9/11 scepticism

maxz · 27th July 2010, 09:32 AM

I didn't see any thread about this particular topic so I decided to create a new one, also I'd like to apologize if my post contains some grammatical errors as I'm quite tired right now. To get straight to the point, so far I have only seen people either 100% believe in a 9/11 conspiracy or outright dismiss it,
but I think it is reasonable to suspect that the US government organized the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation to justify the war on afghanistan.

False flag operations have happened before , and there certainly was a lot of incentive for someone to pull off a risky operation like this, due to the military-industrial complex.

I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized, but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet.

Unsecured Coins · 27th July 2010, 09:38 AM

you'd lose. You figure such an evil and corrupt government that's able to kill its own citizens, track them all through RFID chips, create natural disasters from Alaska, and creat programmable nanothermite that can deactiavte itself to look like ordinary paint chips would do a better job of waging a war in Afganistan by making the hijackers from there instead of mostly Saudi Arabia.

Redtail · 27th July 2010, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by maxz

I didn't see any thread about this particular topic so I decided to create a new one, also I'd like to apologize if my post contains some grammatical errors as I'm quite tired right now. To get straight to the point, so far I have only seen people either 100% believe in a 9/11 conspiracy or outright dismiss it,
but I think it is reasonable to suspect that the US government organized the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation to justify the war on afghanistan.

False flag operations have happened before , and there certainly was a lot of incentive for someone to pull off a risky operation like this, due to the military-industrial complex.

I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized, but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet.

What do you find reasonable about suspecting the government?

uke2se · 27th July 2010, 09:51 AM

Disregarding all evidence, I'd agree that it's as reasonable to suspect the US government as any other individual or organization. However, taking evidence into account, it is no longer reasonable, instead crossing the border into delusion.

alienentity · 27th July 2010, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by maxz

...

I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized, but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet.

Think about what you just wrote. It's a complete copout - a 50 year bet? Who's gonna be around to collect it?

I'd take a 5 year bet from you at 4-1 odds, minimum $1000.00 dollar buy in. Money to be held in escrow account.

Wanna bet? Put your money where your mouth is or shut up.

Myriad · 27th July 2010, 09:59 AM

Hi, maxz, and welcome to the forums!

So, you 25% believe in a US government false flag 9/11 conspiracy.

But about the terms of that bet: you'd win the bet if during your lifetime 9/11 would be found by whom to have been orchestrated by the government?

There are plenty of individuals and groups (some with "for Truth" in their names, so you know they have to be honest) who claim to have already found that it was a false flag conspiracy by the US government. Does that mean you've already won the bet?

On the other hand if the bet specified that everyone had to agree on the "finding" that 9/11 was a false flag conspiracy by the US government, then you could never win. You cannot get 100% agreement that the earth revolves around the sun, smoking is bad for your health, or (as we've seen in this forum) that the rubble piles at ground zero weren't flat.

So -- this question is more fundamentally important than it might appear at first -- who do you feel is qualified to adjudicate your bet? Whose judgment on the question do you accept? Would a committee made up of history faculty of major universities worldwide be acceptable? A majority vote of the American public? A council of imams from Saudi Arabia? Judge Judy? The panel of investigators named in the original NYCCAN NYC ballot initiative?

Of course if the bet's only against yourself then you can decide whether you "win" on any whim, should you decide at any time that you yourself are convinced one way or the other. But let's say there were another person and actual stakes involved. Who gets to say when and if you've won?

Respectfully,
Myriad

maxz · 27th July 2010, 10:18 AM

Well I suppose an outright admission of guilt would be required for me to win the bet. The Russians admitted to starting the war on Finland with a false flag operation so I suppose it could happen here too.

I don't know anything about the methodology of history, but if the conspiracy became universally accepted in the same way as other history is, that would be satisfactoy too.

bill smith · 27th July 2010, 10:21 AM

Suppose some of you debunkers put up something convincing to show that 9/11 was as the government says.

And then I put up something that definitely shows that some shenanigans were afoot ?

In this way the new poster can assess if his bet is a good one.

maxz · 27th July 2010, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by bill smith

And then I put up something that definitely shows that some shenanigans were afoot ?

I don't think it's possible for you to posess such evidence.

