toward sept 11, which pretty much makes them complicit in the attacks...

dubfan
11th May 2006, 07:24 PM
Looks like I was mistaken before.

Labour MP Meacher is going to screen it for both Houses of the UK Parliament (http://ukfilm.org/news/screened-for-mps-9-11-conspiracy-film). Presumably all the Ministers will see it (or have a chance to). It's not just a private screening with Meacher.

Gravy
11th May 2006, 07:28 PM
ya, I meant conspiracy theory. I'll edit that.

what I was saying in the second paragraph is that the skeptics of the CT are supporting the official story of 9/11 comision (from what I understand) and that this position is supported by the mainstream news. therefor in one sense the skeptical position is already the status quo and the most popular postition. However, I do aknowledge also that by "skeptical" it means skeptical of the CT, which in effect is a reaction to the CT and is therefor different than the official story. So I also aknowledge that you're right, the skeptical point of view isn't understood on the same scale that the CT is.
Thanks for the clarification. I do think that you've made an important distinction. I'm sure that quite a few people here find it both bizarre and hilarious to be called "agents" of the U.S. government. Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas accused me of that to my face. I have a deep, abiding anger towards the people running this country. But I'm not willing to lie to put them in a worse light than they're already in.

Gravy
11th May 2006, 07:37 PM
Looks like I was mistaken before.

Labour MP Meacher is going to screen it for both Houses of the UK Parliament (http://ukfilm.org/news/screened-for-mps-9-11-conspiracy-film). Presumably all the Ministers will see it (or have a chance to). It's not just a private screening with Meacher.

Cool. I doubt it would draw a crowd. Do the Brits need "Loose Change" to discredit the Bush administration? But I'll send Meacher my critique and see if he still thinks the screening is a good idea. If so, I'll send the link to all the MPs. It's astonishing that someone with such political experience would support such shoddy work.

Gravy
11th May 2006, 07:43 PM
No time to talk but will post a link to dispute your claim that max cleland was angry at bush for not connecting saddam to the attacks. Don't know where you got that info from but it's the other way around...read transcript to radio interviw here...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

as you can see here, he was hinting that sept 11 may have been allowed to happen by the bush admin and the fact they've covered up the amount of information and evidence of foreknowledge they had heading toward sept 11, which pretty much makes them complicit in the attacks...
There you go again, geggy. How do you think your standard of proof would do in a court of law?

By the way, I said Cleland was angry at Bush because he believed Bush was covering up the fact that Saddam was NOT connected to the attacks, not the other way around. Do you disagree?

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 07:51 PM
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

as you can see here, he was hinting that sept 11 may have been allowed to happen by the bush admin and the fact they've covered up the amount of information and evidence of foreknowledge they had heading toward sept 11, which pretty much makes them complicit in the attacks...

You're full of it geg. There's nothing like that in the interview.

So, now if we really examine 9-11, we find that this administration, President Bush, has used 9-11 and the tragedy to this country and to the families in this country, the over 3,000 people who were lost, used that as an excuse to go after Saddam Hussein, not a reason to create the war in Iraq. So, they created a war that they were already predisposed to do and 9-11 gave them the excuse. That is why Osama bin Laden is still on the loose.

That's no secret to no one. Everybody knows the Bush admin used 9/11 to justify going into Iraq. It's wrong, but that's not the issue here.

That's not the staff director's fault, it is the White House's fault. It's president Bush's fault. President Bush personally has nixed the effort of the 9-11 Commission to get all the documents in the White House, especially the Presidential daily briefs, which basically tell the Commission and the American people what the President knew and when he knew it in regards to the potential attack on 9-11 and the attack itself and the follow-up.
emphasis mine

Let me translate for you: The documents might tell us how much Bush knew of a potential attack before 9/11, the attack itself on the day it happened, and later the info he received after the event.

He's absolutely not hinting that Bush knew specifically about the 9/11 plot before 9/11. READ CAREFULLY

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 07:55 PM
BTW geggy, can you explain to me how a controlled demolition can fake a collapse from the top?

geggy
11th May 2006, 08:45 PM
You're right about bush admin using sept 11 as one of the justifications to invade Iraq to be able to reach their agenda. But the question here is would they still had invaded iraq if the sept 11 attacks were never to happen? Long before sept 11, bush and friends were overly obsessed with overthrowing the saddam regime. In the year before the attacks, PNAC called for a new pearl harbor as a pretext to invade the middle east and they got what they needed on sept 11. The question is was it a mere coincidence that the attack occured at the time the bush admin had been reinstated in the white house and regained mighty powers after being ousted by clinton or were they already aware that a new pearl harbor was coming and did nothing to prevent it because they needed a pretext to invade the middle east? Moreover, how do you explain the reason for the security standdown on that day?

Gravy
11th May 2006, 09:15 PM
You're right about bush admin using sept 11 as one of the justifications to invade Iraq to be able to reach their agenda. But the question here is would they still had invaded iraq if the sept 11 attacks were never to happen? Long before sept 11, bush and friends were overly obsessed with overthrowing the saddam regime. In the year before the attacks, PNAC called for a new pearl harbor as a pretext to invade the middle east and they got what they needed on sept 11. The question is was it a mere coincidence that the attack occured at the time the bush admin had been reinstated in the white house and regained mighty powers after being ousted by clinton or were they already aware that a new pearl harbor was coming and did nothing to prevent it because they needed a pretext to invade the middle east? Moreover, how do you explain the reason for the security standdown on that day?
Yes, you do have many questions. The same questions. Why?
I'll ask again: have you read my "Loose Change" critique, which covers these issues? The PNAC "Pearl harbor" quote is covered near the beginning. I didn't put that document together for my benefit, geggy. I did it for yours.

juryjone
11th May 2006, 09:37 PM
No time to talk but will post a link to dispute your claim that max cleland was angry at bush for not connecting saddam to the attacks. Don't know where you got that info from but it's the other way around...read transcript to radio interviw here...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

as you can see here, he was hinting that sept 11 may have been allowed to happen by the bush admin and the fact they've covered up the amount of information and evidence of foreknowledge they had heading toward sept 11, which pretty much makes them complicit in the attacks...

Thanks, geggy. As everyone suspected, you are trying to use a former member of the commission, Max Cleland, to further your idea that the Bush adminstration planned and carried out the attacks. What does Max say in your article?

He (Richard Clarke) has come out with a scathing indictment of President Bush, saying he has handled the problem terribly because he had an obsession, basically, he and his top advisers, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, with Iraq. Not an obsession with Osama bin Laden and the terrorist cadre that was increasingly being formed in the 1990's that is responsible, we now know, for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors, or an increasing number of attacks and then ultimately the attack on 9-11.

So now you back off and say they just had foreknowledge. Which is it? Did bin Laden and Al-Qaeda do it with planes, or did the Bush administration do it with a controlled demolition? We all know what Max Cleland thinks. (Hint: Cleland never mentions controlled demolition.)

Regnad Kcin
11th May 2006, 09:40 PM
I do aknowledge that many CT people make many baseless claims because they draw hasty conclusions. However there are also skeptics who will never believe no matter what evidence is shown. It's the same phenomena in both cases, a refusal to look at the facts due to an attatchment to one's point of view. But for those of us who are attatched to our ideas in such a way, public debate forces one to confront the facts or else withdraw from the debate (or of course engage in slander and summon up the herd to bolster one's own sense of rightousness).I'd like to take issue with this, if I may.

I think yours is a generalization not based in fairness. I don't know of too many "skeptics who will never believe no matter what evidence is shown." Certainly not on these boards. What I do see here, if I may say so, is a high level of rigorous thinking. Frankly, I'll suggest there's no such animal as a "skeptic." Skepticism is a frame of mind. And it comes in various degrees, often depending on the topic.

You see, there are people today who are "skeptical" of the official 9/11 story, and people who are "skeptical" of the whole or parts of the various conspiracy theories which are being discussed. The difference is that there is a very modest default position: the perfectly logical and reasonable official story. I, nor others I'm aware of, are, to use your words, "attached to this point of view" any more than I'm attached to the view that there are only two Beatles left alive; it's pretty much common sense. Rather, it is up to the alternate theorist(s) to present a case, if they feel they have one, for the quite remarkable theories they're floating. Allegations on a par with the possibility John and George are breathing at the moment. However, so far, they've done next to nothing, except engage in conjecture and float allegations.

So it's not, as you put it, "the same phenomena in both cases, a refusal to look at the facts due to an attachment to one's point of view." You're certainly welcome to name or list the "facts" presented by the CTers. The reason I haven't looked at them, much less refused, is because I have yet to see any.

Regnad Kcin
11th May 2006, 09:46 PM
You're right about bush admin using sept 11 as one of the justifications to invade Iraq to be able to reach their agenda. (1) But the question here is would they still had invaded iraq if the sept 11 attacks were never to happen? Long before sept 11, bush and friends were overly obsessed with overthrowing the saddam regime. In the year before the attacks, PNAC called for a new pearl harbor as a pretext to invade the middle east and they got what they needed on sept 11. (2) The question is was it a mere coincidence that the attack occured at the time the bush admin had been reinstated in the white house and regained mighty powers after being ousted by clinton or were they already aware that a new pearl harbor was coming and did nothing to prevent it because they needed a pretext to invade the middle east? (3) Moreover, how do you explain the reason for the security standdown on that day?(Numbers, once again, mine.)

I know this may come as a complete and utter surprise to you, considering your apparent inability to pay attention, but...

Questions are not evidence!

CptColumbo
11th May 2006, 09:50 PM
I go to work and you guys add four pages WTF!

XRaye, welcome.

From what I've read here and on the LC forum, you seem pretty resonable. I look forward to reading more of your posts.

Someone brought it up earlier, and I think it would be a good idea to produce a video debunking many CT claims. Since this seems to be the most effective way to get a message out on the internet.

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 10:00 PM
You're right about bush admin using sept 11 as one of the justifications to invade Iraq to be able to reach their agenda. But the question here is would they still had invaded iraq if the sept 11 attacks were never to happen? Long before sept 11, bush and friends were overly obsessed with overthrowing the saddam regime. In the year before the attacks, PNAC called for a new pearl harbor as a pretext to invade the middle east and they got what they needed on sept 11. The question is was it a mere coincidence that the attack occured at the time the bush admin had been reinstated in the white house and regained mighty powers after being ousted by clinton or were they already aware that a new pearl harbor was coming and did nothing to prevent it because they needed a pretext to invade the middle east? Moreover, how do you explain the reason for the security standdown on that day?

These are all assertions. But you can't connect possible motives with events without proof. It seems to me you are trying to put the cart before the cattle. These are possibilities, but before one can make it a fact, one must be able to corroborate with proof.

But I'm glad to see you're moving away from the more sci-fi aspects of the CT.

Also, geggy, by re-reading Cleland's comments, I now can see how one can interpret them in the way you have. I therefore retract my comment I made about you not reading carefully. I can see how Cleland comments can be misleadingly implying that Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attack, especially to someone who already asserts that it is so. But I'm not too sure he meant that Bush knew exactly about the 9/11 plot, but that he does have knowledge about the events he is not willing to show (perhaps Saudi fundings).

I apologize for my rudeness, I may have been too quick myself to read the comment. My mistake.:o

OMGturt1es
11th May 2006, 10:06 PM
I wasn't even in, how can I be outed?


PLEASE tell me that was an intentional seinfeld reference!! PLEASE!!

ANYWAYS, as it seems you all enjoy watching the fun over at the loose change forums, i wasted a few hours there a couple days ago:

s15 DOT invisionfree DOT com/Loose_Change_Forum/

AND THEN,

index.php?showtopic=3557&st=180

(sorry for the mutilated URL... you know, 15 post rule, hehe)

the posts start toward the lower half of that page, and then continue till the end. i've been tempted to post more, but i need to have serious time to keep up with all their crazy stuff, and i need to work up the patience to deal with posters, like, uh, i dunno... jenabell, who must make some of the worst arguments i've ever seen in my life...

BTW, would Pablo, quasi-sapien or leftysergeant happen to post/read here?

take care all,
anthony.

hellaeon
11th May 2006, 10:07 PM
vid idea I had today
P and T style (interviews) without the slander as bad...

How about get the same video.
Each time a claim is made. Pause it. Add voice over narration (for now, gravy's stuff written in the docco). UnPause.

Repeat till end of movie.

Would be long but the best way to refute it. Anyone who has seen the original would get their arguements completely wiped at the points they might think are relevant. Um...I hope that makes sense.
Its something that would only cost time using the right software. A rational sane explanation and revealing of facts for each claim on the video. Let them speak and then show how they are wrong.

I could do it but kinda busy for the moment.

edit: The more I think of it, the more I want to do it....but I dont want to start something someone with the proper skills could do better.

Pardalis
11th May 2006, 10:09 PM
PLEASE tell me that was an intentional seinfeld reference!! PLEASE!!


Yes! I think I reversed it tho... :D

OMGturt1es
11th May 2006, 10:46 PM
Yes! I think I reversed it tho...


AH! oh well-- not that there's anything wrong with that.

Xraye
11th May 2006, 11:08 PM
I think yours is a generalization not based in fairness. I don't know of too many "skeptics who will never believe no matter what evidence is shown." Certainly not on these boards. What I do see here, if I may say so, is a high level of rigorous thinking. Frankly, I'll suggest there's no such animal as a "skeptic." Skepticism is a frame of mind. And it comes in various degrees, often depending on the topic.

You see, there are people today who are "skeptical" of the official 9/11 story, and people who are "skeptical" of the whole or parts of the various conspiracy theories which are being discussed. The difference is that there is a very modest default position: the perfectly logical and reasonable official story. I, nor others I'm aware of, are, to use your words, "attached to this point of view" any more than I'm attached to the view that there are only two Beatles left alive; it's pretty much common sense. Rather, it is up to the alternate theorist(s) to present a case, if they feel they have one, for the quite remarkable theories they're floating. Allegations on a par with the possibility John and George are breathing at the moment. However, so far, they've done next to nothing, except engage in conjecture and float allegations.

So it's not, as you put it, "the same phenomena in both cases, a refusal to look at the facts due to an attachment to one's point of view." You're certainly welcome to name or list the "facts" presented by the CTers. The reason I haven't looked at them, much less refused, is because I have yet to see any.


So if I understand you correctly, the difference between those skeptical of the official story and those skeptical of a conspiracy is that the default position is to believe that Osama Bin Laden orchistrated the attacks because it makes the most sense. I would assume the reasoning which makes this stance logical and reasonable is that Osama claimed responsibility, and perhaps that it's strange that a governing body would kill it's own people.

One may work under the paradigm that the government doesn't care about you, that politicians tend to lie, and that there's a lot going on behind the scenes besides what we're fed from Fox News. With that premise it may be just as logical and reasonable to believe the government screwed us over instead of a small terrorist group who's leader has alledged connections with the CIA. Thus the difference between the "skeptic" and the "CT" is more a matter of world view than of how one thinks.

I don't actually believe that's the whole difference, but I do believe that it's a part of it. I also think that one who identifies with the term "skeptic" has some history of going through the questioning process. Most likely a labled skeptic has some training in epistomoligical scrutiny. Thus one who's been the butt of a joke, a sheep led astray, doesn't buy into the same rouse twice and therefor applies thier powers of discernment towards anything suspicious.

Under that deffinition I don't doubt that some people within the 9/11 Truth Movement are skeptics as well and are activly involved in scrutinizing the governments "outlandish" claims that they wheren't involved in 9/11 despite the fact that we're the most powerful nation and where duped by some small terrorist group, that the government capatalized immediately on the situation, and that they started seemingly inventing reasons to invade a country which had nothing to do with the event. (that for some would be a reasonable and logical position based on thier experience with the governemnt).

I personally think, therefor, that there are skeptics on both sides. I also think that there are numerous non skeptics (sheep) on both sides of the issue. I would actually go so far as to claim that a real skeptic is one who is able to transcend thier own premise of what is logical and reasonable and is willing to look skeptically at both sides, or rather entertain within thier minds the possibility of an alternate reality besides thier own.

brodski
11th May 2006, 11:12 PM
Looks like I was mistaken before.

Labour MP Meacher is going to screen it for both Houses of the UK Parliament (http://ukfilm.org/news/screened-for-mps-9-11-conspiracy-film). Presumably all the Ministers will see it (or have a chance to). It's not just a private screening with Marcher.

