IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th December 2013, 01:22 AM   #241
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Wow. Nobody understands what is going on here but me.

Have I once said this is PROOF of inside job/false flag? If I did, and I am sure I did not, I retract it. All this does is to point out clearly that the "official story" is so ridiculously implausible because the odds against it being correct are so (astronomically) high that to continue to defend/believe it is ... well ... to be perfectly euphemistic, unreasonable. I know we have not put reasonable numbers/odds to each item, but when you start multiplying, the numbers get really really big, very very quickly. Using false flag as the explanation and assigning odds that explain each and every thing, the probability of it being a false flag is, if not 100%, nearly.

What everyone is trying to do is get me to explain each and every item. You do not get it. I already have: False flag. I will not get into a spat about whether or not I, or you, can give THE explanation for an individual occurence. I know what your explanation is every time: "it is not impossible." Hopefully -- but apparently not given what is continued to be thrown back at me -- you can figure out my explanation for each and every thing is "FALSE FLAG.!!"

E.G., people told not to fly or to not be in NYC on 9/11? Explanation, False Flag. They knew it was coming. Your explanation? "its possible there is a reasonable explanation." They were told not to fly. WHY?

YOU DO NOT GET IT! I do not have to explain ANYTHING with anything but "False Flag!" It explains everything! Exactly how they did the false flag, I do not know. But if -- I say it was -- it was a false flag, they planned it out well. And all of the anomalies/oddities can be easily explained and understood when it is recognized that is the plausible explanation. Thus, it was a false flag. 100% proof? No. I contend 99.9999999....%. How many 9's after the decimal do you have to have to even get to saying, "Ok, how about we call it a tie?"
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 01:28 AM   #242
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Pretend you were planning an horrific horror show of a false flag for whatever reason. I say it was to get a "blank check." You won't pretend so let me do it for you.

We'll have "hijacked airplanes" so let's make sure things are very confused. I got it, false radar blips. But what about military interception? I mean something like 100 times a year they intercept aircraft all over the US for whatever reason -- no radio response, off course, what ever -- within MINUTES!! Remember Payne Stewart? Well how about having a drill on same day, same time that sends fighters out to sea? Not only is everyone confused with false radar blips, there won't be any fighters close enough. And maybe we can confuse any attempted communications with NORAD etc..
That should work. Hey, any video cameras around the Pentagon that might show what we are going to hit the Pentagon with? Check it out. Oh, a Hotel and a Citgo have cameras. Not sure what they will show. So dispense quickly after and confiscate them. That should take care of that.

And on and on. So how do you explain false radar blips on same day? "It's possible". How do you explain fighter intercepts way away? "Coincidence". How do you explain multiple video confiscation within minutes? "Possible reasonable explanation." ALL "possibles" or "possibilities."

How can they ALL be explained VERY EASILY? "Planned False Flag."

It goes on and on. I say it was a well planned false flag which can easily explain every single item I chose to point out. You have to -- many times contort -- to find a "possible" explanation for EVERY SINGLE THING!!

A well planned False Flag? That very easily and in a straight forward, unambiguous, very clear, easy to understand manner, explains EVERYTHING!!

Occam's Razor!

Put a guess at reasonable odds on every explanation the Official Story Requires? I mean, what are the odds? But I agree with you, "it's not impossible!"
Great, now prove it was a false flag. You are talking about what could be. Tell us what was. Before you say that I'm missing your point, I'm not. Your point just doesn't matter. Now prove that explosives, death rays or holograms were used in 9/11.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 01:29 AM   #243
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Wow. Nobody understands what is going on here but me.

Snip
No, that would not be the problem.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 01:37 AM   #244
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
E.G., people told not to fly or to not be in NYC on 9/11? Explanation, False Flag. They knew it was coming. Your explanation? "its possible there is a reasonable explanation." They were told not to fly. WHY?
This never happened.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 01:41 AM   #245
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...