The bet was just a way for me to illustrate how I feel about the issue, such a bet would be impossible because whether me and the other bettor even live in 50 years is uncertain.

Sabrina · 27th July 2010, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by maxz

Well I suppose an outright admission of guilt would be required for me to win the bet. The Russians admitted to starting the war on Finland with a false flag operation so I suppose it could happen here too.

I don't know anything about the methodology of history, but if the conspiracy became universally accepted in the same way as other history is, that would be satisfactoy too.

Good luck with that.

I mean, considering the fact that even when there's actual EVIDENCE of some sort of misdeed by the government they still attempt to weasel their way out of outright admitting anything, I'd say the likelihood of you actually winning that bet is about... negative infinity. And that's being generous.

ETA: No offense meant, incidentally; I just realized that might appear to be somewhat confrontational.

bill smith · 27th July 2010, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by maxz

I don't think it's possible for you to posess such evidence.

Let's see if the debunkers want to play first.

uke2se · 27th July 2010, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by bill smith

Let's see if the debunkers want to play first.

Why would we want to do that yet again when this entire forum section is a record of truther claims shown to be false? I'd say you've had your chance. You blew it, son.

maxz · 27th July 2010, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Sabrina

Good luck with that.

I mean, considering the fact that even when there's actual EVIDENCE of some sort of misdeed by the government they still attempt to weasel their way out of outright admitting anything, I'd say the likelihood of you actually winning that bet is about... negative infinity. And that's being generous.

ETA: No offense meant, incidentally; I just realized that might appear to be somewhat confrontational.

So how come the russians admitted to a false flag operation? What made the circumstances different? They fired with artillery on their own town, seems like pretty bad PR to admit that, even after 50 years.

Sabrina · 27th July 2010, 10:32 AM

The RUSSIAN government did. We're discussing the US government here. Every time someone is found to have done something wrong in the US government, typically all that happens is excuse after excuse while the person(s) in question are quietly fired or reassigned, depending on their usefulness.

I couldn't speak to why the Russian government admitted to a false flag operation, but given my experience with the US government, the likelihood of them doing the same is about nil.

maxz · 27th July 2010, 10:38 AM

I suppose one should always be sceptical towards all accounts of history, because it is more uncertain than empirical science, which is also uncertain to some degree. The question here is should one be more sceptical towards the account of 9/11 than the accounts of other historical events in general or not.

R.Mackey · 27th July 2010, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by maxz

I suppose one should always be sceptical towards all accounts of history, because it is more uncertain than empirical science, which is also uncertain to some degree. The question here is should one be more sceptical towards 9/11 than the accounts of other historical events in general or not.

Yes, one should be skeptical. But that's not what you're doing.

Skeptical means you want to see support for a claim. Specifically, you want to see it so much that you're willing to look for it.

There is abundant support for the idea that the US Government did not cause 9/11. There are hundreds of books. There are thousands of exhibits in criminal trials. There is also a complete lack of evidence to the contrary, and not even a single hypothesis of how the US Government could have caused it that makes a whit of sense.

A skeptic would find this evidence, evaluate it fairly, and conclude that until solid evidence otherwise appears, the US Government did not cause 9/11.

You're not a skeptic.

Homework assignment for you: Go read The Looming Tower, and then tell me how the US Government caused it to happen. It should be in your library if you're too cheap to pick up a copy of your own.

bill smith · 27th July 2010, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Sabrina

The RUSSIAN government did. We're discussing the US government here. Every time someone is found to have done something wrong in the US government, typically all that happens is excuse after excuse while the person(s) in question are quietly fired or reassigned, depending on their usefulness.

I couldn't speak to why the Russian government admitted to a false flag operation, but given my experience with the US government, the likelihood of them doing the same is about nil.

Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposed false flag operation where American citizens on American streets would be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? And wasn't there a plan to shoot down an American plane full of students and also blame the Cubans ? So that you could attack Cuba ?

Maybe you remember the rest and can bring Maxz up tp date.

RedIbis · 27th July 2010, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Yes, one should be skeptical. But that's not what you're doing.

Skeptical means you want to see support for a claim. Specifically, you want to see it so much that you're willing to look for it.

[...]

You're not a skeptic.

Nor are you. NIST provided no physical evidence whatsoever to support their single column, collapse from fire WTC 7 hypothesis and yet you remain entirely convinced of its veracity. That's not skepticism, that's faith.