Oh ****
I think I see an e-mail campaign starting. any UK residents or others who are particularly keen for LC2E not to have he stamp of approval from the UK Parliament should contact Mr Meacher through his assistant at massonm@parliament.uk
I'll also be writing to my MP to point out just how bad this will make British democracy look.

atarian
12th May 2006, 02:01 AM
Unfortunately, there's little or no point in emailing an MP who does not represent you directly. I have done so anyway, and I have also used the http://www.writetothem.com to email my local MP as well.
Best case scenario: I have innoculated him against this rubbish and he may even pass the URL oif Gravy's critique along to other MPS as well.

I encourage all UK JREF members to write emails to their own local MPs as well.

brodski
12th May 2006, 02:06 AM
Unfortunately, there's little or no point in emailing an MP who does not represent you directly.
my parents live in his constituency, so Ill get them to forward my letter. writing to your own MP is a great idea as well.

Xraye
12th May 2006, 03:20 AM
A petition was compiled by the Scholars For 9/11 Truth asking for the release of documents, video and films, and physical evidence in relation to the events of 9/11.

thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1147427418

This petition would bring invaluable information to public attention and I'm gussing y'all would be interested in having access to such evidence.

Belz...
12th May 2006, 04:39 AM
I admit that in my previous post I didn't present any substantial arguments.

That's a good start. A glimmer of hope.

Belz...
12th May 2006, 04:46 AM
Fascinating. Not only do they believe in a government conspiracy, anything that contradicts that theory is evidence OF the conspiracy. What beautiful circular logic.

Isn't religion great ?

dubfan
12th May 2006, 04:48 AM
A petition was compiled by the Scholars For 9/11 Truth asking for the release of documents, video and films, and physical evidence in relation to the events of 9/11.

thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1147427418

This petition would bring invaluable information to public attention and I'm gussing y'all would be interested in having access to such evidence.

Of course we would Xraye...and thank you for bringing that to our attention. The question on many of our minds, though, is -- why bother? The CTs won't believe it in any case. Someone here (wish I could remember who) put this well when he said that when debating a CT, it's best to first ask them what sort of evidence or source they *will* accept, and then go from there. Saves a lot of time.

Belz...
12th May 2006, 04:50 AM
as you can see here, he was hinting that sept 11 may have been allowed to happen by the bush admin and the fact they've covered up the amount of information and evidence of foreknowledge they had heading toward sept 11, which pretty much makes them complicit in the attacks...

Geggy. Even if that were true, it pretty much INVALIDATES the idea of a controlled demolition, doesn't it ?

Belz...
12th May 2006, 04:57 AM
So if I understand you correctly, the difference between those skeptical of the official story and those skeptical of a conspiracy is that the default position is to believe that Osama Bin Laden orchistrated the attacks because it makes the most sense. I would assume the reasoning which makes this stance logical and reasonable is that Osama claimed responsibility, and perhaps that it's strange that a governing body would kill it's own people.

That's not it at all, Xraye. The default position is where the evidence lies. We have video records of planes flying into the WTC, structural engineers that show that both towers and the WTC 7 collapsed as a result of that damage, and similar evidence for the attack on the pentagon, plus evidence that Al-Qaeda members participated, motive, and a claim of responsability.

I'd call that overwhelming evidence. Would you ?

bob_kark
12th May 2006, 05:03 AM
A petition was compiled by the Scholars For 9/11 Truth asking for the release of documents, video and films, and physical evidence in relation to the events of 9/11.

thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1147427418

This petition would bring invaluable information to public attention and I'm gussing y'all would be interested in having access to such evidence.

I have to say, if this information was being used to start a criminal case or was a threat to national security, I wouldn't really be interested. Other than a few video tapes of the pentagon site, what is left to be released? We have plenty of information, video footage, and audio footage from the WTC attacks and we still have plenty of people claiming that it was a conspiracy.

The missing footage of the pentagon attack may prove that it was a commercial airliner that hit the pentagon, but that still won't change any of the CTers opinions. This is because the CT of a missile hitting the Pentagon makes no sense in the first place. In fact all of the CTs are overly wild and speculative. Why dump a load of passengers off in Cleveland if you're already killing thousands? Why slam a commercial airliner into the WTC if you're going to use explosives to demolish them? Why use a missile to strike the Pentagon if you're already flying planes into the WTC? In fact, can a long range missile even strike a building from that angle at such low altitude?

None of their theories make any sense at all. That's why talking sense to the majority of them fails over and over again. There are some people sitting on the fence that you can hope to set straight, but we don't need surveillance tapes to do so, just common sense. Either way, more evidence will simply allow the CTers to dream up even wilder scenarios where those wacky Jews and those zany Globalist/Illuminati/Government folks team up to try and control the world, initially have resounding success, followed by failure after failure.

WildCat
12th May 2006, 05:06 AM
So if I understand you correctly, the difference between those skeptical of the official story and those skeptical of a conspiracy is that the default position is to believe that Osama Bin Laden orchistrated the attacks because it makes the most sense. I would assume the reasoning which makes this stance logical and reasonable is that Osama claimed responsibility, and perhaps that it's strange that a governing body would kill it's own people.
Not quite. The reason we support the official explanation is that it is supported by the overwhelming majority (if not every single one) of experts in the field - structural engineers, fire engineers, civil engineers. The evidence has been studied by both major political parties as well as independent experts. The findings have been published. And it has been shown that al Qaeda had the means, motive, and opportunity to pull off the attacks. The fact that they admitted to it is but a tiny part of the overall picture, as terror groups often claim responsibility for things they didn't do.

Compare/contrast to the CT position. Non-experts in the fields being scrutinized, whose entire theory seems to be the study of grainy, compressed nth-generation videos they saw on youtube or google video.

geggy
12th May 2006, 05:22 AM
These are all assertions. But you can't connect possible motives with events without proof. It seems to me you are trying to put the cart before the cattle. These are possibilities, but before one can make it a fact, one must be able to corroborate with proof.

But I'm glad to see you're moving away from the more sci-fi aspects of the CT.

Also, geggy, by re-reading Cleland's comments, I now can see how one can interpret them in the way you have. I therefore retract my comment I made about you not reading carefully. I can see how Cleland comments can be misleadingly implying that Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attack, especially to someone who already asserts that it is so. But I'm not too sure he meant that Bush knew exactly about the 9/11 plot, but that he does have knowledge about the events he is not willing to show (perhaps Saudi fundings).

I apologize for my rudeness, I may have been too quick myself to read the comment. My mistake.:o

I don't care for your rudeness, it doesn't really affect me at all. In fact it's quite amusing, keep it coming.

You're right, I'm starting to the see the differences between conspiracy thoeries and raising questions. I consider these information that were either not addressed or manipulated in the official report as evidence (or clues, whichever you want to call it) to back up my questions to seek the real truth. I only came to conclusions that the bush admin was complicit in the attacks because there are just far too many coincidences, each and every one of them sort of cancel each other out when you put them together like pieces of puzzle. I do strongly believe in coincidences, but not when there are multiple of coincidences in a single event.

True Cleland blamed the bush admin for gross incompetence as he has pointed out how much they knew what was coming and didnt do anything to prevent it but there are also other info that he didn't point out which contradicts the incompetent theory.

Blah I hope I'm making sense here...I haven't had my usualy cup of coffee this morning.

Xraye
12th May 2006, 05:29 AM
That's not it at all, Xraye. The default position is where the evidence lies. We have video records of planes flying into the WTC, structural engineers that show that both towers and the WTC 7 collapsed as a result of that damage, and similar evidence for the attack on the pentagon, plus evidence that Al-Qaeda members participated, motive, and a claim of responsability.

I'd call that overwhelming evidence. Would you ?

Overwhelming evidence? Evidence is still being collected and reviewed.

As far as your coment to my post that I'm not getting it, I'm posting to a particular statement of a view expressed by someone else in which I was seeking clarification.

chipmunk stew
12th May 2006, 05:29 AM
No time to talk but will post a link to dispute your claim that max cleland was angry at bush for not connecting saddam to the attacks. Don't know where you got that info from but it's the other way around...read transcript to radio interviw here...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256

as you can see here, he was hinting that sept 11 may have been allowed to happen by the bush admin and the fact they've covered up the amount of information and evidence of foreknowledge they had heading toward sept 11, which pretty much makes them complicit in the attacks...Cleland is criticizing Bush for not grasping the threat posed by al Qaeda, given the information he had, and for being obsessed with Saddam and Iraq instead. It's a legitimate criticism. He said nothing that implied that the Bush administration intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen, or that they were complicit in any way. He did accuse them of a cover-up--a political one, not a criminal one.

And it's worth taking into consideration that this interview was during the 2004 presidential campaign season, and Cleland was an active Kerry supporter.

Xraye
12th May 2006, 05:38 AM
how's this as a catalyst for CT's?

youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY&eurl=

aggle-rithm
12th May 2006, 05:58 AM
Blah I hope I'm making sense here...I haven't had my usualy cup of coffee this morning.

No less than usual, geggy. Carry on.

juryjone
12th May 2006, 06:01 AM
One may work under the paradigm that the government doesn't care about you, that politicians tend to lie, and that there's a lot going on behind the scenes besides what we're fed from Fox News. With that premise it may be just as logical and reasonable to believe the government screwed us over instead of a small terrorist group who's leader has alledged connections with the CIA.

No, with that premise it would be logical to expect them to do the same thing they've always done - try to cover up their own incompetence (badly) and, as long as bad things happen, use those bad things to further their own political goals. That looks familiar - it's what the Bush administration has done.

It is a HUGE leap of logic to assume that they would make the step to blowing up their own citizens, expecting it not to be revealed.

dubfan
12th May 2006, 06:04 AM
how's this as a catalyst for CT's?

youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY&eurl=

Sobering. I think that old chestnut "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you" applies here.

This seems to check out: link to NYTimes archive search (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/aids/index.html?query=HEMOPHILIA&field=des&match=exact)

Article source date is 5/22/2003. The blood products were apparently sold in the mid-80s. The documents were released as a result of lawsuits by American hemophiliacs against Bayer and others. Bayer has admitted no wrongdoing but has paid out over $600M in claims to settle the suits out of court.

aggle-rithm
12th May 2006, 06:07 AM
No, with that premise it would be logical to expect them to do the same thing they've always done - try to cover up their own incompetence (badly) and, as long as bad things happen, use those bad things to further their own political goals. That looks familiar - it's what the Bush administration has done.

It is a HUGE leap of logic to assume that they would make the step to blowing up their own citizens, expecting it not to be revealed.

It's one thing to cover up one's incompetence, another to cover up willful malfeasance, as the Loosers claim Bush has done.

Bill Clinton -- "Slick Willie" himself! -- couldn't keep the Monica Lewinsky thing under wraps, and only TWO PEOPLE knew about it! He knew from past history (Watergate, etc.) that he was far better off coming clean than to attempt a coverup. The truth has a way of making itself known.

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 06:29 AM
I don't care for your rudeness, it doesn't really affect me at all. In fact it's quite amusing, keep it coming.

You're right, I'm starting to the see the differences between conspiracy thoeries and raising questions. I consider these information that were either not addressed or manipulated in the official report as evidence (or clues, whichever you want to call it) to back up my questions to seek the real truth. I only came to conclusions that the bush admin was complicit in the attacks because there are just far too many coincidences, each and every one of them sort of cancel each other out when you put them together like pieces of puzzle. I do strongly believe in coincidences, but not when there are multiple of coincidences in a single event.

True Cleland blamed the bush admin for gross incompetence as he has pointed out how much they knew what was coming and didnt do anything to prevent it but there are also other info that he didn't point out which contradicts the incompetent theory.

Blah I hope I'm making sense here...I haven't had my usualy cup of coffee this morning.

Does this mean you dismiss the controlled demolition all together?

The fact, pointed out by Cleland, that because we don't have all the info from the White House about their knowledge of the attacks, doesn't mean it implicitely incriminates them with the attacks. We have to be carefull not to jump to conclusion unless there is substancial proof.

And I wonder what you consider a coincidence? And how much coincidences there can be in one event? What exactly differanciates a BIG coincidence from a SMALL coincidence (yet another Seinfeld reference, unintentionnal this time) ? Aren't there coincidences happening all the time? Aren't coincidences a perception of things, something very suggestive and personal to one's view of things?

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 06:44 AM
So if I understand you correctly, the difference between those skeptical of the official story and those skeptical of a conspiracy is that the default position is to believe that Osama Bin Laden orchistrated the attacks because it makes the most sense. I would assume the reasoning which makes this stance logical and reasonable is that Osama claimed responsibility, and perhaps that it's strange that a governing body would kill it's own people.


I disagree. I do find it strange a government would kill thousands of it's own people, indiscriminately of their gender, race or religion. I think the Al Qaeda responsability to be a valid theory, because of Al Qaeda's history of behaviour, it's known hatred of anything american, it's indiscriminate acts of pure violence. 9/11 seems to be following exactly that pattern of behaviour. if it indeed was the the governement's doing, it would be unprecedented in history.

Under that deffinition I don't doubt that some people within the 9/11 Truth Movement are skeptics as well and are activly involved in scrutinizing the governments "outlandish" claims that they wheren't involved in 9/11 despite the fact that we're the most powerful nation and where duped by some small terrorist group, that the government capatalized immediately on the situation, and that they started seemingly inventing reasons to invade a country which had nothing to do with the event. (that for some would be a reasonable and logical position based on thier experience with the governemnt).

I wonder what do you think is so "outlandish"? The Bush administration has shown repeatedly it's incompetence. And the propencity for intelligence agencies to have failures and beaureaucratic defects isn't that far-fetched to me. But your doubts are nonetheless worthwhile to investigate, as any other theory, but unless you can find proof that the Gov had some kind of foreknowledge of the specific attacks and proof that they actually stood down, these doubts musn't become a platform for political propaganda.

Walk The Line
12th May 2006, 06:45 AM
Geggy/Xraye, perhaps you've answered this before, but I thought I would ask anyway. What are your thoughts on the bombing of the USS Cole in October of 2000 and the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998?

The "official" story is that these attacks were carried out by Al-Qaeda agents. If you believe that the government carried out the 9/11 attacks, do you then also believe that the government carried out these attacks? If so, what evidence do you have for government involvement?

Gravy
12th May 2006, 06:46 AM
Overwhelming evidence? Evidence is still being collected and reviewed.

Okay, you're not convinced by the evidence collected so far that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

What evidence would convince you otherwise?



edited to rephrase.

Gravy
12th May 2006, 06:47 AM
Geggy/Xraye, perhaps you've answered this before, but I thought I would ask anyway. What are your thoughts on the bombing of the USS Cole in October of 2000 and the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998?

The "official" story is that these attacks were carried out by Al-Qaeda agents. If you believe that the government carried out the 9/11 attacks, do you then also believe that the government carried out these attacks? If so, what evidence do you have for government involvement?

Don't forget Oklahoma City. Arabs were there. Oh, wait: so were the feds. And Controlled Demolitions, Inc. Jeez, was anyone NOT involved? Yeah, Tim McVeigh and the Nichols brothers, poor saps.


edited to correspond more closely with prevailing CTs.

Belz...
12th May 2006, 07:08 AM
You're right, I'm starting to the see the differences between conspiracy thoeries and raising questions. I consider these information that were either not addressed or manipulated in the official report as evidence (or clues, whichever you want to call it) to back up my questions to seek the real truth.

How can you back up a question ?

I only came to conclusions that the bush admin was complicit in the attacks because there are just far too many coincidences, each and every one of them sort of cancel each other out when you put them together like pieces of puzzle. I do strongly believe in coincidences, but not when there are multiple of coincidences in a single event.

Name your coincidences. I don't think you know what a coincidence is, since I don't remember you naming any.

Belz...
12th May 2006, 07:10 AM
Overwhelming evidence? Evidence is still being collected and reviewed.

Irrelevant. The evidence we already have is overwhelming. If you disagree, why don't you simply pick apart the list of things I gave you ?

As far as your coment to my post that I'm not getting it, I'm posting to a particular statement of a view expressed by someone else in which I was seeking clarification.

I'm saying, clearly, that the unlikeliness of the US government doing this and that ISN'T the reason why people consider the official story to be the default position. I'm answering your post.

Xraye
12th May 2006, 07:14 AM
No, with that premise it would be logical to expect them to do the same thing they've always done - try to cover up their own incompetence (badly) and, as long as bad things happen, use those bad things to further their own political goals. That looks familiar - it's what the Bush administration has done.

It is a HUGE leap of logic to assume that they would make the step to blowing up their own citizens, expecting it not to be revealed.

It didn't in Hitler's case. He had his own parliamentary building, the Reichstag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire) building, set ablaze and blamed it on the communist in order to pass Article 48 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48) which allowed him bypass the parliament in his decision making. Of course he promised to only use it in times of war. Sound familiar? The alleged arson was sentanced to death, but afterward in the Leipzig Trial it was found that the Nazi party itself orchistrated the events.