We'll have "hijacked airplanes" so let's make sure things are very confused.
...
Wow, you have proved you are not a pilot now. Four hijacked planes, some changing mode 3, some turning off the transponder. They were confused, because, since you forgot, these planes become big time emergencies. You know, flight emergencies, even if the pilots never talked. Wait, the Flight 93 pilots were screaming as they were killed, did you miss this? You claim to be a pilot, but can't do flight stuff. Why? Never got your ATP? Did you pink that ride, making up lies about flight?

Is all of this in your failed ideas from 5 years ago?
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-H...80324-705.html
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...
I got it, false radar blips. But what about military interception?
...
No false RADAR blips, this is another lie. Did you make this one up, or plagiarize it?


Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...
I mean something like 100 times a year they intercept aircraft all over the US for whatever reason
...
Wrong, the military does not intercept airlines over the USA before 911 for whatever reason. The skies over the USA were civil, not military. You make this up as you go, and common sense can't hack it here.

The intercepts you don't list, were all over the water, in the ADIZ; and if you were a real pilot, you would know this.



Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...
-- no radio response, off course, what ever -- within MINUTES!!
...
Nope, not over the USA. Sorry, you missed this boat.



Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...
Remember Payne Stewart?
...
In minutes? lol, you failed to read the NTSB report.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=103846

The FAA can request the military to shadow planes, but it is not in minutes, it is in an hour or more.


Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...
Well how about having a drill on same day, same time that sends fighters out to sea? Not only is everyone confused with false radar blips, there won't be any fighters close enough. And maybe we can confuse any attempted communications with NORAD etc..

...
The fighters can't travel though airspace filled with flights, they might hit someone. It appears you never flew large jets as claims, making up lies fighter can go where they want in peace time.

You were debunked on 911. 12 years of failure for 911 truth.

You can't explain anything, you have lies - lies are formed in your fantasy version of 911, one that makes fun of the USA, the dead and more.

When did the light bulb on 911 go off? When will you retract your silly FF lies?

Last edited by beachnut; 29th December 2013 at 01:44 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 01:47 AM   #246
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by david.watts
E.G., people told not to fly or to not be in NYC on 9/11? Explanation, False Flag. They knew it was coming. Your explanation? "its possible there is a reasonable explanation." They were told not to fly. WHY?

abaddon: This never happened.

Fine, it did not happen. I will almost take your word for it since I have not looked in to this stuff closely for a long time. But please reference where it can be shown it did not happen. And even if you can, I will move to the next item. There are very many.
I will give everybody a few. I will give everybody that coincidences happen. But how many coincidences for very unlikely things is it reasonable to use "coincidence" as an explanation. Same thing, all it is saying it was a coincidence is saying "it is possible."
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 01:56 AM   #247
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,217
We know exactly what is going on.

You are incredulous about and closed-minded to the "official story".

You think "false flag" is an explanation, even though it raises a multitude of questions and gives no answers.

You do not have proof of a false flag.

You do not have any standards of evidence.

You do not acknowledge answers to your questions.

I suggest that you are here to proselytise, not to learn.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 01:56 AM   #248
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
How about since you made the claim, you tell us who did get such a call? Also, are you a pilot?
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 01:58 AM   #249
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Originally Posted by david.watts
E.G., people told not to fly or to not be in NYC on 9/11? Explanation, False Flag. They knew it was coming. Your explanation? "its possible there is a reasonable explanation." They were told not to fly. WHY?

abaddon: This never happened.

Fine, it did not happen. I will almost take your word for it since I have not looked in to this stuff closely for a long time. But please reference where it can be shown it did not happen. And even if you can, I will move to the next item. There are very many.
I will give everybody a few. I will give everybody that coincidences happen. But how many coincidences for very unlikely things is it reasonable to use "coincidence" as an explanation. Same thing, all it is saying it was a coincidence is saying "it is possible."
Your claim, your burden of proof. If you think it did happened, produce evidence for it. Please don't ask anyone to produce evidence for a non-existent communication. You might as well ask for proof that fairies do not exist.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:00 AM   #250
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
We know exactly what is going on.

You are incredulous about and closed-minded to the "official story".

You think "false flag" is an explanation, even though it raises a multitude of questions and gives no answers.

You do not have proof of a false flag.