Unsecured Coins · 27th July 2010, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by bill smith

Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposd false flag operation where American citizens on American streets qould be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? And wasn't there a plan to shoot down an American plane full of students and also blame the Cubans ? So that you could attack Cuba ?

Maybe you remember the rest and can bring Maxz up tp date.

as usual, trying to see the forrest through the trees.

uke2se · 27th July 2010, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Nor are you. NIST provided no physical evidence whatsoever to support their single column, collapse from fire WTC 7 hypothesis and yet you remain entirely convinced of its veracity. That's not skepticism, that's faith.

Uhm, what?

Sabrina · 27th July 2010, 10:49 AM

Oy. I am so glad bill is on my ignore list, because that level of stupid doesn't deserve a response.

maxz · 27th July 2010, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Yes, one should be skeptical. But that's not what you're doing.

Skeptical means you want to see support for a claim. Specifically, you want to see it so much that you're willing to look for it.

There is abundant support for the idea that the US Government did not cause 9/11. There are hundreds of books. There are thousands of exhibits in criminal trials. There is also a complete lack of evidence to the contrary, and not even a single hypothesis of how the US Government could have caused it that makes a whit of sense.

A skeptic would find this evidence, evaluate it fairly, and conclude that until solid evidence otherwise appears, the US Government did not cause 9/11.

You're not a skeptic.

Homework assignment for you: Go read The Looming Tower, and then tell me how the US Government caused it to happen. It should be in your library if you're too cheap to pick up a copy of your own.

I am a skeptic, yes I am, I just didn't have enough information, i.e. I was ignorant of all those investigations.

R.Mackey · 27th July 2010, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by maxz

I am a skeptic, yes I am, I just didn't have enough information, i.e. I was ignorant of all those investigations.

That's a bloody poor excuse. You can practically trip over all the information that's put out there.

Again, read The Looming Tower and then get back to us. It's the best place to start with your particular question. Until you know what you're talking about, you're not sufficiently informed to be a skeptic. The world has no responsibility to feed you information intravenously.

bill smith · 27th July 2010, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by maxz

I suppose one should always be sceptical towards all accounts of history, because it is more uncertain than empirical science, which is also uncertain to some degree. The question here is should one be more sceptical towards the account of 9/11 than the accounts of other historical events in general or not.

It would be reasonable to let the false flag operation I describe above inform your judgement of whether 9/11 itself was a also a false flag operation made in very much the same mould.

BigAl · 27th July 2010, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Nor are you. NIST provided no physical evidence whatsoever to support their single column, collapse from fire WTC 7 hypothesis and yet you remain entirely convinced of its veracity. That's not skepticism, that's faith.

But you agree that unfought fire was the root cause of the WTC7 collapse, right?

bill smith · 27th July 2010, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Sabrina

Oy. I am so glad bill is on my ignore list, because that level of stupid doesn't deserve a response.

It's 100% documented fact Sabrina. That's why you cannot respond.

maxz · 27th July 2010, 11:11 AM

No I suppose I'm not a skeptic, because the strenght of my belief in something is proportiante to the evidence that I'm aware of and not to the actual evidence. By that token most everyone on this forum could not be a skeptic. Of course the more you study and learn, the better the quality of your beliefs will be, but I don't think that knowledge is required to be a skeptic, it is an epistemological position.

R.Mackey · 27th July 2010, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by maxz

No I suppose I'm not a skeptic, because the strenght of my belief in something is proportiante to the evidence that I'm aware of and not to the actual evidence. By that token most everyone on this forum could not be a skeptic.

Tu Quoque logical fallacy.

You're not a skeptic because the strength of your belief is based on nothing. You are unaware of the evidence, yet you insist your opinion is valid anyway.

You also have no idea what other people do or do not know, yet you're now making claims about that.

Some of us are extremely well read on this subject. You can be too. It just takes a little time and effort on your part. I've told you where to start. The rest is up to you.

The Platypus · 27th July 2010, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by bill smith

It's 100% documented fact Sabrina. That's why you cannot respond.

Gee that lie will fool nobody.

TraneWreck · 27th July 2010, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by bill smith

Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposed false flag operation where American citizens on American streets would be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? And wasn't there a plan to shoot down an American plane full of students and also blame the Cubans ? So that you could attack Cuba ?