So by no means is such an event impossible to be commited. And how about that good ole patriot act?

Did you know that our government is now capable of holding military tribunals (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html)? Check this out, for interests of "national security" they don't have to reveal evidence, don't have to publicize the trial, don't have to disclose thier voting, and look at this liitle excerpt here: "Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission that such individual is alleged to have committed, and may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death." Read it all for yourself. All you have to do is be accused of being a terrorist, or even of supporting terrorists in any way. (and who knows who they're gunna want to call terrorists)

So in light of these facts, I don't think it's very inconcievable to imagine that our government would try to orchistrate something like 9/11. I personally don't think they're as stupid as they'd like us to believe.

Xraye
12th May 2006, 07:15 AM
Geggy/Xraye, perhaps you've answered this before, but I thought I would ask anyway. What are your thoughts on the bombing of the USS Cole in October of 2000 and the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998?

The "official" story is that these attacks were carried out by Al-Qaeda agents. If you believe that the government carried out the 9/11 attacks, do you then also believe that the government carried out these attacks? If so, what evidence do you have for government involvement?

I haven't researched all that so I can't make any comments.

Xraye
12th May 2006, 07:16 AM
Okay, you're not convinced by the evidence collected so far that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

What evidence would convince you otherwise?



edited to rephrase.

I'm still reviewing all your guys evidence as well as evidence which supports the conspiracy theory. I haven't come to any conclusions about it and don't wish to debate it until I have.

DavidJames
12th May 2006, 07:19 AM
You're right, I'm starting to the see the differences between conspiracy thoeries and raising questions. I only came to conclusions that the bush admin was complicit in the attacks because there are just far too many coincidences, each and every one of them sort of cancel each other out when you put them together like pieces of puzzle. I do strongly believe in coincidences, but not when there are multiple of coincidences in a single event.So you are willing to convict the president of treason based on your perception of coincidences. Geggy, you have no intellectual honesty, further your disregard for honesty, fairness and the law and are far worse then those who you so cavalierly convict.

Hellbound
12th May 2006, 07:20 AM
I'm already subject to military tribunals, and have been for the past 17 years.

Hasn't been a problem yet.

Also, you apparently did not read your link.
Section 1
(e) To protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks, it is necessary for individuals subject to this order pursuant to section 2 hereof to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals.

Section 2
a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:

There are additional requirements as well.

I haven't researched all that so I can't make any comments.
Your lack of research didn't stop you from making comments that support your own position.

DavidJames
12th May 2006, 07:24 AM
I'm still reviewing all your guys evidence as well as evidence which supports the conspiracy theory. I haven't come to any conclusions about it and don't wish to debate it until I have.With what you've reviewed so far, can you tell us what you think about the relevant knowledge and expertise of those presenting the CT evidence.

Gravy
12th May 2006, 07:25 AM
It didn't in Hitler's case. He had his own parliamentary building, the Reichstag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire) building, set ablaze...

So by no means is such an event impossible to be commited. And how about that good ole patriot act?...

Did you know that our government is now capable of holding military tribunals (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html)? ...

So in light of these facts, I don't think it's very inconcievable to imagine that our government would try to orchistrate something like 9/11. I personally don't think they're as stupid as they'd like us to believe.
In light of the facts that Hitler existed, that we have the Patriot Act (which was passed overwhelmiingly by our elected representatives), and that we have military tribunals (which as far as I know we have always had), you think it's plausible that our government committed 9/11?

That's astonishing. I didn't think we'd devolve into geggy territory so quickly.

Xraye
12th May 2006, 07:26 AM
I'm already subject to military tribunals, and have been for the past 17 years.

Hasn't been a problem yet.

Also, you apparently did not read your link.




There are additional requirements as well.


Your lack of research didn't stop you from making comments that support your own position.

I didn't miss that part of the document. However, I persoanlly believe that people who aren't americans have as much right to a fair trial as people who are.

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 07:27 AM
It didn't in Hitler's case. He had his own parliamentary building, the Reichstag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire) building,

I'm curious, were there any casualties in the Reichstag fire?

Xraye
12th May 2006, 07:28 AM
With what you've reviewed so far, can you tell us what you think about the relevant knowledge and expertise of those presenting the CT evidence.

No I can't, because I have very elementary knowledge of that.

Xraye
12th May 2006, 07:29 AM
In light of the facts that Hitler existed, that we have the Patriot Act (which was passed overwhelmiingly by our elected representatives), and that we have military tribunals (which as far as I know we have always had), you think it's plausible that our government committed 9/11?

That's astonishing.

It's happened before, what makes you think it can't happen again?

Stellafane
12th May 2006, 07:29 AM
...I only came to conclusions that the bush admin was complicit in the attacks because there are just far too many coincidences...

Hi geggy. Here's a 9/11 coincidence for you: Seth MacFarlane, the creator of the cartoon "Family Guy," was supposed to be on American Airlines 11 on September 11, 2001. But his agent gave him the wrong departure time, so he showed up at Logan Airport some 10 minutes after the flight took off. Doesn't that indicate MacFarlane (or at least his agent) had some foreknowledge that the flight would hit the WTC? And therefore MacFarlane must be complicit in the attacks? And doesn't that raise the possibility that "Family Guy" is yet another mouthpiece for the great conspiracy?

If you think all this is impossibly stupid, substitute Ben Chertoff for Seth MacFarlane, and Popular Mechanics for "Family Guy." How far would you CT'ers run with that little tidbit, if it were true?

Xraye
12th May 2006, 07:30 AM
I'm curious, were there any casualties in the Reichstag fire?

I was wondering that myself. However, even if there wasn't the general principle remains the same that something similar has happened in the past.

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 07:31 AM
It's happened before, what makes you think it can't happen again?

That's the kind of rethoric Conspiracists use. You can't compare loosely two distinct historical events, from two distinct eras and two distinct cultures.

Stellafane
12th May 2006, 07:31 AM
It's happened before, what makes you think it can't happen again?

What happened before?

dubfan
12th May 2006, 07:33 AM
It didn't in Hitler's case. He had his own parliamentary building, the Reichstag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire) building, set ablaze and blamed it on the communist in order to pass Article 48 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48) which allowed him bypass the parliament in his decision making. Of course he promised to only use it in times of war. Sound familiar? The alleged arson was sentanced to death, but afterward in the Leipzig Trial it was found that the Nazi party itself orchistrated the events.

So by no means is such an event impossible to be commited. And how about that good ole patriot act?

I've seen this Nazi analogy come up so many times... As I pointed out on the LC board, it is not sound reasoning to base a conclusion that Bush is behind the 9/11 attacks on the existence or prior behavior of the Nazis.

I'm not sure what the technical term is, but it is some type of fallacy. It's exactly the same type of argument used by people who bring up Northwoods.

Prior examples of a particular behavior is not evidence that the behavior is happening now with a different set of people.

Can it happen? Sure. There are numerous examples throughout history of individuals and governments blaming events on people other than the real perps. That's not the question. The question is -- did it happen in this case? And the problem for me is, when you look for the evidence of that, there is none to be found. Absolutely none. And further, the evidence to the contrary -- that the events were perp'd by the people the administration claims -- is overwhelming.

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 07:33 AM
I was wondering that myself. However, even if there wasn't the general principle remains the same that something similar has happened in the past.

I completely disagree. You want to make the point that mass murder orchestrated by the government on its own people, indiscriminately of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, is plausible. Were there massive civilian casualties in the Reichstag fire?

DavidJames
12th May 2006, 07:33 AM
No I can't, because I have very elementary knowledge of that.Do you plan on obtaining additional knowledge? Can you share your method of evaluating the evidence? Do you have the requisite level of knowledge and experience to evaluate the evidence or will you, at least partially, rely on the expertise of those who presented the evidence?

Gravy
12th May 2006, 07:35 AM
It's happened before, what makes you think it can't happen again?
That's VERY different from providing evidence that our government was complicit in 9/11. Eugenics laws could happen again. Should I assume that they have happened, or should I rely on evidence?

I am not encouraged by the way you've started here, Xraye. You're acting an awful lot like geggy.

dubfan
12th May 2006, 07:36 AM
It's happened before, what makes you think it can't happen again?

That question carries exactly the same amount of weight among critical thinkers as "when did you stop beating your wife?"

It is a rhetorical trap based on a strawman argument.

I hope you will give some time and thought as to why that is.

Trifikas
12th May 2006, 07:37 AM
Let me add my kudos to Gravy for his Bull-Dogged persistance on this.

Posting this link this late in the discussion might be a mistake, and If it starts destabilizing the thread, I'll retract it or the mods can put it somewhere else.

But found a pretty good WTC 7 explanation, from 2002:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020302nytimes

Apparently, Giuliani's Bunker and the Secret Service offices (among others) WERE the reason it collapsed, but only because they had Diesel Generators:

From the link: As much as 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored near ground level in the tower and ran in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants."

"Investigators have determined that the burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks. "


One note of interest (to me, at least) is the line in the article:

"But until now, the collapse of 7 World Trade has stood as one of the outstanding mysteries of the Sept. 11 attack, since before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire." (Bolding mine...actually, the entire citation was bolded in the article, so non-bolding was mine).

Implying that there are Non-U.S. Steel-reinforced high-rise buildings that Had Collapsed before 9.11.01. can we find those?


Trif

Xraye
12th May 2006, 07:38 AM
That's the kind of rethoric Conspiracists use. You can't compare loosely two distinct historical events, from two distinct eras and two distinct cultures.

In discussing the possibility of an event it's relevant to show that other similar events have taken place. Ever heard the term "history repeats itself"? Is that supposed to only apply to instances that happen in the same culture and same area?

DavidJames
12th May 2006, 07:40 AM
I am not encouraged by the way you've started here, Xraye. You're acting an awful lot like geggy.Ladies and gentlemen, I am making the following prediction.

Xraye will come to the conclusion that the OV of 9/11 is wrong, the evidence of the CTist is so strong he is forced to believe them.

He will do so without providing one shred of viable, verifiable independently produced evidence.

Xraye, I will be happy to admit I'm wrong. It's up to you now, show us what you got.

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 07:43 AM
In discussing the possibility of an event it's relevant to show that other events have taken place. Ever heard the term "history repeats itself"? Is that supposed to only apply to instances that happen in the same culture and same area?

I wasn't saying you can't compare, I'm saying you can't compare loosely. You do have to take into account the different cultures and eras, the context in wich these events took place. To me, there are no similarities.

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 07:48 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I am making the following prediction.

Xraye will come to the conclusion that the OV of 9/11 is wrong, the evidence of the CTist is so strong he is forced to believe them.

He will do so without providing one shred of viable, verifiable independently produced evidence.

Xraye, I will be happy to admit I'm wrong. It's up to you now, show us what you got.

As we say in French: "Give the runner a chance" ;)

Xraye
12th May 2006, 07:51 AM
I wasn't saying you can't compare, I'm saying you can't compare loosely. You do have to take into account the different cultures and eras, the context in wich these events took place. To me, there are no similarities.

I don't know much about the culture of Germany before WWII. I agree that it's deffinatly relevant information. I'm personally just intrigued by the striking similarity beetween the doctrines of each culture, as well as they catalyst that put them into place.

DavidJames
12th May 2006, 07:52 AM
As we say in French: "Give the runner a chance" ;):D

It's a prediction, not a conclusion, but considering the course runner appears to be on....;)

Gravy
12th May 2006, 07:52 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I am making the following prediction.

Xraye will come to the conclusion that the OV of 9/11 is wrong, the evidence of the CTist is so strong he is forced to believe them.

He will do so without providing one shred of viable, verifiable independently produced evidence.

Xraye, I will be happy to admit I'm wrong. It's up to you know, show us what you got.
That's funny because I was about to say, "Mark this page. I predict that in 20 pages Xraye will be making the same specious non-arguments."

Xraye, I hope you don't think that's a cheap shot. But we've seen plenty of people come here saying, "I'm just here to learn," and then show absolutely no interest in learning. So, my default position is that I'm skeptical about why you're here. If you haven't studied up on evidence supporting the OV, then please do so.

CptColumbo
12th May 2006, 07:53 AM
Article 48 of the Weimar Republic's constitution existed before Hitler came to power. Since the Reich was a proportional democracy, a party had to create a coalition to get any laws passed. Article 48 was a provision that enabled the chancellor to pass laws without the consent of the Reichstag in an emergency. It was used repeatedly during the 1930's during the economic crisis in Germany (and the rest of the world).

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 07:56 AM
I don't know much about the culture of Germany before WWII. I agree that it's deffinatly relevant information. I'm personally just intrigued by the striking similarity beetween the doctrines of each culture, as well as they catalyst that put them into place.

Similarities between the doctrines of each culture? Between American and German cultures?

CptColumbo
12th May 2006, 08:02 AM
Here's a brief history of the Weimar Republic, which may explain what was happening and how unstable the situation there was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

There many other books on the subject available at your local library.

Xraye
12th May 2006, 08:08 AM
That question carries exactly the same amount of weight among critical thinkers as "when did you stop beating your wife?"

It is a rhetorical trap based on a strawman argument.

I hope you will give some time and thought as to why that is.

I'm assuming his positioin is that he "thinks it can't happen again" I understand, point taken.

The proper response would be "what makes you think that's so astonishing", or to continue to substantiate my claim.

CurtC
12th May 2006, 08:08 AM
The default position is where the evidence lies. We have video records of planes flying into the WTC, structural engineers that show...

I'd call that overwhelming evidence. Would you ?Belz, I think what Xraye was saying, is that before you had ever seen any evidence from 9/11, if your world view is one to presume that the government is prone to nefarious activities, that would give you a different default assumption, and extraordinary claim, than someone who views the government as more benign would have.

The first would have as the default position that the government was involved, and you would need hard evidence to show that it wasn't. The latter person would assume that the government was not involved, and you would need good evidence to show that it was.

Which is a fair thing to say. Now from there, Xraye, the evidence that we have, which is a whole mountain of information, all seems to point to the fact that 19 Muslim terrorists pulled this off, with support from The Foundation, Al Quaeda. This evidence includes:

* Previous attacks confirmed to be Al Quaeda, including the WTC in 1993, various embassy bombings, and the USS Cole.

* Histories from these 19 people of taking flying lessons aimed at guiding, but not neccessarily landing, commercial jets.

* Phone calls from victims on the planes during the hijackings stating that there were arab-looking men killing people and taking over the planes.

* Plane crash debris from all four planes that crashed.

So the data we have does tend to point to the official version. You have to agree that this becomes the default based on the evidence, and now showing a government conspiracy requires evidence to back it up. What evidence is there? I haven't seen any. Everything I've seen is based on misinformation and distortions.

Hellbound
12th May 2006, 08:11 AM
I didn't miss that part of the document. However, I persoanlly believe that people who aren't americans have as much right to a fair trial as people who are.

Well, now you have to show how tribunals are unfair...especially in light of the fact that
1) Tribunals have been the standard for military personnel for quite some time.
2) The order provides for, and actually requires, fair and humane treatment of detainees.
3) A defense is required.
4) The order specifically states that it requires a fair trial.

And be honest. You didn't specify you were only talking to the non-U.S. members of th board when you told us "did you know you can be tried by a military tribunal". You gave a distinctly incorrect impression to many readers.

Xraye
12th May 2006, 08:13 AM
Similarities between the doctrines of each culture? Between American and German cultures?

Sorry, I was reffering to similarities between article 48 and the patriot act.

Manny
12th May 2006, 08:14 AM
In discussing the possibility of an event it's relevant to show that other similar events have taken place. Ever heard the term "history repeats itself"? Is that supposed to only apply to instances that happen in the same culture and same area?Here's something else which happened in history. A foreign power was upset at American attempts to restrict its expansion in a part of the world which the power thought of as "theirs" and at increasing American hegemony over petroleum resources. That power repeatedly threatened action against the United States and finally, despite the threats and other hints which in hindsight made the coming attack look predictable, executed a spectacularly successful sneak attack which resulted in the deaths of over 2,000 Americans and the destruction of some of America's best and highest-profile infrastructure. That attack triggered a war in which the US fought not only the country which directly attacked it but countries which were not directly responsible for the attack but allied with the attackers. The war resulted in a temporary reduction in the civil liberties of Americans and the imprisonment of thousands of foreign nationals without trial. In fact, this particular war, distinct from the current one, featured the imprisonment of thousands of Americans without trial. Additionally, the American president at the time was well known to be obsessed with these enemies and wanted a war well prior to the sneak attack which precipitated the American entry into it. His particular interest was more in the allies than in the direct attackers themselves, and indeed the vastly more American military resources during the first part of the war went into attacking the allies than the attackers.