You do not have any standards of evidence.

You do not acknowledge answers to your questions.

I suggest that you are here to proselytise, not to learn.
Add:
'You do not understand the meaning of "explain"'

...and I've spoon fed him all the process requirements - collect my posts and you have the draft of "Presenting a Case 101"


Last edited by ozeco41; 29th December 2013 at 02:02 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:07 AM   #251
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Great, now prove it was a false flag. You are talking about what could be. Tell us what was. Before you say that I'm missing your point, I'm not. Your point just doesn't matter. Now prove that explosives, death rays or holograms were used in 9/11.
You, like everyone else, doesn't get it. I can not "prove" it was a false flag. I am not trying to.

THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT!! Listen in everybody. POINT: OFFICIAL STORY CAN NOT BE PROVEN. INSIDE JOB/FALSE FLAG CAN NOT BE PROVEN.

BUT WHICH IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THE BEST EXPLANATION? IT IS FALSE FLAG BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL STORY IS ONLY BASED ON POSSIBILITIES -- IN SOME CASES VERY IMPLAUSIBLE/CONTORTED POSSIBILITIES. IF IT WAS A FALSE FLAG, EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY. IT WAS NOT JUST A POSSIBILITY, IT WAS A 100% CERTAINTY. THEY PLANNED IT. THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPENED. THEY EXPECTED IT TO HAPPEN. SO, IF IT WAS A WELL PLANNED FALSE FLAG EVERYTHING WENT AS PLANNED. THEY PLANNED IT TO HAPPEN. IT HAPPENED AS PLANNED. THINGS DID NOT UNFOLD AS A POSSIBILITY, IT UNFOLDED ACCORDING TO PLAN.

THIS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE 100% PROOF IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. SIMPLY, THIS IS SIMPLY PROOF, NOT JUST BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, BUT FOR ALL/EVERY INTENT AND PURPOSE, WAY WAY BEYOND THAT.
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:11 AM   #252
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
beachnut, short and simple reply to most of what you responded: Remember Payne Stewart?
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:13 AM   #253
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
How about since you made the claim, you tell us who did get such a call? Also, are you a pilot?
Sorry. Lost track. Which call?
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:14 AM   #254
brazenlilraisin
...tart
 
brazenlilraisin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
Not to fly.
brazenlilraisin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:18 AM   #255
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Your claim, your burden of proof. If you think it did happened, produce evidence for it. Please don't ask anyone to produce evidence for a non-existent communication. You might as well ask for proof that fairies do not exist.
Another "WOW." You can find it easily. Because it is there and can be found easily it is not the same thing as prove a negative. It is out there. So if it did not happen, it must have been "debunked." Show me where.
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:23 AM   #256
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Add:
'You do not understand the meaning of "explain"'

...and I've spoon fed him all the process requirements - collect my posts and you have the draft of "Presenting a Case 101"

ozeco, I have shown I do not have to explain anything other than with "FF." What do you want me to explain? The collapses? I do not have to. I am not trying to. ALL of this from my end is about which is (a very much) better explanation, NOT PROOF, for EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED ON 9/11!! CAN'T ANYONE GET THAT THROUGH THEIR HEAD?
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:28 AM   #257
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,217
Shouting that the official story is just claiming "it's possible" and that "false flag is 100% certainty" does not make it so.

Glad you admit you have no proof of a false flag.

Are you going to improve your standards of evidence now?
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:38 AM   #258
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Another "WOW." You can find it easily. Because it is there and can be found easily it is not the same thing as prove a negative. It is out there. So if it did not happen, it must have been "debunked." Show me where.
There is nothing to "debunk".

If I were to state that GWB secretly warned the Vietnamese in advance of 911 which is why there wasn't a single Vietnamese casuality, how would you prove me wrong?

It is your affirmative claim that there exists some communication, circulated amongst some group of people giving advance warning to stay away/do not fly.

You have no evidence that there was any such communication at all.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:38 AM   #259
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Neither - you are comparing apples with concrete blocks.

AND STOP criticising others.