Maybe you remember the rest and can bring Maxz up tp date.

Lo these many years later, this **** is still spinning around the toilet bowl. Someone needs to jiggle the handle.

Pardalis · 27th July 2010, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by maxz

I didn't see any thread about this particular topic

Are you freaking serious?

Sword_Of_Truth · 27th July 2010, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by bill smith

Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposed false flag operation where American citizens on American streets would be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ?

No such operation as you describe was ever proposed.

T.A.M. · 27th July 2010, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by maxz

I didn't see any thread about this particular topic so I decided to create a new one, also I'd like to apologize if my post contains some grammatical errors as I'm quite tired right now. To get straight to the point, so far I have only seen people either 100% believe in a 9/11 conspiracy or outright dismiss it,
but I think it is reasonable to suspect that the US government organized the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation to justify the war on afghanistan.

False flag operations have happened before , and there certainly was a lot of incentive for someone to pull off a risky operation like this, due to the military-industrial complex.

I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized, but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet.

4 to 1 odds? Ok, how about 50 Million? That means you owe me (or my children) 50 Million dollars if this does not come true. I am game.

TAM

T.A.M. · 27th July 2010, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Nor are you. NIST provided no physical evidence whatsoever to support their single column, collapse from fire WTC 7 hypothesis and yet you remain entirely convinced of its veracity. That's not skepticism, that's faith.

Red, you and WTC7...what are we going to do with you.

IN THE ABSENCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE...

by far, the best, most comprehensive theory on the collapse of WTC7 is the NIST report. It also has the most evidence (albeit not physical in terms of having the suspect column) behind it.

SO barring the production of another theory that makes MORE SENSE, and has more EVIDENCE behind it, I am gonna stick with theirs...as a REAL SKEPTIC would.

TAM

T.A.M. · 27th July 2010, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by bill smith

It would be reasonable to let the false flag operation I describe above inform your judgement of whether 9/11 itself was a also a false flag operation made in very much the same mould.

Yes evidenceless based supposition is always a reasonable and rational approach to an investigation, isn't it bill?

For the love of all that is holy.

TAM

Pardalis · 27th July 2010, 12:37 PM

There was no physical evidence for the Columbia shuttle disaster, and yet RedIbis doesn't have a problem accepting the conclusions of the investigation.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=179

Sabrina · 27th July 2010, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

No such operation as you describe was ever proposed.

IIRC, it was proposed, but no one signed off on it.

That is, if billy boy is referring to Operation Northwoods, which was never approved and never happened. In which case, billy needs to get the facts of it straight, since the exact scenario he proposed is not what was proposed for Northwoods at all.

triforcharity · 27th July 2010, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins

you'd lose. You figure such an evil and corrupt government that's able to kill its own citizens, track them all through RFID chips, create natural disasters from Alaska, and creat programmable nanothermite that can deactiavte itself to look like ordinary paint chips would do a better job of waging a war in Afganistan by making the hijackers from there instead of mostly Saudi Arabia.

Hey, didn't you get on of those RFID chips?

TexasJack · 27th July 2010, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Sabrina

IIRC, it was proposed, but no one signed off on it.

That is, if billy boy is referring to Operation Northwoods, which was never approved and never happened. In which case, billy needs to get the facts of it straight, since the exact scenario he proposed is not what was proposed for Northwoods at all.

In fact, IIRC, the people that proposed it were fired.

triforcharity · 27th July 2010, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by bill smith

Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposed false flag operation where American citizens on American streets would be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? And wasn't there a plan to shoot down an American plane full of students and also blame the Cubans ? So that you could attack Cuba ?

Maybe you remember the rest and can bring Maxz up tp date.

Actually, the ONE person that brought this up was fired.

Unless, of course, you have some type of proof of this claim?

27th July 2010, 09:32 AM	#1
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	9/11 scepticism I didn't see any thread about this particular topic so I decided to create a new one, also I'd like to apologize if my post contains some grammatical errors as I'm quite tired right now. To get straight to the point, so far I have only seen people either 100% believe in a 9/11 conspiracy or outright dismiss it, but I think it is reasonable to suspect that the US government organized the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation to justify the war on afghanistan. False flag operations have happened before , and there certainly was a lot of incentive for someone to pull off a risky operation like this, due to the military-industrial complex. I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized, but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet.
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	Last edited by maxz; 27th July 2010 at 09:36 AM.

