911 Truth Movement

[tigertim]

The Reichstag is an early example to show how inane some of the points you've been making are.

I agree. Now, lets focus on non inane points like gravity balls, cargo planes, no planes, remote controlled planes, the Bushes being complicit in 911, Larry Silverstein too, insider traders being complicit, Cheney and Rumsfeld as well, WTC towers being rigged for demolition and the demolition team being killed ........

Lordy me. You're a funny guy Patsy.

 

[Disco08]

You guys are the ones saying you definitively know what happened, not me. There's plenty of sand though mate. You'll be fine.

 

[evo]

Do you really mean to tell me you didn't know this? FOR SHAME DISCO

He should know. I told him about 60 pages back.

But he plows on regardless.

 

[Disco08]

So from Googling you guys know for sure he doesn't maintain contact with some of the members of his family who are in business with the vulcan figureheads? Sure thing boys.

 

[AngryAnt]

With those Googling talents you must have come across the OBL CIA asset controversy. The web gets more complex the more you look it seems.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=obl+cia+asset&oq=obl+cia+asset&gs_l=hp.3..0i22i30.541.3638.0.4831.13.11.0.2.2.0.328.3098.2-9j2.11.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.psy-ab.kxAiqX0KkWQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.dGY&fp=72b9c73243d0bb8d&biw=1366&bih=619

Oh, completely forgot about the fact that OBL had nothing to do with his family or the Saudi government now? "Damn man, talk about head in the sand".

Steel presumably.

Presumably? You set a high standard of evidence.

The Reichstag is an early example to show how inane some of the points you've been making are.

I say again, care to come up with a more recent example?

You don't need to be totally obsessed to know some of the things you seem totally ignorant about. Actually you'd only need to be a casual observer. The failings of the 9/11 commission are very well documented. You'd have to really have your head buried in the sand to be unaware. That seems about right though I guess.

So after all this time you are pulling the "you are totally ignorant" line? Nice work champ. Even an "expert" like yourself had no knowledge of Bin Laden's estrangement from his own family.

The main false pretense that NIST used to excuse not investigating scientifically was that there was no evidence of explosions at all on 9/11. The other whopper was the assumption that no one in the US knew the attacks were imminent.

There were explosions when the planes hit the buildings. Even an ignoramus like me knows that, I saw it on telly. Funny though, I didn't see any other explosions at all. I did see buildings collapsing though. Strange that when other buildings are demolished in a controlled fashion you see lots of explosions and flashes. I guess they used really high tech explosives that don't flash, make noise or shock waves. Or perhaps they used the imaginary thermite.

Foreknowledge? There is no doubt that there was information known to the CIA and others that some sort of attack was imminent. This is conceded by pretty much all the "apologists" on this thread. The difference between us and you is that we don't construct elaborate fantasies about Vulcans, Bin Ladens, thermite, George Bush's ground to air missiles mounted on the secret service limo etc etc ...

 

[AngryAnt]

He should know. I told him about 60 pages back.

But he plows on regardless.

Plowing his head through the sand perhaps?

 

[AngryAnt]

So from Googling you guys know for sure he doesn't maintain contact with some of the members of his family who are in business with the vulcan figureheads? Sure thing boys.

Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.

 

[evo]

So from Googling you guys know for sure he doesn't maintain contact with some of the members of his family who are in business with the vulcan figureheads? Sure thing boys.

Is 'googling' the new insult? I'm not getting why it is being regularly referenced.

Nah, didn't google it. It was a common theme in books and serious news articles that abounded in the first year or so post 911. It is a pretty well established fact.

I very much doubt Ossy-baby would conpire with either Cheney/ Bush, his own family or the House of Saud in a pink fit. They were the object of his Holy War.

 

[AngryAnt]

I very much doubt Ossy-baby would conpire with either Cheney/ Bush, his own family or the House of Saud in a pink fit. They were the object of his Holy War.

Right... and the reason that so many terrorists and would be terrorist come from that wealthy US ally Saudi Arabia is that the House of Saud is an oppressive regime - authoritarian and theocratic. So the Saudis resent their government and see it as an unholy alliance with the West. Course, this doesn't fit the Truther narrative. I mean, if the attacks were set up as a premise to attack Iraq, why not use Iraqi stooges? Or at least those with clearer links to Saddam Hussein.

But then, I'm just simple folks who don't understand all this geopolitical conspiracy malarky.

 

[Disco08]

So the talk of OBL being a CIA asset and the inconsistent and seemingly fake confessions don't raise alarm bells at all for you guys given the links between these families? Not at all fishy?

Ant - the "truther narrative" if there is one suggests that Bush let the attacks happen. To use Iraqi stooges wouldn't there have needed to be an Iraqi plot of similar magnitude? The Vulcans wanted a new Pearl Harbour don't forget.

"Googling" wasn't meant as an insult. Ant had just said he was a good Googler. That's all.

 

[AngryAnt]

So the talk of OBL being a CIA asset and the inconsistent and seemingly fake confessions don't raise alarm bells at all for you guys given the links between these families? Not at all fishy?

Ant - the "truther narrative" if there is one suggests that Bush let the attacks happen. To use Iraqi stooges wouldn't there have needed to be an Iraqi plot of similar magnitude? The Vulcans wanted a new Pearl Harbour don't forget.

There is a long history of cooperation between the US, the CIA and the Saudi elites. Why would you exclude the Bin Ladens from this? The only difference is that Osama became a Jihadist and was ostracized, went off and fought in various Jihadist campaigns, and got funding from a range of murky sources, including, and I have not much doubt, from contacts in Saudi Arabia as well as Pakistan and other places. Big whoopdie do.