.
Apparently the very large MOUNTAIN of criticism of me is ok. I mean, I am a truther.

Ok, maybe I have dished out some criticism. I don't think its been very much.
At least until the last few posts which are well after you made the comment. But I am getting a little bit tired of explaining time after time what this is all about. And have you really not noticed all of the criticism and snide remarks that have come my way?
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:41 AM   #260
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
ozeco, I have shown I do not have to explain anything other than with "FF." What do you want me to explain? The collapses? I do not have to. I am not trying to. ALL of this from my end is about which is (a very much) better explanation, NOT PROOF, for EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED ON 9/11!! CAN'T ANYONE GET THAT THROUGH THEIR HEAD?
Lost.

One set of moveable goalposts.

Anyone with knowledge as to where they went please post it here.


David I have had more than enough of your dishonest nonsense. I have tried as much as any member here to help you but your pattern of denial and evasion gets worse. There is no point me or any of us offering help if you are not prepared to enter into reasoned truthful discussin. You cannot be as silly as you pretend with your posts.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:45 AM   #261
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Apparently the very large MOUNTAIN of criticism of me is ok. I mean, I am a truther.
Don't lie by innuendo. There has been a lot of criticiam of the rubbish you post PLUS a hell of a lot of good advice which you ignore. Some of our members may also have offered criticism of you rather than what you post. I doubt that I have BUT I also doubt that you can tell the difference.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
But I am getting a little bit tired of explaining time after time what this is all about.
You have never explained your claims despite multiple requests that you do so AND my explanations of the sort of thing that is required.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
And have you really not noticed all of the criticism and snide remarks that have come my way?
More evasive posting "come my way"??? I have noticed and made some very strong criticisms of the nonsense you post. If any of mine were "snide" please identify them and I will make them explicit.

Your posts are illogical and engage in multiple forms of truther debating trickery. If you want them all identified I could do so for you. BUT it would be far easier for all of us if you simply stopped twisting, distorting and evading, posted your claims and backed those claims by evidence, reasoned arguments and explanations.

Last edited by ozeco41; 29th December 2013 at 02:56 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:51 AM   #262
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
BUT WHICH IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THE BEST EXPLANATION? IT IS FALSE FLAG BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL STORY IS ONLY BASED ON POSSIBILITIES -- IN SOME CASES VERY IMPLAUSIBLE/CONTORTED POSSIBILITIES. IF IT WAS A FALSE FLAG, EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY. IT WAS NOT JUST A POSSIBILITY, IT WAS A 100% CERTAINTY. THEY PLANNED IT. THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPENED. THEY EXPECTED IT TO HAPPEN. SO, IF IT WAS A WELL PLANNED FALSE FLAG EVERYTHING WENT AS PLANNED. THEY PLANNED IT TO HAPPEN. IT HAPPENED AS PLANNED. THINGS DID NOT UNFOLD AS A POSSIBILITY, IT UNFOLDED ACCORDING TO PLAN.
the problem with this is,

IF IT WAS A terrorist attack, EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY. IT WAS NOT JUST A POSSIBILITY, IT WAS A 100% CERTAINTY. THEY PLANNED IT. THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPENED. THEY EXPECTED IT TO HAPPEN. SO, IF IT WAS A WELL PLANNED terrorist attack EVERYTHING WENT AS PLANNED. THEY PLANNED IT TO HAPPEN. IT HAPPENED AS PLANNED. THINGS DID NOT UNFOLD AS A POSSIBILITY, IT UNFOLDED ACCORDING TO PLAN.
Reactor drone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:55 AM   #263
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,217
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
the problem with this is,

IF IT WAS A terrorist attack, EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY. IT WAS NOT JUST A POSSIBILITY, IT WAS A 100% CERTAINTY. THEY PLANNED IT. THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPENED. THEY EXPECTED IT TO HAPPEN. SO, IF IT WAS A WELL PLANNED terrorist attack EVERYTHING WENT AS PLANNED. THEY PLANNED IT TO HAPPEN. IT HAPPENED AS PLANNED. THINGS DID NOT UNFOLD AS A POSSIBILITY, IT UNFOLDED ACCORDING TO PLAN.
Beat me to it!
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:58 AM   #264
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Last post tonight.