27th July 2010, 09:38 AM	#2
Unsecured Coins Hoku-maniac Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: in your macaronis. warming my feets Posts: 5,741	you'd lose. You figure such an evil and corrupt government that's able to kill its own citizens, track them all through RFID chips, create natural disasters from Alaska, and creat programmable nanothermite that can deactiavte itself to look like ordinary paint chips would do a better job of waging a war in Afganistan by making the hijackers from there instead of mostly Saudi Arabia.
	__________________ *http://kcbastards.com/* "If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski "I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele "Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again

27th July 2010, 09:40 AM	#3
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by maxz I didn't see any thread about this particular topic so I decided to create a new one, also I'd like to apologize if my post contains some grammatical errors as I'm quite tired right now. To get straight to the point, so far I have only seen people either 100% believe in a 9/11 conspiracy or outright dismiss it, but I think it is reasonable to suspect that the US government organized the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation to justify the war on afghanistan. False flag operations have happened before , and there certainly was a lot of incentive for someone to pull off a risky operation like this, due to the military-industrial complex. I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized, but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet. What do you find reasonable about suspecting the government?
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

27th July 2010, 09:51 AM	#4
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,139	Disregarding all evidence, I'd agree that it's as reasonable to suspect the US government as any other individual or organization. However, taking evidence into account, it is no longer reasonable, instead crossing the border into delusion.
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,139

27th July 2010, 09:59 AM	#5
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by maxz ... I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized, but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet. Think about what you just wrote. It's a complete copout - a 50 year bet? Who's gonna be around to collect it? I'd take a 5 year bet from you at 4-1 odds, minimum $1000.00 dollar buy in. Money to be held in escrow account. Wanna bet? Put your money where your mouth is or shut up.
	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

27th July 2010, 09:59 AM	#6
Myriad Hyperthetical Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,206	Hi, maxz, and welcome to the forums! So, you 25% believe in a US government false flag 9/11 conspiracy. But about the terms of that bet: you'd win the bet if during your lifetime 9/11 would be found by whom to have been orchestrated by the government? There are plenty of individuals and groups (some with "for Truth" in their names, so you know they have to be honest) who claim to have already found that it was a false flag conspiracy by the US government. Does that mean you've already won the bet? On the other hand if the bet specified that everyone had to agree on the "finding" that 9/11 was a false flag conspiracy by the US government, then you could never win. You cannot get 100% agreement that the earth revolves around the sun, smoking is bad for your health, or (as we've seen in this forum) that the rubble piles at ground zero weren't flat. So -- this question is more fundamentally important than it might appear at first -- who do you feel is qualified to adjudicate your bet? Whose judgment on the question do you accept? Would a committee made up of history faculty of major universities worldwide be acceptable? A majority vote of the American public? A council of imams from Saudi Arabia? Judge Judy? The panel of investigators named in the original NYCCAN NYC ballot initiative? Of course if the bet's only against yourself then you can decide whether you "win" on any whim, should you decide at any time that you yourself are convinced one way or the other. But let's say there were another person and actual stakes involved. Who gets to say when and if you've won? Respectfully, Myriad
	__________________ The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.

27th July 2010, 10:18 AM	#7
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	Well I suppose an outright admission of guilt would be required for me to win the bet. The Russians admitted to starting the war on Finland with a false flag operation so I suppose it could happen here too. I don't know anything about the methodology of history, but if the conspiracy became universally accepted in the same way as other history is, that would be satisfactoy too.
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	Last edited by maxz; 27th July 2010 at 10:24 AM.

27th July 2010, 10:21 AM	#8
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	Suppose some of you debunkers put up something convincing to show that 9/11 was as the government says. And then I put up something that definitely shows that some shenanigans were afoot ? In this way the new poster can assess if his bet is a good one.
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' Last edited by bill smith; 27th July 2010 at 10:23 AM.

27th July 2010, 10:24 AM	#9
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	Originally Posted by bill smith And then I put up something that definitely shows that some shenanigans were afoot ? I don't think it's possible for you to posess such evidence. The bet was just a way for me to illustrate how I feel about the issue, such a bet would be impossible because whether me and the other bettor even live in 50 years is uncertain.
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	Last edited by maxz; 27th July 2010 at 10:28 AM.