Why is my analogy less instructive than yours?

Xraye
12th May 2006, 08:20 AM
Belz, I think what Xraye was saying, is that before you had ever seen any evidence from 9/11, if your world view is one to presume that the government is prone to nefarious activities, that would give you a different default assumption, and extraordinary claim, than someone who views the government as more benign would have.

The first would have as the default position that the government was involved, and you would need hard evidence to show that it wasn't. The latter person would assume that the government was not involved, and you would need good evidence to show that it was.

Which is a fair thing to say. Now from there, Xraye, the evidence that we have, which is a whole mountain of information, all seems to point to the fact that 19 Muslim terrorists pulled this off, with support from The Foundation, Al Quaeda. This evidence includes:

* Previous attacks confirmed to be Al Quaeda, including the WTC in 1993, various embassy bombings, and the USS Cole.

* Histories from these 19 people of taking flying lessons aimed at guiding, but not neccessarily landing, commercial jets.

* Phone calls from victims on the planes during the hijackings stating that there were arab-looking men killing people and taking over the planes.

* Plane crash debris from all four planes that crashed.

So the data we have does tend to point to the official version. You have to agree that this becomes the default based on the evidence, and now showing a government conspiracy requires evidence to back it up. What evidence is there? I haven't seen any. Everything I've seen is based on misinformation and distortions.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

And yes, I would agree that claiming there is a governmental conspiracy (which is different than claiming that governmental conspiracies are possible) necesitates producing evidence of such a conspiracy.

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 08:21 AM
Here's something else which happened in [...]

Chapeau, Manny. (tip of the hat)

Gravy
12th May 2006, 08:22 AM
Let me add my kudos to Gravy for his Bull-Dogged persistance on this.
Thanks. If you had told me two months ago that I'd be involved in this, I would have laughed like crazy. But you know what? I grew up with English Bulldogs as pets. Best critters ever, except that they fart and drool a lot.

Posting this link this late in the discussion might be a mistake, and If it starts destabilizing the thread, I'll retract it or the mods can put it somewhere else.

But found a pretty good WTC 7 explanation, from 2002:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020302nytimes

Apparently, Giuliani's Bunker and the Secret Service offices (among others) WERE the reason it collapsed, but only because they had Diesel Generators:

From the link: As much as 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored near ground level in the tower and ran in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants."

"Investigators have determined that the burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks. "
NIST hasn't released its report on WTC 7 yet, so that should be interesting. We do know that not all of the fuel in those tanks fed the fires, because some was found in the wreckage. What I do think is impressive are the quotes from the people who were there to fight those fires, which agree that:
1) damage to the south side of WTC 7 was severe, not moderate
2) The building appeared to be bulging at several floors
3) there were uncontrolled fires on many floors
4) the building was making noises consistent with its weight shifting
5) for several HOURS the building appeared to be in danger of collapse

One note of interest (to me, at least) is the line in the article:

"But until now, the collapse of 7 World Trade has stood as one of the outstanding mysteries of the Sept. 11 attack, since before then, no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise in the United States had ever collapsed in a fire." (Bolding mine...actually, the entire citation was bolded in the article, so non-bolding was mine).

Implying that there are Non-U.S. Steel-reinforced high-rise buildings that Had Collapsed before 9.11.01. can we find those?

I've always avoided this because I don't see its relevance. CTs are always saying that no other steel buildings were brought down by fire alone. Now, I don't know how they know for sure that some steel building in Russia or China didn't collapse from fire 40 years ago. And we do know of skyscrapers that would have collapsed from steel failure in fires if they hadn't had concrete cores. But so what if the CTs are right? What's that got to to with the situation at the World Trade Center? If there was a long history of steel-framed buildings not collapsing after suffering extreme structural damage first, followed by raging fires that firefighters didn't have access to, then their argument might make some sense.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904464a7b315af4.jpg

chipmunk stew
12th May 2006, 08:37 AM
Under that deffinition I don't doubt that some people within the 9/11 Truth Movement are skeptics as well and are activly involved in scrutinizing the governments "outlandish" claims that they wheren't involved in 9/11 despite the fact that we're the most powerful nation and where duped by some small terrorist group, that the government capatalized immediately on the situation, and that they started seemingly inventing reasons to invade a country which had nothing to do with the event. (that for some would be a reasonable and logical position based on thier experience with the governemnt).What they should be asking themselves (what a skeptic would ask himorherself) is why would the Bush administration have to scramble after 9/11 to scrap together connections between 9/11 and Saddam? The simplest and most logical answer is: because they didn't see it coming.

The attitude you've characterized is one of fallacious thinking, not skepticism:
1. The U.S. is the most powerful nation.
2. THEREFORE, we cannot be duped by a small terrorist group.
3. We supposedly were duped by a small terrorist group.
4. GIVEN 2, 3 is impossible.
5. THEREFORE, powerful elites in the U.S. intentionally allowed 3 to happen.
Can you spot the fallacies?

dubfan
12th May 2006, 08:44 AM
I'm assuming his positioin is that he "thinks it can't happen again" I understand, point taken.

The proper response would be "what makes you think that's so astonishing", or to continue to substantiate my claim.

Fair enough. You can never go wrong with substantiating the claim.

I also hope you can see that the people here aren't skeptical of the CT claims because they're astonishing (although they are that). The people here are skeptical because there has been no evidence presented and no facts uncovered implicating the US government in the attacks. None.

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 08:47 AM
Xraye, I'm sure alot of parallels can be made between any historical events.

Take for example the Rwanda massacre and the St-Bartholomew Day massacre, a clumsy comparison to say the least. It's true both events are due to cultural rivalries and hatred that escalated into mass murder, but the similarities end there. When you look deep enough, there is absolutely no comparison, historically, culturally and politically. The only thing that links these two together is the fact that humankind can be monstruous.

The problem of your comparison between the Reichstag fire and 9/11 is that you can't prove 9/11 was a internal "coup d'état". Therefore, any comparison can't be made in the first place, it is only based on insinuations and interpretations.

edited to correct name

Belz...
12th May 2006, 09:10 AM
It didn't in Hitler's case. He had his own parliamentary building, the Reichstag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire) building, set ablaze and blamed it on the communist in order to pass Article 48 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48) which allowed him bypass the parliament in his decision making. Of course he promised to only use it in times of war. Sound familiar?

No. Thousands of germans did not die in the Reichstag.

So by no means is such an event impossible to be commited. And how about that good ole patriot act?

You conflate possibility, probability and fact. Just because something is possible, though historical precedent, does not mean that it happened.

Belz...
12th May 2006, 09:17 AM
It's happened before, what makes you think it can't happen again?

I was wondering that myself. However, even if there wasn't the general principle remains the same that something similar has happened in the past.

In discussing the possibility of an event it's relevant to show that other similar events have taken place. Ever heard the term "history repeats itself"? Is that supposed to only apply to instances that happen in the same culture and same area?

You're wrong, because here we're not discussing the "possibility" of it happening, but the REALITY of it. If you're content with accepting mere possibilities, then you're free to believe and kind of hogwash theory you want. However, when discussing if the even occured or not, its mere possibility is only the starting point. It cannot be used to draw a conclusion, other than the fact that, if it IS possible, you can continue investigating.

Belz...
12th May 2006, 09:21 AM
Belz, I think what Xraye was saying, is that before you had ever seen any evidence from 9/11, if your world view is one to presume that the government is prone to nefarious activities, that would give you a different default assumption, and extraordinary claim, than someone who views the government as more benign would have.

But neither is a default assumption, since they are, really, both conclusions. The "default" assumption, now that I think about it, is always agnosticism.

Belz...
12th May 2006, 09:26 AM
The problem of your comparison between the Reichstag fire and 9/11 is that you can't prove 9/11 was a internal "coup d'état". Therefore, any comparison can't be made in the first place, it is only based on insinuations and interpretations.

edited to correct name

Nice call, panther-man. It's circular reasoning, indeed.

Xraye
12th May 2006, 09:30 AM
You didn't specify you were only talking to the non-U.S. members of th board when you told us "did you know you can be tried by a military tribunal". You gave a distinctly incorrect impression to many readers.

Damn, nothing escapes you guys. =oD
Ya, I should haven qualified the term *you*

Well, now you have to show how tribunals are unfair...especially in light of the fact that
1) Tribunals have been the standard for military personnel for quite some time.
Just because it's been done before doesn't mean that it's fair or moral.

2) The order provides for, and actually requires, fair and humane treatment of detainees.
If being able to detain a prisoner secretly and being able to sentence him to death with just 2/3 votes without any process of appeal, I'd hate to see inhumane treatement.

3) A defense is required.
Isn't gunna do them much good; all you need is hearsay as long as it has "probative value to a reasonable person" in order to convict the person, and you don't have to reveal any evidence.

4) The order specifically states that it requires a fair trial.
I think my deffinition of "fair" is different than the military's.

Sword_Of_Truth
12th May 2006, 09:32 AM
What they should be asking themselves (what a skeptic would ask himorherself) is why would the Bush administration have to scramble after 9/11 to scrap together connections between 9/11 and Saddam? The simplest and most logical answer is: because they didn't see it coming.

The attitude you've characterized is one of fallacious thinking, not skepticism:
1. The U.S. is the most powerful nation.
2. THEREFORE, we cannot be duped by a small terrorist group.
3. We supposedly were duped by a small terrorist group.
4. GIVEN 2, 3 is impossible.
5. THEREFORE, powerful elites in the U.S. intentionally allowed 3 to happen.
Can you spot the fallacies?

It also borders on full blown racism.

I mean, there's no way a law enforcement and/or intelligence agency run by white men could be outsmarted by a bunch of "diaper heads" or "dune coons", right?

juryjone
12th May 2006, 09:44 AM
Xraye, I've gotta say I'm disappointed. You said you were going to read through the entire thread, making notes of what has been covered and where you still felt the CT "evidence" had not been addressed. I recommended that you choose a particular subject and stick with it, discuss it in detail, so that we might have a meaningful discussion. So what did you come up with?

The Reichstag fire. "History repeats itself".

Why would you begin your arguments there? With speculation and conjecture? Is it because you have no facts to argue?

C'mon, surely you can do better that that. geggy can't, but I expected more of you.

Xraye
12th May 2006, 09:45 AM
Xraye, I'm sure alot of parallels can be made between any historical events.

Take for example the Rwanda massacre and the St-Bartholomew Day massacre, a clumsy comparison to say the least. It's true both events are due to cultural rivalries and hatred that escalated into mass murder, but the similarities end there. When you look deep enough, there is absolutely no comparison, historically, culturally and politically. The only thing that links these two together is the fact that humankind can be monstruous.

The problem of your comparison between the Reichstag fire and 9/11 is that you can't prove 9/11 was a internal "coup d'état". Therefore, any comparison can't be made in the first place, it is only based on insinuations and interpretations.

edited to correct name

I'm comparing the two in order to say that they are in fact of the same genre, I'm comparing elements both instances in order to show the possibility that a similar thing could possibly happen. And because something of that nature could happen, it's worthy of investigatioin of similar trends are found to be emerging.

Belz...
12th May 2006, 09:58 AM
I'm comparing the two in order to say that they are in fact of the same genre, I'm comparing elements both instances in order to show the possibility that a similar thing could possibly happen. And because something of that nature could happen, it's worthy of investigatioin of similar trends are found to be emerging.

Which says nothing about their factual existence.

Gravy
12th May 2006, 09:59 AM
I'm comparing the two in order to say that they are in fact of the same genre, I'm comparing elements both instances in order to show the possibility that a similar thing could possibly happen. And because something of that nature could happen, it's worthy of investigatioin of similar trends are found to be emerging.
Let's keep things on track. Do you have any evidence that anyone not already named in the OV was involved in the planning or execution of the terrorist attacks of 9/11?

If your goal is to gather such evidence, how are you going about that?

DavidJames
12th May 2006, 10:02 AM
I'm comparing elements both instances in order to show the possibility that a similar thing could possibly happen. And because something of that nature could happenYes, I grant that it's possible. But then again it's also possible that aliens create crop circles, bigfoot is real and people can communicate with the dead.

At this point those things, and the CT's are supported by the same amount of genuine evidence, namely, none.

Can we expect you will move beyond speculation and follow up on your claim that you will be reviewing the evidence and providing us your insights?

Xraye
12th May 2006, 10:03 AM
Xraye, I've gotta say I'm disappointed. You said you were going to read through the entire thread, making notes of what has been covered and where you still felt the CT "evidence" had not been addressed. I recommended that you choose a particular subject and stick with it, discuss it in detail, so that we might have a meaningful discussion. So what did you come up with?

The Reichstag fire. "History repeats itself".

Why would you begin your arguments there? With speculation and conjecture? Is it because you have no facts to argue?

C'mon, surely you can do better that that. geggy can't, but I expected more of you.

I don't need to be patronized by you or any of the other forum members. No I haven't read through the entire forum yet, and I haven't gotten through all of the debunking LC, and there are many more things that I wish to study. In light of that, after this particular debate has died down perhaps it would wise of me not to post, as I find it easy for myself to become caught up in the debate. It's also exceedingly frustrating debating with 10 people at a time on a subject which I have little background in. Regardless I am learning a fair amount, but one can only handle so much of such intensive drilling of the mind.

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 10:08 AM
I'm comparing the two in order to say that they are in fact of the same genre, I'm comparing elements both instances in order to show the possibility that a similar thing could possibly happen. And because something of that nature could happen, it's worthy of investigatioin of similar trends are found to be emerging.

How does a building set deliberatly on fire in the 1930's and three buildings (wich two are skyscrapers) rammed into by commercial airplaines in the 2000's fit in the same genre? What genre is that?

You can answer this question whenever you feel like it, don't feel pressured to answer quickly.;)

Gravy
12th May 2006, 10:09 AM
I don't need to be patronized by you or any of the other forum members. No I haven't read through the entire forum yet, and I haven't gotten through all of the debunking LC, and there are many more things that I wish to study. In light of that, after this particular debate has died down perhaps it would wise of me not to post, as I find it easy for myself to become caught up in the debate. It's also exceedingly frustrating debating with 10 people at a time on a subject which I have little background in. Regardless I am learning a fair amount, but one can only handle so much of such intensive drilling of the mind.
That's understandable. I look at Dubfan dealing with opposition from all sides on the LC board, and my head hurts. Maybe you can encourage other CTs to post here. After all, many of us can't post on the primary CT board. We only ask that you bring evidence to support your claims. It's that simple.

Sword_Of_Truth
12th May 2006, 10:10 AM
Damn, nothing escapes you guys. =oD
Ya, I should haven qualified the term *you*


Just because it's been done before doesn't mean that it's fair or moral.


If being able to detain a prisoner secretly and being able to sentence him to death with just 2/3 votes without any process of appeal, I'd hate to see inhumane treatement.


Isn't gunna do them much good; all you need is hearsay as long as it has "probative value to a reasonable person" in order to convict the person, and you don't have to reveal any evidence.


I think my deffinition of "fair" is different than the military's.

Given the evidentiary standard by wich the CT's have all but convicted Rove, Cheny and Bush of high treason, crimes against the constitution and 2,700+ counts of first degree murder, to hear THIS particular complaint from one of them is the most accidentally hilarious thing I've read all week.

chipmunk stew
12th May 2006, 10:11 AM
Apparently, not only do the Loose Change guys rely on information from Jew-bashers and moon-hoaxers, but also on homophobic, witch-hunting, Bohemian Grove CTs. And what this has to do with 9/11? :con2: I suppose they simply don't realize that well-poisoning, non sequitur, and guilt by association are fallacious arguments.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4023&view=findpost&p=4362478

This guy, TheQuest, actually has pulled this stunt before. He required some skeptic to respond to this "story" as some sort of litmus test of shilldom. The skeptic's response didn't cut it, so TheQuest suspended him.

juryjone
12th May 2006, 10:11 AM
I don't need to be patronized by you or any of the other forum members. No I haven't read through the entire forum yet, and I haven't gotten through all of the debunking LC, and there are many more things that I wish to study. In light of that, after this particular debate has died down perhaps it would wise of me not to post, as I find it easy for myself to become caught up in the debate. It's also exceedingly frustrating debating with 10 people at a time on a subject which I have little background in. Regardless I am learning a fair amount, but one can only handle so much of such intensive drilling of the mind.

I did not mean to be patronizing, and I certainly am not trying to keep you from posting. It's just that after 90 pages, I would like to see a substantive discussion. From your previous posts on this thread, I thought that you would be providing some of that shortly.