Given what I have given and explained time and time again about what this is all about:

Do you think the Official Story is more reasonable than FF?

If so, state your reasons please.

Reference: From me (#251):

BUT WHICH IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THE BEST EXPLANATION? IT IS FALSE FLAG BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL STORY IS ONLY BASED ON POSSIBILITIES -- IN SOME CASES VERY IMPLAUSIBLE/CONTORTED POSSIBILITIES. IF IT WAS A FALSE FLAG, EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY. IT WAS NOT JUST A POSSIBILITY, IT WAS A 100% CERTAINTY. THEY PLANNED IT. THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPENED. THEY EXPECTED IT TO HAPPEN. SO, IF IT WAS A WELL PLANNED FALSE FLAG EVERYTHING WENT AS PLANNED. THEY PLANNED IT TO HAPPEN. IT HAPPENED AS PLANNED. THINGS DID NOT UNFOLD AS A POSSIBILITY, IT UNFOLDED ACCORDING TO PLAN.

THIS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE 100% PROOF IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. SIMPLY, THIS IS SIMPLY PROOF, NOT JUST BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, BUT FOR ALL/EVERY INTENT AND PURPOSE, WAY WAY BEYOND THAT.
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:02 AM   #265
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,217
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Do you think the Official Story is more reasonable than FF?
Yes, because there is a multitude of evidence for the "official story".

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a "false flag".
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:05 AM   #266
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Last post tonight.

Given what I have given and explained time and time again about what this is all about:
Repeated lie - you have not explained
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Do you think the Official Story is more reasonable than FF?
Yes - there is no case for FF so no matter what may be wrong with the "Official Story" is must be better than the non-existent case for FF
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
If so, state your reasons please.
The official story has been explained. Most of us have formed similar viewpoints with some minor differences. So there are many reasonable explanations similar to the "Official Story"

No one has ever made a claim for FF. Any claim which exists eg the so called "Official Story" must be better than one that doesn't exist.

Last edited by ozeco41; 29th December 2013 at 03:07 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:09 AM   #267
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Sorry, this is the last post:

So I might be able to figure out exactly what it is that you do not understand, please explain back to me what it is you think I am trying to do. I have attempted a number of times to explain very clearly what is I am trying to do. How do you interpret my explanations? Thank you. Until tomorrow, good night.
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:12 AM   #268
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Last post tonight.

Given what I have given and explained time and time again about what this is all about:

Do you think the Official Story is more reasonable than FF?

If so, state your reasons please.
Yup.

The official story has evidence.

The false flag fantasy not only has no evidence, but requires such grossly contorted and complex scenarios as to be a parody of itself.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Reference: From me (#251):

BUT WHICH IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THE BEST EXPLANATION? IT IS FALSE FLAG BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL STORY IS ONLY BASED ON POSSIBILITIES -- IN SOME CASES VERY IMPLAUSIBLE/CONTORTED POSSIBILITIES. IF IT WAS A FALSE FLAG, EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY. IT WAS NOT JUST A POSSIBILITY, IT WAS A 100% CERTAINTY. THEY PLANNED IT. THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPENED. THEY EXPECTED IT TO HAPPEN. SO, IF IT WAS A WELL PLANNED FALSE FLAG EVERYTHING WENT AS PLANNED. THEY PLANNED IT TO HAPPEN. IT HAPPENED AS PLANNED. THINGS DID NOT UNFOLD AS A POSSIBILITY, IT UNFOLDED ACCORDING TO PLAN.

THIS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE 100% PROOF IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. SIMPLY, THIS IS SIMPLY PROOF, NOT JUST BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, BUT FOR ALL/EVERY INTENT AND PURPOSE, WAY WAY BEYOND THAT.
This is just wrong. Not only is it not 100% proof, not only is it not proof beyond reasonable doubt, it is 0% proof. It is, however, total fantasy.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:16 AM   #269
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
the problem with this is,

IF IT WAS A terrorist attack,
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Beat me to it!
Neat point - but his underlying argument is crazy even with the dramatis personae corrected...however I'll be a good boy for once and disengage my "Automatic Legal Pedantry" mode.

