-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
911 Truth Movement
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
Disco08 said:
Well - here we go again. You present the "well researched" paper that argues that's all to do with Nazi gold, Marcos' gold, the Jonestown massacre, the Russian Rouble Scam, a cast of thousands, multiple charts linking all the players together, finally resulting in a "nick of time" US government Vulcan conspiracy to set up a fake hijack to crash planes into specific offices in the WTC just to conceal evidence of US government plus cartels of generals, companies and whoever's wrongdoing over the past 60 years.
And then you play dumb about this being a conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. "Well gee Ant, I really don't know what you mean about this being a conspiracy theory. Are you positing some sort of conspiracy Ant? Explain to me what's so complex Ant."
Your "I'm just a simple man searching for the truth in a complex world I don't really understand" routine is getting old hat dude.
The search only finds 1 reference for each topic. So if you've mentioned "Bush" 50 times in this thread the search only seems to return 1.Disco08 said:You know you wouldn't find what you're looking for anyway.
I've spelt my beliefs out many times. How about some of you do the same?
I've said before my beliefs and you have too hence my comments on your hypocrisy in being sleighted when you believe several members of the Bush family, Silverstein, Rumsfd, Cheney and others whom I can't re call are falsely sandered by being complicit in allowing an act of terrorism to occur and profiting from it.
If you wish to back away from these "opinions" or "beliefs" or "implications" then so be it but the rest of us think you believe hem.
Disco08 said:You know you wouldn't find what you're looking for anyway.
I've spelt my beliefs out many times. How about some of you do the same?
I spelt mine out very clearly. So did others. Yet again, your post clearly implies otherwise.
What.? I Know what the truth movement are objecting to. We've had 10 years of their version of the 'truth'. Not to mention 137 pages here.Disco08 said:
Why do I need to be across every minutae of the NIST report to agree with the Gnome and suspect many truthers have a failry loose grip on reality?
It is that simple most of the time.
Maybe because you're misunderstanding me again. To me the conspiracy doesn't have to involve a cast of thousands. No doubt it's a complex scenario (as you might expect) but as I said before most of the participants could have been acting unwittingly.
Many of the truth movement are victim's families, firefighters and experts who only object to the manner and findings of the 9/11 investigations. Do they have a loose grip on reality evo? Can you tell me exactly what they're objecting to?
Where? I've gone back through your posts and can't find anything like that. All I'm asking is for you guys to spell out what you believe best explains the events surrounding 9/11. How did the US miss so many warnings? Why did the Bush adminisitration go to such lengths to destroy and suppress so much vital evidence? Do the NIST reports adequately explain the collpases of all 3 buildings?
Perhaps you can type in something along the lines of "Bush is complicit" or "Bush is guilty".
I've been respectful to all of you most of the time. I'm not going to apologise for standing up for myself when someone says I'm a closed-minded fool with nothing to support such an insult. I've read and watched plenty of material on 9/11 including every page of both of the debunking sites some of you guys love and much of the 9/11CR. If there's any convincing evidence in any of them to support the thoery that the US played no part in the attacks I'm yet to see it. This is what most of you believe though right? Surely you can all present some argument or evidence to support these beliefs.
antman said:
Maybe because you're misunderstanding me again. To me the conspiracy doesn't have to involve a cast of thousands. No doubt it's a complex scenario (as you might expect) but as I said before most of the participants could have been acting unwittingly.
evo said:
Many of the truth movement are victim's families, firefighters and experts who only object to the manner and findings of the 9/11 investigations. Do they have a loose grip on reality evo? Can you tell me exactly what they're objecting to?
tigersnake said:
Where? I've gone back through your posts and can't find anything like that. All I'm asking is for you guys to spell out what you believe best explains the events surrounding 9/11. How did the US miss so many warnings? Why did the Bush adminisitration go to such lengths to destroy and suppress so much vital evidence? Do the NIST reports adequately explain the collpases of all 3 buildings?
tigertim said:
Perhaps you can type in something along the lines of "Bush is complicit" or "Bush is guilty".
I've been respectful to all of you most of the time. I'm not going to apologise for standing up for myself when someone says I'm a closed-minded fool with nothing to support such an insult. I've read and watched plenty of material on 9/11 including every page of both of the debunking sites some of you guys love and much of the 9/11CR. If there's any convincing evidence in any of them to support the thoery that the US played no part in the attacks I'm yet to see it. This is what most of you believe though right? Surely you can all present some argument or evidence to support these beliefs.
The 9/11 CR was fixed.