Gravy and all the others have certainly provided enough information for you to consider. It's daunting, to say the least. That's why I suggested that you start with something small that you're sure you can defend - because you'll get at least ten people responding immediately. It can seem like piling on, but we have a strong desire for evidence here.

bob_kark
12th May 2006, 10:22 AM
I'm comparing the two in order to say that they are in fact of the same genre, I'm comparing elements both instances in order to show the possibility that a similar thing could possibly happen. And because something of that nature could happen, it's worthy of investigatioin of similar trends are found to be emerging.

I find it also interesting that both China in the 3rd century BC and the US had to build large walls to keep out foreign invaders. Each country has had to extend and reinforce these walls several times. I'd wager that we'll become a communist country too. It all makes sense!

Gravy
12th May 2006, 10:22 AM
...This guy, TheQuest, actually has pulled this stunt before. He required some skeptic to respond to this "story" as some sort of litmus test of shilldom. The skeptic's response didn't cut it, so TheQuest suspended him.
And his behavior is typical of the mods there. The LC mods are some of the most irrational, paranoid people I've come across. They are approved by Dylan Avery.

pgwenthold
12th May 2006, 10:34 AM
How does a building set deliberatly on fire in the 1930's and three buildings (wich two are skyscrapers) rammed into by commercial airplaines in the 2000's fit in the same genre? What genre is that?



It's just like saying that the WTC towers falling looked just like a controlled demolition. Of course, if you actually compare the falling of the WTC towers and controlled demolition, you see that they have absolutely no similarity except for the fact that buildings fall down, ultimately.

Hey, that's it. The current government apparently used ramming jets into the buildings because they wanted to make it NOT look like the Reichstag fire!

Just goes to prove how far the conspiracy will go.

Regnad Kcin
12th May 2006, 10:36 AM
I think yours is a generalization not based in fairness. I don't know of too many "skeptics who will never believe no matter what evidence is shown." Certainly not on these boards. What I do see here, if I may say so, is a high level of rigorous thinking. Frankly, I'll suggest there's no such animal as a "skeptic." Skepticism is a frame of mind. And it comes in various degrees, often depending on the topic.

You see, there are people today who are "skeptical" of the official 9/11 story, and people who are "skeptical" of the whole or parts of the various conspiracy theories which are being discussed. The difference is that there is a very modest default position: the perfectly logical and reasonable official story. I, nor others I'm aware of, are, to use your words, "attached to this point of view" any more than I'm attached to the view that there are only two Beatles left alive; it's pretty much common sense. Rather, it is up to the alternate theorist(s) to present a case, if they feel they have one, for the quite remarkable theories they're floating. Allegations on a par with the possibility John and George are breathing at the moment. However, so far, they've done next to nothing, except engage in conjecture and float allegations.

So it's not, as you put it, "the same phenomena in both cases, a refusal to look at the facts due to an attachment to one's point of view." You're certainly welcome to name or list the "facts" presented by the CTers. The reason I haven't looked at them, much less refused, is because I have yet to see any.So if I understand you correctly, the difference between those skeptical of the official story and those skeptical of a conspiracy is that the default position is to believe that Osama Bin Laden orchistrated the attacks because it makes the most sense.It makes the most sense because of the evidence at hand. Plus, it leaves Occam's Razor sharp as ever.

I would assume the reasoning which makes this stance logical and reasonable is that Osama claimed responsibility, and perhaps that it's strange that a governing body would kill it's own people.That, as well as the entire collection of other information.

One may work under the paradigm that the government doesn't care about you, that politicians tend to lie, and that there's a lot going on behind the scenes besides what we're fed from Fox News. With that premise it may be just as logical and reasonable to believe the government screwed us over instead of a small terrorist group who's leader has alledged connections with the CIA.No. It is not in any way "just as logical and reasonable." No, no, and...no.

One has to specifically show where "the government doesn't care about you," not just suggest it.

One has to show the specific lie, not just suggest that "politicians tend to" engage in the practice.

One has to show evidence of whatever portion of "a lot going on behind the scenes," not just allege it.

Thus the difference between the "skeptic" and the "CT" is more a matter of world view than of how one thinks.World view can color or alter perceptions. That's why I love those adorable little facts. They're cuddly, fuzzy, and don't soil the carpet.

I don't actually believe that's the whole difference, but I do believe that it's a part of it. I also think that one who identifies with the term "skeptic" has some history of going through the questioning process. Most likely a labled skeptic has some training in epistomoligical scrutiny. Thus one who's been the butt of a joke, a sheep led astray, doesn't buy into the same rouse twice and therefor applies thier powers of discernment towards anything suspicious.No comment.

Under that deffinition I don't doubt that some people within the 9/11 Truth Movement are skeptics as well...I've already made the point that skepticism is a practice, rather than a specific thing, such as a person. Everyone practices skepticism to some degree.

However there is a difference between skepticism and prejudice, such as when you continue on:

...and are activly involved in scrutinizing the governments "outlandish" claims that they wheren't involved in 9/11...Stating that it is nearly beyond belief ("outlandish") someone -- and the "government" is made up of people -- couldn't have been involved, is prejudicial reasoning. It is not up to a person to show his innocence, it is up to the accuser to show his guilt!

...despite the fact that we're the most powerful nation and where duped by some small terrorist group...I certainly hope you're not serious.

...that the government capatalized immediately on the situation, and that they started seemingly inventing reasons to invade a country which had nothing to do with the event. (that for some would be a reasonable and logical position based on thier experience with the governemnt).You are speculating and, frankly, straying from the central point: If you, or anyone, thinks 9/11 was an inside job, prove it. As I've said earlier in this epic thread, Seeing as how that would make it the largest and most complex undertaking of its kind in human history, it should be pretty easy to do.

I personally think, therefor, that there are skeptics on both sides.No. There are people applying varying degrees of the skeptical process, and not always with precision, regardless of "sides."

I also think that there are numerous non skeptics (sheep) on both sides of the issue.In so far as "sheep" has come to be a pejorative, perhaps you'd like to clarify.

I would actually go so far as to claim that a real skeptic is one who is able to transcend thier own premise of what is logical and reasonable and is willing to look skeptically at both sides, or rather entertain within thier minds the possibility of an alternate reality besides thier own.No. A "real skeptic" (even though I've stated why I believe the term is erroneous) is content to be shown whatever is relevant and modify his/her stance accordingly. There is no "alternate reality," there is only the one.

chipmunk stew
12th May 2006, 10:54 AM
This is a pretty thorough post about the hijackers, posted by a letsroll911.org member:
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=11840&highlight=

He draws some odd conclusions, such as the idea that the two pictures of Abdulaziz Alomari are not the same person (I mean, come on, dude, this is even more obviously wrong than the "Fat Osama" thing). But he's got a lot of information and pictures I'd never seen before. For instance, there's a flight manifest showing the seating arrangement (including the hijackers) on AA flight 11.

aggle-rithm
12th May 2006, 10:58 AM
It didn't in Hitler's case. He had his own parliamentary building, the Reichstag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire) building, set ablaze and blamed it on the communist in order to pass Article 48 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48) which allowed him bypass the parliament in his decision making. Of course he promised to only use it in times of war. Sound familiar?

A fascist leader using an imaginary crisis to justify ruthless action? Yes!! It DOES sound familiar!!

You've just described the moderators at the Loose Change forum!


;)

Sword_Of_Truth
12th May 2006, 11:00 AM
If any of the 9-11 hijackers are still alive, do they have any idea how much money they could make on the speech circuit and book signings?

senorpogo
12th May 2006, 11:06 AM
I'm surprised that the CTs don't compare 9/11 to the fire of Rome under Nero.

We've got two crazy leaders, both rumored to be involved with the tragedies. One fiddled while the other read a kid's book. Both events were blamed on religious groups opposed to the agenda of the empire. And you've got the great USA = Roman Empire bit which allows the CT to claim that the USA is posed for collapse.

Regnad Kcin
12th May 2006, 11:10 AM
Plus...they both have many fine Italian restaurants!

aggle-rithm
12th May 2006, 11:19 AM
Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

And yes, I would agree that claiming there is a governmental conspiracy (which is different than claiming that governmental conspiracies are possible) necesitates producing evidence of such a conspiracy.

Even without evidence, I personally would settle for a coherent hypothesis describing how the government, even hypothetically, could have pulled off the attack without anyone knowing about it. CT's can't provide this. All they can to is stir up trouble by endlessly regurgitating questions, "inconsistencies", "coincidences", and outright lies. Nowhere have I seen a succinct description of what the CT's think the government did.

I've brought this up before with geggy, but got nowhere. I'll bring it up with you now:

The official version has the advantage of making logical sense in that it fits all the evidence and is based on a chain of plausible cause and effect relationships. Is there ANY conspiracy theory that can say the same?

That's what I would need before I would even begin to consider an alternative explanation to the OV.

chipmunk stew
12th May 2006, 11:20 AM
I'm surprised that the CTs don't compare 9/11 to the fire of Rome under Nero.

We've got two crazy leaders, both rumored to be involved with the tragedies. One fiddled while the other read a kid's book. Both events were blamed on religious groups opposed to the agenda of the empire. And you've got the great USA = Roman Empire bit which allows the CT to claim that the USA is posed for collapse.Hitler and the Nazis are like pop culture icons by now, so people know exactly what they're getting at when the CTs draw comparisons with them. But I expect you'll get bragging rights before long for predicting it. I read a lot of "I bet you didn't know..." or "Most people have never even heard of..." coming from the CTs. They get off on possessing "arcane" knowledge, and the Nero connection is just the thing, once familiarity with the Reichstag fire becomes too common for their tastes.

aggle-rithm
12th May 2006, 11:20 AM
I'm surprised that the CTs don't compare 9/11 to the fire of Rome under Nero.

We've got two crazy leaders, both rumored to be involved with the tragedies. One fiddled while the other read a kid's book. Both events were blamed on religious groups opposed to the agenda of the empire. And you've got the great USA = Roman Empire bit which allows the CT to claim that the USA is posed for collapse.

Soon, Bush will begin to feed Christians to the lions! ;)

Gravy
12th May 2006, 11:25 AM
I got my first "constructive criticism" from a CT today!

To: itmatters@mail.com
Subject: Loose Change "debunking"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some constructive criticism: you are obviously every bit as biased toward the idea that the government is NOT behind 9/11 as the makers of Loose Change are that they were, if not more so. You work equally hard to try to "debunk" as they do to try to (maybe) shed light. They at least try to shed light, while you try to hide, and protect, under the guise of logic.

I see right through ya, buddy. Neocon apologist/defender. Rest assured, the 9/11 truth movement is bigger than you will ever be.
Have a nice day.
Not exactly the level of detail I was looking for.

kookbreaker
12th May 2006, 11:30 AM
I got my first "constructive criticism" from a CT today!


So, in Loose Change World, 'Constructive Criticism' means 'Didn't use Four Letter words'?

Manny
12th May 2006, 11:31 AM
True, but at least you're now a "Neocon apologist/defender", Second Class. That puts you well on your way to full NWO Globalist. Congratulations!

Regnad Kcin
12th May 2006, 11:32 AM
So, in Loose Change World, 'Constructive Criticism' means 'Didn't use Four Letter words'?
Also in Loose Change World, you must be This Tall to go on the ride.

Gravy
12th May 2006, 11:34 AM
Also in Loose Change World, you must be This Tall to go on the ride.
:D

senorpogo
12th May 2006, 11:34 AM
I got my first "constructive criticism" from a CT today!


Not exactly the level of detail I was looking for.

I find it interesting the way the emailer countered the facts from your critique of Loose Change by calling you a neo-con. Very effective. It definately proves your factual arguments to be wrong.

The old "neo-con" move. That's a very old rhetorical technique that originated in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

chipmunk stew
12th May 2006, 11:40 AM
I find it interesting the way the emailer countered the facts from your critique of Loose Change by calling you a neo-con. Very effective. It definately proves your factual arguments to be wrong.

The old "neo-con" move. That's a very old rhetorical technique that originated in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.If you're not with them, then you're with the neo-cons.

...oh wait...

Walk The Line
12th May 2006, 11:41 AM
True, but at least you're now a "Neocon apologist/defender", Second Class. That puts you well on your way to full NWO Globalist. Congratulations!


Is there some sort of application that one can fill out to become a NWO Globalist?

I wonder if that's how all of this started, with the head globalist putting ads in newspapers and on the internet, looking for like minded individuals to orchestrate a clever plot to kill thousands of American citizens and wipe away civil liberties.

:D

dubfan
12th May 2006, 11:43 AM
Ya know, how do you respond to this?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3839&view=findpost&p=4366008

*throws up hands*

Gravy
12th May 2006, 11:49 AM
True, but at least you're now a "Neocon apologist/defender", Second Class. That puts you well on your way to full NWO Globalist. Congratulations!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904464d85a5bcda.jpg
My Henchgirl (or Wenchman, whichever you prefer)

Gravy
12th May 2006, 11:54 AM
Ya know, how do you respond to this?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3839&view=findpost&p=4366008

*throws up hands*
Feed the budgies.

no one in particular
12th May 2006, 12:02 PM
Ya know, how do you respond to this?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3839&view=findpost&p=4366008

*throws up hands*
I don't know aboot that, but in reference to another question in that thread, here (http://www.911myths.com/collapse2.rm) is the sound of structural steel failing. The "big blue" failure.

milesalpha
12th May 2006, 12:04 PM
Just to bring an end to the Hitler analogy, there is no evidence that Hitler or the Nazis arranged the burning of the Reichstag. This has been a bit of popular conjecture for decades but much like the Hitler had a Jewish (choose your relative - father, mother, grandfather, grandmother) relation, there is simply no evidence. The best evidence we have is that it was the work of that one nutty communist they captured. (See Hitler: Hubris 1889-1936 by Ian Kershaw). Hitler, ever the opportunist, simply used the event for his own purposes as he had so frequently before and after. Hitler was certainly not above orchestrating events, he ran on a law and order platform while he was creating most of the disorder and lawbreaking but the Reichstag doesn't appear to be one of these instances.

The one thing that we can say about pre-Hitler Weimar and Germany is that they had almost no experience with democracy. Hence the use of Article 48 and the subsequent Enabling Act was not the shock to the public that the Patriot Act was (or should have been?).

dubfan
12th May 2006, 01:05 PM
I don't know aboot that, but in reference to another question in that thread, here (http://www.911myths.com/collapse2.rm) is the sound of structural steel failing. The "big blue" failure.

Boy, never expected that. It sounds like an explosion.

ETA: btw, thank you for that link. I added it to the thread over there.

CurtC
12th May 2006, 01:26 PM
I'd like to remind all you neocons here that it's Friday afternoon, and your weekly reports are due at HQ by 5:00 EDT. Be sure to note which forums you've shilled in this week, along with any major accomplishments, and your plans for next week.

Also, some of you apparently didn't read the memo last week that you need to use the new coversheets on your reports. Please be sure to use only the new coversheets this week.

Also, next Friday will be Hawaiian shirt day.

So if you could all prepare your weekly reports with the new coversheets, that would be great...

Belz...
12th May 2006, 01:30 PM
Hitler and the Nazis are like pop culture icons by now, so people know exactly what they're getting at when the CTs draw comparisons with them. But I expect you'll get bragging rights before long for predicting it. I read a lot of "I bet you didn't know..." or "Most people have never even heard of..." coming from the CTs. They get off on possessing "arcane" knowledge, and the Nero connection is just the thing, once familiarity with the Reichstag fire becomes too common for their tastes.

I do believe it was geggy who asked me if I knew that the Reichstag fire had been started by the Nazis. To which I answered: "Is there anyone who DOESN'T know ?"

bob_kark
12th May 2006, 01:33 PM
I'd like to remind all you neocons here that it's Friday afternoon, and your weekly reports are due at HQ by 5:00 EDT. Be sure to note which forums you've shilled in this week, along with any major accomplishments, and your plans for next week.

Also, some of you apparently didn't read the memo last week that you need to use the new coversheets on your reports. Please be sure to use only the new coversheets this week.

Also, next Friday will be Hawaiian shirt day.

So if you could all prepare your weekly reports with the new coversheets, that would be great...

Where am I going to find a hawaiian shirt in Antartica? Whose idea was it to replace emporer penguins with adelie penguins anyway?

Stellafane
12th May 2006, 01:35 PM
Did you know "neo-cons" is an anagram for "no scone"? Which sounds very close to "no soup"? As in "no soup for you"? Which was popularized by the TV show Seinfeld, which was based in...NEW YORK!!

Coincidence? I think not...

Gravy
12th May 2006, 01:36 PM
I do believe it was geggy who asked me if I knew that the Reichstag fire had been started by the Nazis. To which I answered: "Is there anyone who DOESN'T know ?"
Well, I didn't know, because I'd never looked into it. Reading Milesalpha's post has made me want to know more.