...temporarily..
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:35 AM   #270
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
You, like everyone else, doesn't get it. I can not "prove" it was a false flag. I am not trying to.

THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT!! Listen in everybody. POINT: OFFICIAL STORY CAN NOT BE PROVEN. INSIDE JOB/FALSE FLAG CAN NOT BE PROVEN.

BUT WHICH IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THE BEST EXPLANATION? IT IS FALSE FLAG BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL STORY IS ONLY BASED ON POSSIBILITIES -- IN SOME CASES VERY IMPLAUSIBLE/CONTORTED POSSIBILITIES. IF IT WAS A FALSE FLAG, EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY. IT WAS NOT JUST A POSSIBILITY, IT WAS A 100% CERTAINTY. THEY PLANNED IT. THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPENED. THEY EXPECTED IT TO jHAPPEN. SO, IF IT WAS A WELL PLANNED FALSE FLAG EVERYTHING WENT AS PLANNED. THEY PLANNED IT TO HAPPEN. IT HAPPENED AS PLANNED. THINGS DID NOT UNFOLD AS A POSSIBILITY, IT UNFOLDED ACCORDING TO PLAN.

THIS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE 100% PROOF IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. SIMPLY, THIS IS SIMPLY PROOF, NOT JUST BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, BUT FOR ALL/EVERY INTENT AND PURPOSE, WAY WAY BEYOND THAT.
You are incorrect. The official story can and has been proven. Your silly little ideas about CDs and holograms or death rays cannot.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:37 AM   #271
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Sorry, this is the last post:

So I might be able to figure out exactly what it is that you do not understand, please explain back to me what it is you think I am trying to do. I have attempted a number of times to explain very clearly what is I am trying to do. How do you interpret my explanations? Thank you. Until tomorrow, good night.
We understand; you're just wrong. What you are trying to make your made up story as valid of a position as the true story. Your ideas are not valid. It seems similar to the "teach the controversy" tactic used by creationists. Sorry, won't work your idea is not a competing theory.

ETA: Are you a pilot?

Last edited by Craig4; 29th December 2013 at 03:40 AM.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:41 AM   #272
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,217
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Neat point - but his underlying argument is crazy even with the dramatis personae corrected...however I'll be a good boy for once and disengage my "Automatic Legal Pedantry" mode.

...temporarily..
The rest of his argument is crazy, but that bit is correct with the corrections. (Although the terrorists were pleasantly surprised the buildings collapsed.)

Two can play the pedantry game! Everyone join in! It's more fun than identifying strawmen and shifting goalposts!
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 05:41 AM   #273
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Oh, look!


Last edited by HotRodDeluxe; 29th December 2013 at 05:42 AM. Reason: Between the Parrot & the Pumpkin. What would you do, Buddy?
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 06:32 AM   #274
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
David,

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
IF IT WAS A FALSE FLAG, EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY. IT WAS NOT JUST A POSSIBILITY, IT WAS A 100% CERTAINTY. THEY PLANNED IT. THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPENED. THEY EXPECTED IT TO HAPPEN. SO, IF IT WAS A WELL PLANNED FALSE FLAG EVERYTHING WENT AS PLANNED. THEY PLANNED IT TO HAPPEN. IT HAPPENED AS PLANNED. THINGS DID NOT UNFOLD AS A POSSIBILITY, IT UNFOLDED ACCORDING TO PLAN.
Are you sure you have thought this through?

Let us momentarily assume for the sake of argument that your list of, umm, circumstances would provide compelling evidence of a false flag attack.

If that were so, then under what weird definition would the attack be "WELL PLANNED"?

I can think of ways to rationalize that position after the fact, but it doesn't seem that any of them would naturally lead you to write about this in the way you did.