27th July 2010, 10:26 AM	#10
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spinning through space Posts: 6,873	Originally Posted by maxz Well I suppose an outright admission of guilt would be required for me to win the bet. The Russians admitted to starting the war on Finland with a false flag operation so I suppose it could happen here too. I don't know anything about the methodology of history, but if the conspiracy became universally accepted in the same way as other history is, that would be satisfactoy too. Good luck with that. I mean, considering the fact that even when there's actual EVIDENCE of some sort of misdeed by the government they still attempt to weasel their way out of outright admitting anything, I'd say the likelihood of you actually winning that bet is about... negative infinity. And that's being generous. ETA: No offense meant, incidentally; I just realized that might appear to be somewhat confrontational.
	__________________ "Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985 *Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.* *Sins are very desirable... as long as no one judges you for them.*

27th July 2010, 10:27 AM	#11
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	Originally Posted by maxz I don't think it's possible for you to posess such evidence. Let's see if the debunkers want to play first.
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

27th July 2010, 10:28 AM	#12
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,139	Originally Posted by bill smith Let's see if the debunkers want to play first. Why would we want to do that yet again when this entire forum section is a record of truther claims shown to be false? I'd say you've had your chance. You blew it, son.
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,139

27th July 2010, 10:29 AM	#13
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	Originally Posted by Sabrina Good luck with that. I mean, considering the fact that even when there's actual EVIDENCE of some sort of misdeed by the government they still attempt to weasel their way out of outright admitting anything, I'd say the likelihood of you actually winning that bet is about... negative infinity. And that's being generous. ETA: No offense meant, incidentally; I just realized that might appear to be somewhat confrontational. So how come the russians admitted to a false flag operation? What made the circumstances different? They fired with artillery on their own town, seems like pretty bad PR to admit that, even after 50 years.
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	Last edited by maxz; 27th July 2010 at 10:30 AM.

27th July 2010, 10:32 AM	#14
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spinning through space Posts: 6,873	The RUSSIAN government did. We're discussing the US government here. Every time someone is found to have done something wrong in the US government, typically all that happens is excuse after excuse while the person(s) in question are quietly fired or reassigned, depending on their usefulness. I couldn't speak to why the Russian government admitted to a false flag operation, but given my experience with the US government, the likelihood of them doing the same is about nil.
	__________________ "Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985 *Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.* *Sins are very desirable... as long as no one judges you for them.*

27th July 2010, 10:38 AM	#15
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	I suppose one should always be sceptical towards all accounts of history, because it is more uncertain than empirical science, which is also uncertain to some degree. The question here is should one be more sceptical towards the account of 9/11 than the accounts of other historical events in general or not.
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7

27th July 2010, 10:41 AM	#16
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by maxz I suppose one should always be sceptical towards all accounts of history, because it is more uncertain than empirical science, which is also uncertain to some degree. The question here is should one be more sceptical towards 9/11 than the accounts of other historical events in general or not. Yes, one should be skeptical. But that's not what you're doing. Skeptical means you want to see support for a claim. Specifically, you want to see it so much that you're willing to look for it. There is abundant support for the idea that the US Government did not cause 9/11. There are hundreds of books. There are thousands of exhibits in criminal trials. There is also a complete lack of evidence to the contrary, and not even a single hypothesis of how the US Government could have caused it that makes a whit of sense. A skeptic would find this evidence, evaluate it fairly, and conclude that until solid evidence otherwise appears, the US Government did not cause 9/11. You're not a skeptic. Homework assignment for you: Go read The Looming Tower, and then tell me how the US Government caused it to happen. It should be in your library if you're too cheap to pick up a copy of your own.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

27th July 2010, 10:43 AM	#17
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	Originally Posted by Sabrina The RUSSIAN government did. We're discussing the US government here. Every time someone is found to have done something wrong in the US government, typically all that happens is excuse after excuse while the person(s) in question are quietly fired or reassigned, depending on their usefulness. I couldn't speak to why the Russian government admitted to a false flag operation, but given my experience with the US government, the likelihood of them doing the same is about nil. Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposed false flag operation where American citizens on American streets would be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? And wasn't there a plan to shoot down an American plane full of students and also blame the Cubans ? So that you could attack Cuba ? Maybe you remember the rest and can bring Maxz up tp date.
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' Last edited by bill smith; 27th July 2010 at 10:48 AM.