Manny
12th May 2006, 01:38 PM
Did you know "neo-cons" is an anagram for "no scone"? Which sounds very close to "no soup"? As in "no soup for you"? Which was popularized by the TV show Seinfeld, which was based in...NEW YORK!!

Coincidence? I think not...The soup Nazis burned down the Reichstag?

CurtC
12th May 2006, 01:41 PM
The soup Nazis burned down the Reichstag?No, he's not advancing any theories, just pointing out coincidences and asking questions.

And dammit, I wanted to point out the full-circle linkage from Seinfeld back to Nazis!

Hellbound
12th May 2006, 01:42 PM
Damn, nothing escapes you guys. =oD
Ya, I should haven qualified the term *you*

Fair 'nough :)

Just because it's been done before doesn't mean that it's fair or moral.

And just because tribunals have been misused does not mean they are inheritly immoral or biased.

If being able to detain a prisoner secretly and being able to sentence him to death with just 2/3 votes without any process of appeal, I'd hate to see inhumane treatement.

The lack of appeal does disturb me, it provides little chance for error correction. There is a sort of appeals process, however, in that the decision can be reviewed by the Secretary of Defense. Still not optimal, though.

Isn't gunna do them much good; all you need is hearsay as long as it has "probative value to a reasonable person" in order to convict the person, and you don't have to reveal any evidence.

I disagree with this statement. I suspect the standards would be similar to what exist in traditional courts. The standards state only "Evidence that would have probative value to a reasonable person"; you adde dyour own interpretation to that to include heresay.

I do not know if it would include heresay or not, and you haven't shwon that it does, so this supports neither side of the argument until further information is gathered. Considering attorneys are posted for each side (the defendent can select their own or hire their own, as well), I would suspect it follows traditional court rules.

I think my deffinition of "fair" is different than the military's.

Then it becomes a difference of opinion.

The tribunal system is very similar to the military justice system that has been in place for the U.S. Military for years. That system is, within reasonable expectation, fair. There is the difference that the military justice system provides avenue for appeal (although limited), however.

So, while I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing, it's not immediate evidence of evil, either. Most people tend to mentally flip when they hear the word "tribunal", because of the negative connotations of the word, but a tribunal is just a specific type of judging body. How it's actually implemented is the measure of whether or not it is "fair".

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 01:48 PM
Feed the budgies.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/88864464f45bb6545.jpg

:D

Regnad Kcin
12th May 2006, 02:00 PM
Pardalis, it's so sad you're parroting the government!

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 02:04 PM
Pardalis, it's so sad you're parroting the government!

It only shows us Globalists have a soft spot for cute animals. You won't see pics like that on the LC forum!

Stellafane
12th May 2006, 02:15 PM
Wait a second...how does that old saying go? A bird in the hand is worth two in the...AHA! AHA!! It all becomes clear now! "Feed the budgies" is in fact code for "Go inform my globalist masters about the latest Truth Movement developments!"

Ooooo, you no-scone people are SO devious...

Ramooone
12th May 2006, 03:10 PM
i found this on the rules section of the loosers forum...

The First rule of CT club is you always talk about CT Club

The Second Rule of CT club is you always talk about CT club

The Third rule of CT club, if anyone shows you any evidence contrary to your beliefs you call them a sheep, a shill or a disinformation agent!

The Fourth rule of CT club, if anyone has any questions you immediately point them to every single CT movie ever made and tell them its the truth!

The Fifth rule of CT club, If anyone who is a skeptic starts to make headway in an argument you immediately ban them from the site to protect your sheep....err....idea's

The sixth rule of CT club, if this is your first night in CT club, you have to be certifiably nuts!

contra
12th May 2006, 03:37 PM
Hey... wait...
Ramooone you are right...
I've been on CT forums for a while now, asking questions... asking for edivence... and so on.. pointing out flaws... you know... logical things... and they do that...

Its annoying. Crappy videos based on nothing are not evidence...

And the number of them that spew things from loose change... and when you use counters (I think the main one was made on this site... I have to thank who...) they claim its disinformation, and call you part of it... and give you more crappy vids to watch.

I don't want to see thousands of people dying over and over. Its morbid. Its sick. Its screwed up.

bob_kark
12th May 2006, 03:40 PM
Welcome Contra, we feel your pain.

chipmunk stew
12th May 2006, 06:54 PM
Hey Liberty,

dubfan's doing just fine on his own. Why don't you and Terrorcell ask your mods why the rest of us have to use him as a proxy to respond to your cohorts' inane comments?

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3839&view=findpost&p=4366658

CptColumbo
12th May 2006, 08:10 PM
When did correcting people on their facts about Hitler become "defending" him? Did I miss a meeting?

Regnad Kcin
12th May 2006, 08:46 PM
More than that:

...No wonder they are defending the Bush Administration, they even defend Hitler.I wasn't aware anyone was defending Bush in this thread, much less AH.

Is it too much to ask for a little intellectual honesty? No, that's not intended as a loaded or hypothetical question.

Terrorcell, should you be reading this, I think it would be nice if those who propose some sort of U.S. goverment involvement in the 9/11 attacks present proof. Not allegations, not questions, not indications of how-similar-things-happened-before-so-it's-not-so-difficult-to-believe. Proof.

Glory!

Belz...
12th May 2006, 08:49 PM
Well, I didn't know, because I'd never looked into it. Reading Milesalpha's post has made me want to know more.

Sorry there, Gravy. It WAS a rhetorical answer. It was just pedantry on geggy's part to assume only HE knew.

kookbreaker
12th May 2006, 09:26 PM
I made the mistake of clicking the last LC thread link.

Once again, that forum is filled with little spoiled children. Pictures of Bulls is their counterarguement? I didn't think they could get any lamer than all the "OWNED" comments.

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 09:36 PM
I made the mistake of clicking the last LC thread link.

Once again, that forum is filled with little spoiled children. Pictures of Bulls is their counterarguement? I didn't think they could get any lamer than all the "OWNED" comments.

I did the same mistake too. It really makes me sick how stupid people can get. I really admire Dubfan to put up with such garbage.

Sword_Of_Truth
12th May 2006, 09:44 PM
When did correcting people on their facts about Hitler become "defending" him? Did I miss a meeting?

When did defending white supremacists become unusual for for the LC forum?

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 09:53 PM
I can't read that LC forum junk anymore... They are all over the place! They talk about D-Day, Hiroshima, the Reichstag fire... WTFF?

Pardalis
12th May 2006, 11:20 PM
Quote from "The Quest" at http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3842&st=120

Guys and gals,

Upon futher review, letting in obvious professional trolls is going to have to looked at on a case by case basis.

Keep in mind that you are never going to convince a fed-troll. They are here to do a job and they will not waiver. While we are wasting time with these types we are taking away time from legit newbies and the forums quickly become a chaotic mess.

In the meantime citizen surveilance is growning and a potential attack of Iran is looming large. While we're playing nice-guy and trying so hard to be politically correct, the 911 perps are playing for keeps.

The days of letting professional troll types in our forums carte blanche are pretty much over. We don't have the resources to do it and times a wasing.

We are going to have to make some calls sometimes that may not be popular but it's about survival. Nothing more.

If this doesn't sound like a survivalist extremist, I don't know what will.

Gravy
13th May 2006, 04:55 AM
TheQuest is quite a piece of work. And he claims to be in his 50s, not his teens. Of all the exchanges I've seen on any forum, this one from LC is my favorite (in response to complaints about TheQuest banning me).

TheQuest Posted: Apr 9 2006, 09:15 PM
CMS,

I'm sorry you can't appreciate you that this country has already laid out the groundwork for going 'nuclear' on Iran.

I'm sorry you can't aprreciate we are trying to put an end to the killing of thousand of inocent civilians in Iraq.

I am sorry you are not old enough to have lived through the assasinations of JFK, RFK, MLK like I have.

I am sorry that you are not old enough to have witnessed the killings of protesting college students at Kent State as I have.

I am sorry that you did not have to contemplate the leaving of your family, friends and neighbors at the tender age of 18 and fleeing to Canada to avoid an unjust war in Vietnam as I did.

Most of all, I am sorry I can't do enough to protect the world's innocents.

What are you sorry for?
Chipmunk Stew:
I'm sorry that you've become what you're fighting against.
Chipmunk Stew's reply was deleted from the thread.

geggy
13th May 2006, 05:16 AM
WHOA! Chimpunk is quoting darth vader's quote, "if you are not with us, you are against us."

Arkan_Wolfshade
13th May 2006, 05:20 AM
WHOA! Chimpunk is quoting darth vader's quote, "if you are not with us, you are against us."

No, he was paraphrasing Niezsche you n00b, "One should see to it when hunting monsters that they do not become one in the process: For when one stares long into the abyss, the abyss stares back into him."

geggy
13th May 2006, 06:08 AM
No, he was paraphrasing Niezsche you n00b, "One should see to it when hunting monsters that they do not become one in the process: For when one stares long into the abyss, the abyss stares back into him."

That quote sounds like what exactly had happened to the israelis hunting for the culprits of the kidnappings of the israeli atheltes during the 1972 olympics. Interestingly, the kidnappings by the arabs happened on the date of sept 11...Have you ever read the book "vengeance" by george jonas? I'd highly recommend it. I have not yet seen the film, "Munich", though, which was based on the book.

I think this quote by mark twain is better suited for thequest, whom may have been fooled by the sept 11, 2001 attacks like many of us....

"whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority its time to pause and refleck..."

dubfan
13th May 2006, 06:24 AM
So last night I visited this thread: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4094 (where I was amused to see all the young Loose Changer's suddenly shocked to find themselves in the company of rabid anti-Zionists, and holocaust- and Apollo moon landing-deniers...but on with the story...)

And then I went to the link referenced in the post (http://www.erichufschmid.net/Avery-Rowe-Bermas-Hufschmid-phonecall.html), which is hosted by a gentleman named Eric Hufschmid, and listened to the recording of the phone conversation that's posted there between Eric and the LC Crew.

Apparently Eric is upset that various outlets in the "9/11 Truth" movement are promoting Loose Change and not Eric's video. This seems to be due to the fact that Eric is a paranoid holocaust- and Apollo-denier. However, Eric comes to the conclusion that the reason people are promoting Loose Change over his video is because Dylan & Co. are PART OF THE CONSPIRACY.

This conversation simply has to be heard to be believed. It really opened my mind to what these CTists are all about. 9/11 is just the tip of the iceberg to these people, and once they "prove" the government is behind 9/11...they have a whole different CT agenda waiting to enact.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/CriminalNest_Diagram.png

kookbreaker
13th May 2006, 06:45 AM
That sound you hear is a conspiracy eating itself.

kookbreaker
13th May 2006, 06:47 AM
That quote sounds like what exactly had happened to the israelis hunting for the culprits of the kidnappings

It also sounds like what the Loose Change forum is doing when they ban any dissent and questions in pursuit of their 'opressive, free-speech crushing gub'mint'.

Did that point escape you? Most points do.

geggy
13th May 2006, 07:05 AM
And then I went to the link referenced in the post (http://www.erichufschmid.net/Avery-Rowe-Bermas-Hufschmid-phonecall.html), which is hosted by a gentleman named Eric Hufschmid, and listened to the recording of the phone conversation that's posted there between Eric and the LC Crew.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/CriminalNest_Diagram.png


I don't understand why you people are all hellbent on those activists who may well be cointelpros that advocates silly theories like the pod on planes, missile hit the pentagon, hologram, etc which may well be government propaganda in attempt to discredit the movement. instead of focusing on the works of more serious investigators such as michael ruppert (www.oilempire.us), david ray griffin, paul thompson (www.cooperativeresearch.org), etc...

DavidJames
13th May 2006, 07:10 AM
I don't understand why you people are all hellbent on those activists who may well be cointelpros that advocates silly theories like the pod on planes, missile hit the pentagon, hologram, etc which may well be government propaganda in attempt to discredit the movement. instead of focusing on the works of more serious investigators such as michael ruppert (www.oilempire.us), david ray griffin, paul thompson (www.cooperativeresearch.org), etc...because they are all the same. Each of them offers the same level of credible evidence, namely, none.

That you can't see that, should raise an alarm for you.

bob_kark
13th May 2006, 07:11 AM
That quote sounds like what exactly had happened to the israelis hunting for the culprits of the kidnappings of the israeli atheltes during the 1972 olympics. Interestingly, the kidnappings by the arabs happened on the date of sept 11...Have you ever read the book "vengeance" by george jonas? I'd highly recommend it. I have not yet seen the film, "Munich", though, which was based on the book.

I think this quote by mark twain is better suited for thequest, whom may have been fooled by the sept 11, 2001 attacks like many of us....

"whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority its time to pause and refleck..."

Actually, he said Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.
But, I'm glad you like Mark Twain, I have some more for you:

Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.

The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.

In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.

You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.

Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.

dubfan
13th May 2006, 07:17 AM
bob_kark: Priceless. Thank you for those.

dubfan
13th May 2006, 07:18 AM
I don't understand why you people are all hellbent on those activists who may well be cointelpros that advocates silly theories like the pod on planes, missile hit the pentagon, hologram, etc which may well be government propaganda in attempt to discredit the movement. instead of focusing on the works of more serious investigators such as michael ruppert (www.oilempire.us), david ray griffin, paul thompson (www.cooperativeresearch.org), etc...

How do we know it isn't YOU that's the cointelpro??? Hmmmmmmmmmm.....???

kookbreaker
13th May 2006, 07:19 AM
I don't understand why you people are all hellbent on those activists who may well be cointelpros that advocates silly theories like the pod on planes, missile hit the pentagon, hologram, etc which may well be government propaganda in attempt to discredit the movement.


I find it amusing. go up to Dylan Avery and tell him he is working for the government.


instead of focusing on the works of more serious investigators such as michael ruppert (www.oilempire.us), david ray griffin, paul thompson (www.cooperativeresearch.org), etc...

No true Scotsman fallacy. I can't speak for the others, but Griffin offers nothing new. He declares the fire could not be hot enough (but his only evidence is verrrrry selective (i.e. deceptive) quoting of NIST). He and his whole movement are just ideologists pretending to be investigators. Griffins only science work is the stuff of Dr. Jones, which has been thrashed here.

geggy
13th May 2006, 07:26 AM
because they are all the same. Each of them offers the same level of credible evidence, namely, none.

That you can't see that, should raise an alarm for you.

Paul thompson provides a more fair and balanced hypothesis and ask solid questions, instead of outrageous theories and lies by those you've listed above, in his cooperativeresearch.org website which is backed up with countless sources from the public press. You need to look into his website before you jump into conclusion based on your assumption that he is one of "them" which pretty much makes you a conspiracy theorists, dunnit?

WildCat
13th May 2006, 07:36 AM
Paul thompson provides a more fair and balanced hypothesis and ask solid questions, instead of outrageous theories and lies by those you've listed above, in his cooperativeresearch.org website which is backed up with countless sources from the public press. You need to look into his website before you jump into conclusion based on your assumption that he is one of "them" which pretty much makes you a conspiracy theorists, dunnit?
Your link to his site doesn't work.

Just curious geggy, does Thompson actually interview structural engineers, firefighters who were on the scene, or other people w/ expert credentials or first-hand knowledge of 9/11?

And snother thing I've often wondered - the CTers are fond of quoting transcripts of firefighter audio from 9/11 as "proof" that there were bombs in the WTC (which, unlike any other controlled demo ever, start going off over an hour before the collapse). Do any of these surviving quoted firefighters actually support the CD theory?

DavidJames
13th May 2006, 07:59 AM
Paul thompson provides a more fair and balanced hypothesis and ask solid questions, instead of outrageous theories and lies by those you've listed above, in his cooperativeresearch.org website which is backed up with countless sources from the public press. You need to look into his website before you jump into conclusion based on your assumption that he is one of "them" which pretty much makes you a conspiracy theorists, dunnit?Been there done that. Now show me one piece of credible evidence for your theories.

Show me one CT proponent who has the credentials to intelligently analyze the facts
Show me one CT proponent who provides evidence based on first hand analysis of the facts.
Show me one CT proponent whose argument at some point doesn't boil down to "it looked like that on TV"

CptColumbo
13th May 2006, 08:51 AM
As far as Alex Jones (a person oft quoted by CTers) is concerned, I've satisfied myself, that he is either not checking his "facts" or is fabricating them (also known as lying). He has lost any credibility with me and should have none with the CT crowd, but he tells them what they want to hear. Jones is only trying to make himself look important among a group of zealots, by providing just the "facts" they need to prove their case, and have himself made a leader of their community.