The analogies to creationism seem very much on point, with the caveat that in most creationist accounts, it is in no way surprising that the Creator leaves evidence of His handiwork everywhere, whereas we might expect false flag attackers to have a different set of incentives. If you haven't studied creationist apologetics, and if you aren't a creationist, you might find it instructive.

ETA: Although I deliberately chose not to wade into the details, it certainly would be interesting to know whether you have any response to abaddon at #239. As matters stand, you have no explanation of the bandana whatsoever, even though you seemed to think it was excellent evidence up to there.

Last edited by MarkLindeman; 29th December 2013 at 06:41 AM. Reason: ETA
MarkLindeman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 08:59 AM   #275
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
You cannot see "it?"

"It" is EVERYTHING can be explained by "False Flag."
And explained easily. All you can come up with is "it's possible."

For example, to take the "pristine" bandana found from UA 93, you can only come up with it's not impossible. Okay, I agree. It is not impossible. But with FF, its easy -- it was planted. Which is the simpler "occam's razor" explanation? -- it was "planted." And that goes for every example I posted. The occam's razor explanation for EVERYTHING is FF. Therefore, the simplest explanation for all of 9/11 is FF. No contest.

That is the "it."
That isn't Occam's Razor, that is the Chimpanzee part of the brain at work. You are merely flinging poop. Using that logic you can simply will the events to be whatever you wish without having to provide a single shred of actual proof.

Its asinine.

BTW - The simplest explanation for the recovered bandana and the thousands of other recovered items of personal effects is they ended up their as the result of a plane crash.

You still lose.

We know the plane crashed. We know what people were on board. We know they were carrying these personal effects. Those personal effects were recovered at the site of the plane crash. Occam's Razor says they were deposited by the plane.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 09:11 AM   #276
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post

You think "false flag" is an explanation, even though it raises a multitude of questions and gives no answers.
It gives lots of answers if you believe there is a secret "them" behind it all.

It's the easy way out. Use the magic "them" card.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 09:13 AM   #277
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
...It's the easy way out. Use the magic "them" card.
Equivalent to the "Godidit" non-argument so beloved by creationists.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 09:18 AM   #278
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
All this does is to point out clearly that the "official story" is so ridiculously implausible because the odds against it being correct are so (astronomically) high that to continue to defend/believe it is ... well ... to be perfectly euphemistic, unreasonable.
My question is why would it be unreasonable to look at the facts as observed and make the connections from those. The concerns over "probability" stopped at the moment the attacks took place.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
What everyone is trying to do is get me to explain each and every item. You do not get it. I already have: False flag. I will not get into a spat about whether or not I, or you, can give THE explanation for an individual occurence.
No... most people responding realize that the events already happened irrespective of their future probability of repeating. And thus, the logical "jump" comes from examining the connecting facts of what already happened instead of on questions of if it can happen again. Whether you understand the difference between future probability and 20/20 hindsight, how evidence standards are, or are playing games (I can care less what it is you're doing)... you should be capable of making your connections without relying on something as useless as perceived probabilities of occurrence. But if you don't want to make that logical leap, then nothing about what you've been told is going to ring.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
I know what your explanation is every time: "it is not impossible." Hopefully -- but apparently not given what is continued to be thrown back at me -- you can figure out my explanation for each and every thing is "FALSE FLAG.!!"
The short and sweet response to this is you've grossly and misleadingly simplified the rebuttals to your points. I don't know about other people, I can't read their minds... but I don't get concerned with impossibility or possibility. The event already happened, the only thing that is relevant is how it happened, and when lead to it succeeding. That requires a chain of evidence, which dwelling all of your brain matter on discussing probability doesn't discuss, period. If you don't understand that, then I frankly, really don't know what you're expecting out of the exchange.
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 09:23 AM   #279
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
We understand; you're just wrong..................
Actually he would need to present a case in order to be wrong.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 09:23 AM   #280
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
...The event already happened, the only thing that is relevant is how it happened, and when lead to it succeeding. That requires a chain of evidence, which dwelling all of your brain matter on discussing probability doesn't discuss, period. If you don't understand that, then I frankly, really don't know what you're expecting out of the exchange.

Thanks Grizzly. Well said
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.