27th July 2010, 10:46 AM	#18
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by R.Mackey Yes, one should be skeptical. But that's not what you're doing. Skeptical means you want to see support for a claim. Specifically, you want to see it so much that you're willing to look for it. [...] You're not a skeptic. Nor are you. NIST provided no physical evidence whatsoever to support their single column, collapse from fire WTC 7 hypothesis and yet you remain entirely convinced of its veracity. That's not skepticism, that's faith.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

27th July 2010, 10:46 AM	#19
Unsecured Coins Hoku-maniac Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: in your macaronis. warming my feets Posts: 5,741	Originally Posted by bill smith Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposd false flag operation where American citizens on American streets qould be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? And wasn't there a plan to shoot down an American plane full of students and also blame the Cubans ? So that you could attack Cuba ? Maybe you remember the rest and can bring Maxz up tp date. as usual, trying to see the forrest through the trees.
	__________________ *http://kcbastards.com/* "If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski "I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele "Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again

27th July 2010, 10:49 AM	#20
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,139	Originally Posted by RedIbis Nor are you. NIST provided no physical evidence whatsoever to support their single column, collapse from fire WTC 7 hypothesis and yet you remain entirely convinced of its veracity. That's not skepticism, that's faith. Uhm, what?
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,139

27th July 2010, 10:50 AM	#22
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	Originally Posted by R.Mackey Yes, one should be skeptical. But that's not what you're doing. Skeptical means you want to see support for a claim. Specifically, you want to see it so much that you're willing to look for it. There is abundant support for the idea that the US Government did not cause 9/11. There are hundreds of books. There are thousands of exhibits in criminal trials. There is also a complete lack of evidence to the contrary, and not even a single hypothesis of how the US Government could have caused it that makes a whit of sense. A skeptic would find this evidence, evaluate it fairly, and conclude that until solid evidence otherwise appears, the US Government did not cause 9/11. You're not a skeptic. Homework assignment for you: Go read The Looming Tower, and then tell me how the US Government caused it to happen. It should be in your library if you're too cheap to pick up a copy of your own. I am a skeptic, yes I am, I just didn't have enough information, i.e. I was ignorant of all those investigations.
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7

27th July 2010, 10:52 AM	#23
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by maxz I am a skeptic, yes I am, I just didn't have enough information, i.e. I was ignorant of all those investigations. That's a bloody poor excuse. You can practically trip over all the information that's put out there. Again, read The Looming Tower and then get back to us. It's the best place to start with your particular question. Until you know what you're talking about, you're not sufficiently informed to be a skeptic. The world has no responsibility to feed you information intravenously.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

27th July 2010, 10:54 AM	#24
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	Originally Posted by maxz I suppose one should always be sceptical towards all accounts of history, because it is more uncertain than empirical science, which is also uncertain to some degree. The question here is should one be more sceptical towards the account of 9/11 than the accounts of other historical events in general or not. It would be reasonable to let the false flag operation I describe above inform your judgement of whether 9/11 itself was a also a false flag operation made in very much the same mould.
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' Last edited by bill smith; 27th July 2010 at 10:57 AM.

27th July 2010, 10:55 AM	#25
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by RedIbis Nor are you. NIST provided no physical evidence whatsoever to support their single column, collapse from fire WTC 7 hypothesis and yet you remain entirely convinced of its veracity. That's not skepticism, that's faith. But you agree that unfought fire was the root cause of the WTC7 collapse, right?
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

27th July 2010, 11:00 AM	#26
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	Originally Posted by Sabrina Oy. I am so glad bill is on my ignore list, because that level of stupid doesn't deserve a response. It's 100% documented fact Sabrina. That's why you cannot respond.
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

27th July 2010, 11:11 AM	#27
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	No I suppose I'm not a skeptic, because the strenght of my belief in something is proportiante to the evidence that I'm aware of and not to the actual evidence. By that token most everyone on this forum could not be a skeptic. Of course the more you study and learn, the better the quality of your beliefs will be, but I don't think that knowledge is required to be a skeptic, it is an epistemological position.
maxz New Blood Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	Last edited by maxz; 27th July 2010 at 11:13 AM.