Pardalis
13th May 2006, 09:10 AM
geggy, have you dismissed the controlled demolitions theory? You seem unwiling to answer my question as to how a controlled demolition is suppose to fake a collapse from the top.

Regnad Kcin
13th May 2006, 09:13 AM
As has become abundantly clear, readers of this thread will not be seeing anything of substance from our little friend. Though I'm certain he will continue to have "questions."

Pardalis
13th May 2006, 09:30 AM
I only came to conclusions that the bush admin was complicit in the attacks because there are just far too many coincidences, each and every one of them sort of cancel each other out when you put them together like pieces of puzzle. I do strongly believe in coincidences, but not when there are multiple of coincidences in a single event.


This is interesting geggy. What constitutes a coincidence to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence
http://skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

Pardalis
13th May 2006, 10:07 AM
Here is on coincidence that one of the conspiracists on the LC forum posted:

That Hilliard’s (Wally Hilliard, the owner of Atta’s flight school) plane had made 30-round trips to Venezuela with the same passengers who always paid cash, that the plane had been supplied by a pair of drug smugglers who had also outfitted CIA drug runner Barry Seal, and that 9/11 commissioner Richard ben-Veniste had been Seal’s attorney before Seal’s murder, shows nothing but the lengths to which conspiracists will go to draw sinister conclusions.


So according to him, "A" went to flight shool owned by "B", who smuggled drugs to "C", "C" smuggled drugs to "D" who was defended in court by "E" who worked on the commission investigating "A".

How is "A" (Atta) related to "E" (Richard ben-Veniste) and vice-versa???


Here is a similar coincidence in my own life:

A very good friend of mine works with someone who knows a famous American rock singer. That singer happens to be my favourite singer.

So "A" knows "B" who knows "C" who knows "D". "A" is a fan of "D".

I’m pretty sure "D" (the singer) knows nothing of "A" (me), and I didn't know "D" before he became a famous rock star. The same goes for Atta and ben-Veniste: I’m pretty sure Atta never knew nothing of ben-Veniste, as ben-Veniste never knew anything of Atta before the 9/11 commission.

WildCat
13th May 2006, 10:11 AM
Here is on coincidence that one of the conspiracists on the LC forum posted:



So according to him, “A” went to flight shool owned by “B”, who smuggled drugs to “C”, “C” smuggled drugs to “D” who was defended in court by “E” who worked on the commission investigating “A”.

How is “A” (Atta) related to “E” (Richard ben-Veniste) and vice-versa???


Here is a similar coincidence in my own life:

A very good friend of mine works with someone who knows a famous American rock singer. That singer happens to be my favourite singer.

So “A” knows “B” who knows “C” who knows “D”. "A" is a fan of "D".

I’m pretty sure “D” (the singer) knows nothing of “A” (me), and I didn't know "D" before he became a famous rock star. The same goes for Atta and ben-Veniste: I’m pretty sure Atta never knew nothing of ben-Veniste, as ben-Veniste never knew anything of Atta before the 9/11 commission.
It's just the whole "6 degrees of separation" theory - everyone is linked to everyone else somehow. Of course, such linkages are evidence of... a parlor game, I guess.

Arkan_Wolfshade
13th May 2006, 10:22 AM
I have to wonder what the repurcussions would be if some more, interesting people, became aware of LC and their ilk. Namely people like R. Lee Ermy, Ted Nugent, etc

It would also be great to see Shermer do a debunk in the same way as he approached the holocause deniers.

Sword_Of_Truth
13th May 2006, 11:32 AM
I have to wonder what the repurcussions would be if some more, interesting people, became aware of LC and their ilk. Namely people like R. Lee Ermy, Ted Nugent, etc.

There would be a series of loud concussive type noises and human screams followed by Ermey and Nugent swearing profusely and high-fiving each other.

Maybe you mean for the LC crowd to draw the attention of people known for raising hell without the aid of gunpowder?

EDIT: On second thought, maybe that's exactly what you meant. That's good too. ;)

milesalpha
13th May 2006, 12:39 PM
I do have to laugh. I took time to post my correction to the Hitler myth in their forum after one of the LC people posted a single line to try and make me look like I was a Hitler supporter. Naturally they did not comment on his out of context comment but instead start attacking me based on my ideology (which they cannot know) and my comment that "I was unconvinced" by the documentary.
They should look up the word pseudo-intellectual and then ponder why most universities do not allow the use of the internet as a source (they provide the perfect examples).

money
13th May 2006, 12:50 PM
Wow, Geggy even gets his ats handed to him in Mark Twain quotes. Nicely done Bob Kark.

Gravy
13th May 2006, 01:46 PM
geggy, I'll take your apology whenever you're ready. You can pm me.

bob_kark, thanks for the Twain. Relevant and diverting at the same time.

Milesalpha, don't you know that if you mention Hitler, you should be prepared to prove that you are not a Nazi?

I received an email from a CT about my "Loose Change" thing. It had lots of specific questions and points to make, and I took some time to respond. You might find the list of some of the investigative bodies and on-scene personnel interesting. A good deal of it was, I think, posted here, but I'm not sure by whom. Anyway, it's not meant to be exhaustive. Does anyone have anything to add to it? There must have been other organizations involved in NYC.

(My response to CT email)
Thanks for taking the time to give me your input. Most people who disagree with my analysis of "Loose Change" don't seem to have read more than the first few pages of it, and no one has had specific disagreements...just a lot of name-calling about how I'm a government agent. That said, many of the questions you ask here are answered right in my "Loose Change" piece.

I may not get to all of your points, but I'll do my best.

> "The drone would pick up the scheduled flight plan and over Cuban waters
> transmit a "mayday signal" before being blown up by remote control.
> Note that no one was to be killed in the fake plane scheme. (Thanks CurtC.)
> We know about this idea because the document has been declassified. The idea
> was rejected, of course."
>
> The point was to show that our government thinks about it and even wrote it
> down as a plan. This shows intent.... Just like a person buying a gun 6
> months before he plans to kill his wife but is caught before he actually
> does it. He can be prosecuted for the fact that he intended (Intent) to
> perform the murder with the gun he purchased. This was the point in
> pointing out Northwoods.

My points were these:
1) The scheme was summarily rejected
2) It did not call for the murder of thousands of Americans
3) No one has shown any connection between it and 9/11
4) It's a distraction from a deception that REALLY HAPPENED, and that is thousands of times more serious: our involvement in Iraq.

> "Global Hawk? Three minutes and twelve seconds and nothing you have said has
> had any demonstrable connection to 9/11."
>
> It shows that the technology is available to remotely control aircraft. It
> shows that this is one method that could have led to the control of the planes.
I for one doubt that 19 highjackers could take over 4 planes with
> box cutters, especially when most of the pilots were former air force
> pilots

Please provide any evidence that the planes were remote-controlled. I'm not interested at in all in your beliefs. I'm interested in what new evidence you have. We know that the terrorists trained to fly airliners. We know they boarded the planes. We know they took over the planes. If you have evidence that this didn't happen, please provide it. If you have evidence that the planes were drones with or without passengers, please provide it. If you have evidence that passengers did not board the 4 flights in question, did not make emergency calls from those flights, did not die, and that their remains were not identified, please provide it.

> Given that all 4 of the planes that were involved were only 1/4
> full. Though this may happen from time to time, it does not happen with
> that many planes heading in similar directions on the same day. Generally,
> the airlines would put them on another flight.

Please provide evidence that this is so, or that there was ANYTHING untoward in how the normal passenger reservations were made for those flights.

> It was bombed by Islamic terrorists in 1993. The terrorists were trying
> to knock the north tower into the south, killing tens of thousands of
> people. They did a lot of damage, but “only” six people died, and the
> cyanide gas that had been packed with the bomb was incinerated by the
> explosion."
>
> Perhaps you should do some more research. This bombing was with complete
> knowledge and assistance from the FBI and CIA.
>
> In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an
> Egyptian man named Emad A. Salem, a former Egyptian army officer. Salem
> claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as
> February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly
> pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.
>
> Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed
> that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a
> harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that
> the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. [1] He secretly
> recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers,
> made during discussions held after the bombings. They are currently in
> possession of the FBI.
>
> In December 1993, James M. Fox, the head of the FBI's New York Office,
> denied that the FBI had any foreknowledge of the attacks.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

Please provide evidence of government complicity in the 1993 bombing. Not speculation: evidence.


> "According to CT logic, these “conspirators” are the smartest, most devious,
> most capable connivers the world has ever seen – but are incredibly stupid.
> This PNAC quote issue is a lot like the CTist emphasis on Larry Silverstein’
> s “Pull it” quote. Right: whenever I commit a billion-dollar crime, I always
> tell the media I did it."
>
> First, they are using 9/11 as a guise to take our civil liberties from us
> and keep us in constant war (much like Hitler did). Have you ever heard of
> a slip of the tongue? These people have to tell a story, but sometimes
> things may slip out and often is over looked. Also, it WAS Bush's plan from
> the beginning to attack Iraq. You can find this information in a recent
> book that the author interviewed Bush before he ran for Presidency. So what
> better way to engage the country in going into where you want to go, then by
> causing an event, or letting an event happen, to gain support?

Sometimes things slip out? Larry Silverstein INADVERTENTLY admitted TO THE MEDIA to being involved in the biggest terorist attack in history? You need to get a hold of yourself.

> "Suppose you are correct, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an “inside
> job” perpetrated by elements within the U.S. government. Now suppose that
> ONE person admitted to the plot, or ONE person, (you, for instance) found
> out the truth, and could prove it. How long would it take for the neo-cons
> or Republicans, or whomever was responsible, to regain their credibility?
> 100 years? Never? This isn’t “Operation Northwoods” were talking about here.
> Try to keep some perspective."
>
> Well let's use some current events to make the point..... Mr. Tice, the CIA
> Whistleblower, has proven that not to be the case. They smear and destroy
> any credibility that a person may or may not have. Therefore, in the long
> run they still come out on top and though a few people still doubt it, the
> sheep follow just as always. How many people do you really think it would
> take to perform this operation???? Probably thousands! However, how many
> would actually know the facts? Maybe 30. It would be like a terror
> cell..... Not everyone would know what the whole plan is, only parts that
> way if they get caught the plan is not in jeopardy. They could have many
> people in the military, or contractors, do work but not know what is
> happening. If they do realize later, they are told that if they say a word
> that they will go to jail, or perhaps they provide a time line of when their
> kid(s) go to or from school. You don't think this happens???? How about
> people being disappeared?

Please provide evidence that only 30 people would need to know the "facts" about the conspiracy you posit.
How about the people who planned this enormous operation? How many would you think would have to be "in the know?"
How about the people who invisibly planted thousands of pounds of explosives in three buildings and expertly disguised their work?
How about the people who installed remote-control devices in the planes? None of them have spoken out. No other airliners have those devices installed.
How about the people who faked all of the transmissions between the pilots of the planes and the various Air Traffic and Ground Traffic Controllers at 3 airports, from the time the planes left the gates until they were hijacked?
How about the airport personnel who manned the ramps to the planes?
How about the airport personnel who serviced the pilotless planes and moved them from the gates?
How about the people who killed and dismembered the all of the passengers and crew on the 4 planes and scattered their remains at three locations?
How about the people who lied about discovering airliner wreckage and human remains at each site immediately after each crash?
How about thte people who faked all of the details about all of the hijackers?
How about the thousands of investigators who would have had to lie about their findings?
How about the hundreds of structural engineers, fire safety engineers and failure analysts who say there is no evidence of the conspiracy you posit?
How about the people needed to fake over a dozen utterly convincing phone conversations, in real time, as events unfolded, including personal details such as safe combinations?
How about the military leaders who "stood down?" None of them has ever spoken up and claimed a conspiracy, and they HATE Rumsfeld.
How about the 7,000 FBI agents involved in the investigation? Did they all lie about their findings?
How about the dozens of forensic pathologists involved? Did they all lie about their findings?
How about the people who planted over 500 human remains on top of the Deutsche Bank building that were discovered in March and April, 2006?
How about the people who had to sprint onto the scene and plant tons of American Airlines 757 debris and passenger remains within seconds of the incident at the Pentagon?
How about the dozens of witnesses who saw the 757 hit the Pentagon?
How about the air traffic controllers who tracked the planes?
How about the employees at the Cleveland airport, none of whom saw flight 93 there?
How about the people who would have had to escort those people off the plane, kill them, destroy the plane, cut the bodies into tiny, burned bits, plant 1500 body parts in Pennsylvania, damage and then plant personal effects of all the pasengers in Pennsylvania in a 35-foot-deep hole, dismantle the ENTIRE PLANE, cut most of it into tiny bits without making it look like it was cut up, transport all that debris to PA and bury it, fake all the recordings on the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorders, fake all the radar information for a plane which never was out of radar contact from the time it took off until it crashed, ALL WITHIN A FEW MINUTES?

At Shanksville alone, over 1,100 people from SEVENTY-FOUR agencies and organizations were ON THE SCENE. On 9/11 these included:

• 8 Police Departments
• 7 EMS Services
• 8 Fire Departments
• 10 Emergency Management Agencies
• NTSB
• ATF
• FBI
• CISM
• Red Cross
• United Airlines

So everyone in those organizations was either fooled or is lying, right?

Someone had to fool tens of thousands of people in the following organizations whose conclusions explicitly refute your theory:

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE),
the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations,
the New York City Department of Design and Construction,
the Structural Engineers Association of New York,
the National Fire Protection Association,
the Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
the American Concrete Institute,
the Building and Construction Trades Council,
the American Institute of Steel Construction,
the Masonry Society,
the Pentagon security staff,
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
hundreds of steelworkers, some of whom built the WTC,
the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
United Laboratories,
the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory,
Controlled Demolitions, Inc.
Bovis, Inc.,
Tully Construction,
AEMC Construction,
Karl Koch Steel Consulting, Inc.,
The United Steelworkers of America
the Armed Forces Institute of Technnology
the Federal Advisory Committee,
several DNA labs,
Numerous Forensic Pathologists,
Numerous Forensic Anthropologists,
Numerous Forensic Dentists,
Numerous Forensic Radiologists,
the National Medical Response Team,
the International Association of Fire Chiefs
the New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit
the Fire Department of New York,
the New York City Office of Emergency Management,
the New York State Emergency Management Office,
the Arlington County Fire Department,
the Arlington County Sheriff's Department,
the Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
the Arlington County SWAT Team,
the Arlington, VA Police Department,
the Fairfax County Fire & Rescue,
the FBI's Evidence Recovery Teams,
the Montgomery County Fire & Rescue,
the Alexandria, VA Fire & Rescue
the District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
the Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
the Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
the Fort Myer Fire Department,
the Pentagon Fire Unit,
the Pentagon Medical Unit,
the Pentagon 2-person Helicopter Crash Response Team
the Pentagon Defense Protective Service,
several FBI Hazmat Teams,
several EPA Hazmat Teams,
the FEMA Virginia-1, Virginia-2, Maryland-1 and Tennessee-1 Task Forces
the DOD Honor Guard
the US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach, Fairfax County and Montgomery County,
the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
the Washington, D.C. Fire Department,
the California Incident Management Team,
the Shanksville, PA VFD,
the Somerset County Coroner's Office,
the Somerset County Emergency Management Agency
the Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency
the State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
the Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association
the Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group
the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services,
the Salvation Army Disaster Services,
the National Emergency Numbering Association
the 911 operators who took the calls from passengers,
the American Red Cross,
the National Guard in D.C., NYC, and PA.,
the Air National Guard,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the United States Secret Service,
the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
the New York Port Authority Police,
the New York Port Authority Construction Board
the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute,
the World Trade Center security staff,
United Airlines,
American Airllines,
the Office of Emergency Preparedness
Several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams,
Several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams,
the Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Team,
the Virginia State Police
Many other Urban Search and Rescue Teams
the FEMA Incident Support Team,
the FEMA Emergency Response Team,
the FEMA Disaster Field Office.
the US Department of Defense,
the US Department of Justice,
the US Department of State,
the National Response Center,
North American Aerospace Defense Command,
the National Military Command Center,
the Federal Aviation Administration,
the National Disaster Medical System,
the HHS National Medical Response Team,
the Counterterrorism and Security Group,
the US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command,
the Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders
three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes,
the C-130H crew in D.C.
the Falcon 20 crew in PA,
the SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams,
the SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams,
the National Transportation Safety Board,
the New York Flight Control Center,
the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington,
the Cleveland Airport control tower,
the Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee,
the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
the New York Times,
the Boston Globe,
the Wall Street Journal,
the Washington Post,
Newsday,
United Press International,
Associated Press,
CNN,
ABC,
NBC,
CBS,
etc., etc., etc.