The US ignored many explicit warnings that could have saved thousands of lives.
The Bush administration ordered almost all the evidence to be destroyed before it could be analysed.
The PNAC had recently stated its desire to gain military footholds in the middle east.
The US manufactured events to start the Vietnam war and covered it up for decades.
WTC7 collapses at free fall speed for nearly 3 seconds.
The US ignored many explicit warnings that could have saved thousands of lives.
The Bush administration ordered almost all the evidence to be destroyed before it could be analysed.
The PNAC had recently stated its desire to gain military footholds in the middle east.
The US manufactured events to start the Vietnam war and covered it up for decades.
WTC7 collapses at free fall speed for nearly 3 seconds.
I haven't followed this thread but I see the matter as one of incompetence and then opportunism by a Bush Administration that was always looking for a way to invade Iraq.
It is pretty clear that Al Qaeda had been monitored in the years leading up to the attack and Bush had been warned but Bush was out to lunch as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
It is pretty clear that Al Qaeda had been monitored in the years leading up to the attack and Bush had been warned but Bush was out to lunch as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
One supposed fact I haven't verified is that Bush had anti aircraft missiles placed on the roof the of the resort he was staying at on 9/10/01. With that in mind and the confirmed fact that Jeb Bush made a change to a NG call up order to include acts of terrorism on the last business day before 9/11 and there's a bit of evidence to suggest George had some idea what was happening. Not to mention Bush remembers seeing the first crash on TV before the second crash occured even though that footage wasn't discovered until hours later.
Edit - this seems to confirm the anti air missiles - http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091001busharrives
Whether or not that's typical of a presedential excursion is the question. I don't remember anything like it when Bush visited Canberra in 03. From memory he stayed at The Hyatt and I imagine that type of security would be quite visible.
Edit - this seems to confirm the anti air missiles - http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091001busharrives
Whether or not that's typical of a presedential excursion is the question. I don't remember anything like it when Bush visited Canberra in 03. From memory he stayed at The Hyatt and I imagine that type of security would be quite visible.
Rosy
I think you should ban Harry for starting this thread :hihi
Disco08s business must be suffering with all the research and posting he is doing.
I think you should ban Harry for starting this thread :hihi
Disco08s business must be suffering with all the research and posting he is doing.
I've just been an occasional fly on the wall here. I love a good robust debate but the victim card is being played a bit much for this discussion to be enjoyable imo. I missed the part where it was proven that the US manufactured events to start the Vietnam war and won't even ask how that's relevant to the 9/11 terrorist/computer/USA government/hologram/conspiracy/genocide/whatever attack.
Seems more to me you can make a case for whatever you want to based on what you choose to read and believe. The gray plane in an example...first it's reality then it's proven to be untrue. All based on internet info that was always there. Same with Harry's missile claims then changing tack to reckon there was a plane involved after all. I wouldn't call too much of this discussion proof. Proof to me is evidence beyond doubt. I don't think you really get that by taking internet claims on board. There are debunkers and debunkees. Facts are planes hit buildings which collapsed/caught fire, though some still question that. How or why that happened is more opinion based than anything that's been proved. There seems to be more paranoia than proof to me...possibly with sound reason and possibly not. :crazy
Seems more to me you can make a case for whatever you want to based on what you choose to read and believe. The gray plane in an example...first it's reality then it's proven to be untrue. All based on internet info that was always there. Same with Harry's missile claims then changing tack to reckon there was a plane involved after all. I wouldn't call too much of this discussion proof. Proof to me is evidence beyond doubt. I don't think you really get that by taking internet claims on board. There are debunkers and debunkees. Facts are planes hit buildings which collapsed/caught fire, though some still question that. How or why that happened is more opinion based than anything that's been proved. There seems to be more paranoia than proof to me...possibly with sound reason and possibly not. :crazy
lamb22 said:
This little bit of propoganda is laughable:
The most arguably credible criticism of Clarke has been based upon the fact that the 9/11 terrorists gathered within United States borders and went undetected by National Security organizations.
Please. You rhetorical devices get ever more audacious.Disco08 said:
Surely it should be obvious that when I refer to people with a loose grip on reality, or who have watched too many Bruce Willis movies, I'm refering to the people who build these elaborate conspiracy scenarios eg. remote control guy, anti gravity ball guy, pentagon missile guy, and so forth.
I love how you have co-opted fire fighters , victims families etc as though they are on the same team as you and anyone who dares point and laugh at the ever more elabotrate conspiracies being served up is somehow providing insult to them. Very emotional.