27th July 2010, 11:13 AM	#28
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by maxz No I suppose I'm not a skeptic, because the strenght of my belief in something is proportiante to the evidence that I'm aware of and not to the actual evidence. By that token most everyone on this forum could not be a skeptic. Tu Quoque logical fallacy. You're not a skeptic because the strength of your belief is based on nothing. You are unaware of the evidence, yet you insist your opinion is valid anyway. You also have no idea what other people do or do not know, yet you're now making claims about that. Some of us are extremely well read on this subject. You can be too. It just takes a little time and effort on your part. I've told you where to start. The rest is up to you.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

27th July 2010, 11:37 AM	#29
The Platypus Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,787	Originally Posted by bill smith It's 100% documented fact Sabrina. That's why you cannot respond. Gee that lie will fool nobody.
	__________________ I'll go with the qualified experts, over some ranting guy on the internet that claims he has "the truth". Always beware of those that overuse, capitalize and blanket themselves in them word "truth". I may not always know the truth, but i do know when i'm being lied too.

27th July 2010, 12:04 PM	#30
TraneWreck Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Chicago Posts: 6,414	Originally Posted by bill smith Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposed false flag operation where American citizens on American streets would be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? And wasn't there a plan to shoot down an American plane full of students and also blame the Cubans ? So that you could attack Cuba ? Maybe you remember the rest and can bring Maxz up tp date. Lo these many years later, this **** is still spinning around the toilet bowl. Someone needs to jiggle the handle.

27th July 2010, 12:06 PM	#31
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by maxz I didn't see any thread about this particular topic Are you freaking serious?

27th July 2010, 12:29 PM	#32
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by bill smith Remember back in the 60's when the joint chiefs of staff all signed off on that proposed false flag operation where American citizens on American streets would be shot and killed and the Cubans would be blamed ? No such operation as you describe was ever proposed.

27th July 2010, 12:32 PM	#33
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by maxz I didn't see any thread about this particular topic so I decided to create a new one, also I'd like to apologize if my post contains some grammatical errors as I'm quite tired right now. To get straight to the point, so far I have only seen people either 100% believe in a 9/11 conspiracy or outright dismiss it, but I think it is reasonable to suspect that the US government organized the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation to justify the war on afghanistan. False flag operations have happened before , and there certainly was a lot of incentive for someone to pull off a risky operation like this, due to the military-industrial complex. I don't really have any idea how likely it is that the attack was was deliberately organized, but I suppose if someone offered me 4-1 odds that in the next 50 years it would be found to have been orchestrated by the government I would take the bet. 4 to 1 odds? Ok, how about 50 Million? That means you owe me (or my children) 50 Million dollars if this does not come true. I am game. TAM

27th July 2010, 12:35 PM	#34
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by RedIbis Nor are you. NIST provided no physical evidence whatsoever to support their single column, collapse from fire WTC 7 hypothesis and yet you remain entirely convinced of its veracity. That's not skepticism, that's faith. Red, you and WTC7...what are we going to do with you. IN THE ABSENCE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE... by far, the best, most comprehensive theory on the collapse of WTC7 is the NIST report. It also has the most evidence (albeit not physical in terms of having the suspect column) behind it. SO barring the production of another theory that makes MORE SENSE, and has more EVIDENCE behind it, I am gonna stick with theirs...as a REAL SKEPTIC would. TAM

27th July 2010, 12:37 PM	#35
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by bill smith It would be reasonable to let the false flag operation I describe above inform your judgement of whether 9/11 itself was a also a false flag operation made in very much the same mould. Yes evidenceless based supposition is always a reasonable and rational approach to an investigation, isn't it bill? For the love of all that is holy. TAM

27th July 2010, 03:48 PM	#37
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spinning through space Posts: 6,873	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth No such operation as you describe was ever proposed. IIRC, it was proposed, but no one signed off on it. That is, if billy boy is referring to Operation Northwoods, which was never approved and never happened. In which case, billy needs to get the facts of it straight, since the exact scenario he proposed is not what was proposed for Northwoods at all.
	__________________ "Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985 *Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.* *Sins are very desirable... as long as no one judges you for them.*