NONE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT YOUR THEORY. ACCORDING TO YOU, ALL WERE COMPLETELY FOOLED BY "MAYBE" 30 PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THE KNOW. Are you THAT divorced from reality?

> "If, as so many CTists claim, the Bush administration has a “stranglehold”
> on the media, why have countless administration scandals been reported, why
> are the CTists allowed to freely publish and promote their claims, why am I
> allowed to post this document on the internet, and why is Bush’s “favorable”
> rating in the polls at 33% (AP poll this week)? And why are ex-military
> leaders allowed to speak so freely against their former boss?"
>
> Do you not review history???? Things of this nature MUST be processed
> slowly. Look at the FREE Speech zones, the patriot act, and many other laws
> that now make the average person a criminal at the presidents whim. What do
> you think would happen if one day we woke up and the president just says: "I
> am king and you will pay me at least 10% of your money and you will no
> longer say anything negative about the government, and there is not longer a
> constitution." This would definitely cause a revolution. However, if
> things are taken slowly then the public does not fight it so hard.
> Especially, when there is a fear presented by the government and this is
> used all the time to bring the country in line with what they want.

I do review history. Do you have any evidence for me?

> "During that time he took commercial flights for personal travel and
> government flights for work-related travel. The threat was personal, not
> national. From Ashcroft’s 9/11 Commission testimony:"
>
> With all due respect...... You are asking someone to believe an
> Administration that has LIED in everything they have done. Why are we to
> believe ANYTHING that they say??? Unless there are FACTS, and supporting
> data to present why should we believe them? Can you dispute the fact that
> they have not lied to the American people in almost everything they present
> to us?

Everyone in the adminstration has always lied about everything they have done? That's an interesting concept. How about showing me evidence that Ashcroft's testimony about this issue was incorrect? His story is supported by many people. I don't like John Ashcroft. Please give me evidence that I should disbelieve him.
And need I remind you that the creators of "Loose Change" take Osama bin Laden's WORD from a single statement that he was not involved in 9/11?

> "That’s all. The story is extremely vague, and has no named source. We don't
> know where these unnamed officials were supposed to be going or coming
> from."
>
> So you don't believe in Anonymous sources? It gives some doubt, but the
> government has not denied it. Therefore, it should be given some
> credibility until the government denies it, and at least shows some proof
> that it is false.

Is it the government's job respond to every conspiracy theorist? I'll gladly review any supporting evidence for this story if you have it. I was unable to find any.


> "Note: prior to 9/11/01, NORAD was responsible only for threats coming from
> outside U.S. borders. Only once in the prior decade had NORAD attempted to
> intercept a stray civilian aircraft over U.S. soil, which was golfer Payne
> Stewart’s plane, after its crew and passengers fell unconscious."
>
> Not according to this:
>
> This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report [from Associated
> Press] of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that
> is one of PM's cited experts!
>
> From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air
> patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from
> September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.
>
> It is safe to assume that a significant fraction of scrambles lead to
> intercepts, so the fact that there were 67 scrambles in a 9-month period
> before 9/11/01 suggests that there are dozens of intercepts per year. To its
> assertion that there was only one intercept in a decade, the article adds
> that "rules in effect ... prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts," and
> the suggestion that there were no hotlines between ATCs and NORAD.

Please provide evidence that NORAD intercepted any flight that originated in the U.S. and was over U.S. soil in the time period you mention. If NORAD was responsible for identifying interior threats in 2001, why were all seven alert bases located on the coast?

> "Contrary to conspiracy theorist claims that air defenses had “stood down”
> on 9/11, they were unusually “geared up.” Because of the semiannual
> exercises that had been going on for several days, NORAD radar stations and
> battle rooms were fully staffed, with top commanders there to make
> decisions."
>
> Actually, that is extremely misleading...... It is true that they were
> practicing war games, but they were conveniently doing it in Alaska and
> Canada. A little odd when there were plenty of signs that these attacks
> were going to happen. It's not just one thing that happened that day, but
> all of the things.

My statement was completely correct. NEADS was fully staffed, more so than usual. Here's a brief overview of what I'm talking about:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/aviationnow_jumpstart.htm


> "South tower collapses. This is out of chronological order, because we haven
> ’t seen it being hit yet. Notice how the debris falls much faster (in the
> video, at free-fall speed) than the bulk of the building."
>
> Well of course loose debris is going to fall faster than the rest of the
> building. You will notice that the statement is "at near free fall speed".
> It does not say "at free fall speed". There is a VERY large difference
> between the two.

I couldn't agree more.

> "Conspiracy buffs hate to show the other side of the building which shows
> smoke billowing out of nearly every visible floor. There was an enormous
> amount of fire in that building. Here’s a quote from FDNY Chief Daniel
> Nigro, who was calling the shots on the scene (quote not in video): "

> I don't think that you will find many people who would argue that there were
> not any fires in WTC7.

Gosh, I hope not.

>However, the damage was not enough to cause a
> collapse at near free fall speed and almost directly on it's own footprint.

Please give me your calculations as to how quickly the building should have fallen. Did you actually read that section of my analysis? I state, and show, that the collapse of WTC 7 severely damaged the buildings around it, and that its debris field spread over 150 meters.

> If there was that much damage to the front, toward WTC1, then the building
> should have toppled in that direction. Very much like removing one of the
> legs of a chair. The chair will not fall straight down, but will lean
> toward the missing leg with very minimal force.

Comparing the complex structure of a 300,000-ton skyscraper to a chair is incredibly foolish. It sounds like you've been reading that buffoon Steven E. Jones, the one who says that "entropy" means "things topple over"? Anyway, the collapse did start on the building's south side, and more of the building did wind up on the south as opposed to the north, which you can clearly see from the huge sections of north wall that fell to th esouth and are lying over the wreckage in aerial photos.

>One point about the towers
> is the fact that the top part of one of them was leaning at a 30 degree
> angle during the collapse. Now if the pancake theory is true, then this top
> part should have fell largely in tact to the ground. IT DID NOT! This
> simple little fact literally blows the pancaking theory out of the water.
> The top part would have been severely damaged, for sure, but would have been
> largely laying on the ground as a large piece of the building. However, it
> was not and it too was destroyed into little pieces. Since this was the
> "pile driver" for the pancake theory, what was the "pile driver" for this
> top part to cause it to completely disintegrate?

Wow.
Those statements demonstrate an incredible ignorance of how buildings are constructed. Do you wonder why no structural engineers agree with you?
Do you really think you know more than they?
Please provide evidence that the top part of the south tower was tilted on a fulcrum at a 30-degree angle.
Please also provide evidence that the base of the angled portion was not falling downwards as it tilted.
Please remember that the top portion of the south tower weighed 200 million pounds. I really suggest that you talk to a structural engineer about this.


> "In the circled area is what “controlled demolitions theory” advocates like
> to call a “squib,” a jet of material caused by explosive charges timed to be
> in synch with the top-down collapse."
>
> Well, when this occurs 20 to 30 floors below and is in a very concentrated
> area on multiple sides, at or near the same floors is very indicative of
> controlled demolition. The pressure theory makes sense only just a few
> floors below the collapse,

Please present your calculations in support of this hypothesis.
Please explain why the "squibs' are ejecting material at the rate at which the building is collapsing, not at the rate explosions happen. Please explain why the squibs appear at random places on random floors. Please explain why the squibs do not appear at the moment before collapse. Please explain why no companies that do controled demolitions agree with you, an why the biggest one calls your theory "ludicrous." Please explain how the placement of the explosives was accomplished, how the workers and work remained unseen, and how it survived the impact of the airliners and subsequent explosion and fires that were hot enough to melt aluminum.

Those are just a few things you'll need to answer to support the absurd controlled demolition theory.

> "It’s been 4 ½ years since the attacks. Has any conspiracy theorist,
> anywhere, turned up a single piece of evidence that implicates any
> individual not already named in the “official” version?"
> Has there been one single piece of evidence provided by the government to
> prove otherwise?

Yes, all the information they've provided proves otherwise. In addition, all of the organizations, public and private, listed above, agree with the official explanation. Remember, it's not the government's job to disprove conspiracy theories, it's your job to present evidence that supports yours. Evidence, not conjecture.

> Look at JFK. Science
> has proven that the Warren Commission theory is bogus. We know from science
> that a bullet will make a small hole entering, and a larger hole on the
> exit. There was a small hole in his forehead and the back of his head was
> blown out. There is absolutely no way that this particular shot came from
> behind, as the original version tries to claim.

How did I know you would go there? You are completely wrong, by the way. Yep, I've looked into the JFK assassination a lot more than 9/11.

>So, by the fact that they
> fought the investigation for 1 1/2 years, loaded the commission with
> cronies, and did not allow them to investigate the actual collapse but
> rather what went wrong.

I also don't like how politics got so wrapped up in this, and how the Bush administration did its least to provide full and open disclosure.
Who was prevented from investigating "the actual collapse?"

>By the way, NTSB was not allowed to handle the
> aircraft investigation.

The NTSB was involved.

>The government claims that NO black boxes were
> recovered at ground zero, when 2 fire fighters claim they helped find them
> and carried them out on the back of their ATV.

Did you read my analysis? I cover this issue at length.


> "" that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon ... "
> Misleading. It did more than crash into the side, it went right through. The
> speaker didn’t know that the plane was going 500+ mph."
>
> Extremely misleading statement. You make it sound as though you were there
> and that you helped rebuild the aircraft in a hanger. First, let me ask you
> this...... A 100 ton plane is gone, with very little debris, and very
> little other items are reported yet we are to believe that the 100 ton plane
> dissolves but bodies can be identified. How about all the other articles
> that would have been on the plane as cargo???? I'm sure that if the plane
> was that empty that the belly was loaded to the hilt. Yet, we have not
> heard of or seen any material around. You make it sound as though
> everything would have just flowed into the building. There would have been
> more than the relatively small amount of plane surrounding the area. This
> is not consistent of this type of crash. I am not saying that a plane did
> not hit the Pentagon, but I have serious doubts that flight 77 hit it.
> Where's the traceable part identification proof???? Supposedly the landing
> gear is from a 757, where's the serial number match to the actual plane?
> This is one of the traceable parts, that is required by the FAA.

Okay, so you don't believe the evidence I presented or any of the dozens of eyewitness reports I linked to that say the AA 757 hit the Pentagon.
If I were you, I'd be worried sick!
Have you attempted to contact a single one of the 8,000 people who were on the site after the crash?
No, of course you haven't.
So you accuse your government of committing terrorist attacks against Americans, but you're not wiling to find out for sure? That's quite intellectually dishonest.

> The governments claim that cell phones would work on an air craft, pre 9/11,
> would not have worked at that height or speed. This is a FACT!

Then can you explain to me how I made cell phone calls AT ALTITUDE with my personal phone in 2001? Are you caling me a liar? Are you aware that analog phones that were common then were many times more powerful than the digital phones common now?

Can you explain why all airliners had GTE Airphones installed, several of which were used by the passengers on 9/11? At least three of the calls quoted by Dylan Avery were made using those phones. Are you saying that's impossible? Again, did you read my piece?

So we are
> to believe that all of the calls that were made that day on all of these
> planes, not from air phones, were made by the actual people? I have no
> doubt that they can fake phone calls, so this is not science fiction. Calls
> like "hi mom .. it's mark lastname....." I don't care what the situation
> is, the actual person is not going to make a call like their mom does not
> know them.

Have you ever been on a flight that was hijacked?

> "This is what Slobodan Milosevic's residence in Belgrade looked like after a
> Tomahawk cruise
> missile had hit it. See any similarities?
> See any differences? Heard of any? Like the huge amount of 757 debris and
> the remains of the passengers, all but one of whom were identified? But you’
> re not concerned with victims, are you?"
>
> You mean the Autopsy report that lists everyone but the so called
> highjakers? You know...... Those pesky guys who don't show up on any
> official document, even from the air lines.

Again, you certainly didn't read my piece carefully. That bothers me, because I took care in writing it. Read that section again.

> "Some were played for victims at the Moussaoui trial. Has the government
> released all other recordings of all plane crashes to the public? No. If
> they are not classified such recordings may be available through FOIA
> requests."
>
> Yeah, but not the last 3 minutes of flight 93. It is a FACT, that the crash
> occurred at 10:06. However, the government claims that it occurred at
> 10:03. This does not coincide with seismic data. Also, if the plane was
> not shot down how can parts of the plane and some body parts end up in an 8
> mile radius. IMPOSSIBLE! Yet you believe 100% of the events the government
> provides you.

You are completely wrong again. Please re-read that section. Also, there was o 8-mile debris field. You're just parroting CT beliefs without doing your homework.
>
> Here is some more facts to support the governments cover-up.

> 1) The Secret Service (SS) knew of a possible highjacking at 7:30AM on 9/11
> and placed the system on high alert.
> http://www.freepressinternational.com/secret-service-possible-hijacking-911.
> html

> Since the SS knew of this possibility, why then did they not do anything to
> get the president to a safer location? It goes completely against the SS
> operating procedure. Yet, they do it for the VP.

I hadn't heard that. I'll have to check that link later. I only have a few minutes here and I want to get to the rest of your email.

> The President is told we are under attack, but just sits there. Does
> nothing!

I agree that he looks terrible sitting there. But think of all the arrangements that the SS and his staff have to make to find out what's going on and get him to a secure location. Don't you think if he had foreknowledge that he'd ACT presidential? Do you think he'd do the same thing if he had it to do over again?

> 2) FEMA is strangely in NY on the day for an exercise. How convenient!
> Months before the attack, the Pentagon practices for a plane crashing into
> the building.

You are comp[letely wrong. FEMA was not in NY on 9/10. They got there on 9/11. That ENTIRE CT story is based on a simple slip of the tongue about the day of the week by a very stressed-out manager. The story is incredibly easy to check out. Why don't you do so?

> 3) How about a 50 ton hydraulic press being destroyed in the sub basement?
> There would not be enough energy, even from vapor fuel, to destroy that
> along with a large portion of the lower parking garage.

Oh, lord. "50 tons" doesn't refer to the weight of the press, it refers to its hydraulic capacity. Just like a 2,000 lb. hydraulic car jack doesn't weigh 2,000 lbs., capisce? An average 50-ton press weghs 650 lbs, not 100,000 lbs.

>Also, did you
> realize that steel is a very good conductor of heat?????

No, I didn't realize that, because steel is a very poor conductor of heat.

So if one area of
> the building was say 1000 F, the actual steel would distribute that heat
> through the entire beam in effect keeping the steel much much cooler and
> well below any stressful level. Just look at why we use heat sinks on
> CPU's. Because the metal if very good at distributing the heat. Otherwise
> the CPU would burn up in no time, and so would mush of the metal (if
> the processor would keep working).

Again, you are completely wrong about steel, and you have everything to learn about building fires. I suggest consulting some of the links at the end of my document. You should really question the sources where you're getting this bad info. And PLEASE open your computer and see what those heat sinks are made of.


> How about this picture?
>
> http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg
>
> Notice the column directly behind the fireman, this column was not cut with
> a blow torch. What caused the metal to melt like that if explosives were
> not used????

Again, you are completely wrong. That's what happens when you rely on sources like "rumormill news." The large debris at the WTC was cut with torches, as was that piece. Look here for a close-up view, where you can clearly see the torch marks and the slag from the cut that's fallen on TOP of the other debris:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1601663&postcount=1799

> No one really knows what happened,

You're wrong. We do know what happened. You just don't like it. Well, I don't like it either, but facts is facts.

but the 9/11 truth organization is
> pushing to get the information released, so why is that such a bad thing?

Funny you should mention that, because today I'll be releasing my critique of 911truth.org's literature, which is every bit as factually incorrect as "Loose Change" is. It's disgraceful that people who say they are searching for the truth will go so far out of their way to disseminate falsehoods.

> You keep labeling those people, and I guess me as well, nuts and crazy
> because there is very little proof to the WHOLE day events.

I don't think you're nuts. I think you're lazy. And that's not a good thing to be if you want to get to the bottom of things.


>It's not just
> one or two things, its the entire day. All these things, and the many
> things that followed, are reason to not believe the government. The only
> time people fight so hard to not have something presented to counter a
> claim, is largely if the claim is false.

Oh?

Why else have all of the tapes,
> FAA logs, and many other items of the day declared a national security????
> This is known by the whole world and it is not a secret, so what's the issue
> (unless there is something to hide).

Most of these items are available to the public. Which ones are you referring to? Again, I covered this in my piece.

I hope my response has given you some things to chew on. Again, thanks for not calling me a government lackey!