And come on Disco, I've chastised you before about making preposterous claims about Larry, thermite and the like only to suddenly return to the "neutral zone" of "they just let the attacks happen". Well they sure did, they didn't react until *smile* was well and truly over. As before I side with Chomsky on this.

So please don't pretend the Truther narrative is all about "Bush did nothing". I agree there isn't a single narrative, but then why post all the ridiculous stuff about controlled demolition, insurance fraud and all that?

 

[Disco08]

What did any of that have to do with the questions about OBL?

Sorry ant - your chastising isn't going to have any effect on me any time soon. Especially not when you can't seem to grasp some fairly simple concepts where this topic is concerned.

Calling things ridiculous may seem smart to you but when there's evidence to support the claims being made it just appears arrogant.

 

[AngryAnt]

What did any of that have to do with the questions about OBL?

Simply that facts you see as some sort of smoking gun aren't. The US cooperates with Saudi elites. The Bin Ladens are part of a Saudi elite. Of course, if you are a Truther, you know very little about this so when a Bin Laden happened to be at a conference with Dubya in attendance at the same time, then it's some sort of epiphany.

Sorry ant - your chastising isn't going to have any effect on me any time soon. Especially not when you can't seem to grasp some fairly simple concepts where this topic is concerned.

I don't expect it to, but I'll still call you on it. Particularly you when you jump from it's just a minimalist complicity theory to .... all the other stuff.

So even if I means I have some sort of weird learning disability when it comes magical thermite cutters and murdered demolition teams, I'm happy with that. Not to mention the great Larry S insurance fraud. And remote controlled planes. And the Nugan Hand bank. And Jonestown. And the great Russian Rouble scandal. And the Sex Pistols God Save the Queen, It's a Fascist Regime. And George's private stash of anti-aircraft missiles. And tiny flakes of crap that some nut claims to be "nano-thermite". And the Reichstadt. Don't forget the Reichstadt. Oh yeah, got any more recent examples of that?

Calling things ridiculous may seem smart to you but when there's evidence to support the claims being made it just appears arrogant.

You know, I do feel a smug sense of superiority when I realise how many innocent brain neurons have been wasted considering this sort of stuff for the last 12 years or so.

 

[Disco08]

Yeah. You must feel smug knowing that you can dismiss evidence that's compelling to highly qualified experts even though you (presumably) have far less knowledge of the principles in question. Well done.

Simply that facts you see as some sort of smoking gun aren't. The US cooperates with Saudi elites. The Bin Ladens are part of a Saudi elite. Of course, if you are a Truther, you know very little about this so when a Bin Laden happened to be at a conference with Dubya in attendance at the same time, then it's some sort of epiphany.

I don't expect it to, but I'll still call you on it. Particularly you when you jump from it's just a minimalist complicity theory to .... all the other stuff.

I'm only trying to discuss things on their merits. The BEFT essay for example seemed to be based almost solely on facts obtained from the historical record. History Commons is the same. To me this is honest research that deserves respect. In the end though I only hold firm opinions about the things that are truly established such as the ignored warnings, destruction of vital evidence and blatantly fixed official invetigation. These are the matters the truth movement focuses on and rightly so.

Still no comment at all on the OBL CIA asset controversy or the inconsistent and seemingly faked confessions?

So even if I means I have some sort of weird learning disability when it comes magical thermite cutters and murdered demolition teams, I'm happy with that. Not to mention the great Larry S insurance fraud. And remote controlled planes. And the Nugan Hand bank. And Jonestown. And the great Russian Rouble scandal. And the Sex Pistols God Save the Queen, It's a Fascist Regime. And George's private stash of anti-aircraft missiles. And tiny flakes of crap that some nut claims to be "nano-thermite". And the Reichstadt. Don't forget the Reichstadt. Oh yeah, got any more recent examples of that?

How about US patent #6183569 lodged in February 2001 for the "linear thermite cutting apparatus"? Recent enough? If you were going to surreptitiously demolish buildings with the world watching wouldn't you want to use something not quite so obvious as the methods usually used in most contemporary controlled demolitions?

As much as you hate it Jones' thermite evidence is far from disproved.

Bush's anti aircraft missiles is a fact reported in the mainstream media. Ridicule it all you want but it's a proven fact. Why run away from that?

Also fact is that Larry paid way over the odds for buildings his buddy wanted to demolish despite his other buddy having warnings coming at him from all angles suggesting the same buildings were the target of an imminent terrorist attack. Not to mention Larry didn't have breakky at his usual place on 9/11.

The BEFT stuff you're ridiculing also comes from mainstream historical records. Have you looked into it at all or just glanced over it?

 

[AngryAnt]

Yeah. You must feel smug knowing that you can dismiss evidence that's compelling to highly qualified experts even though you (presumably) have far less knowledge of the principles in question. Well done.

Lighten up dude.

I'm only trying to discuss things on their merits. The BEFT essay for example seemed to be based almost solely on facts obtained from the historical record. History Commons is the same. To me this is honest research that deserves respect. In the end though I only hold firm opinions about the things that are truly established such as the ignored warnings, destruction of vital evidence and blatantly fixed official invetigation. These are the matters the truth movement focuses on and rightly so.

"Honest research" perhaps, but if you submitted that as an essay in a first year history course at university, you'd fail. The lecturer's comments would read thusly - "you have strung together a series of unrelated events from a set of mostly secondary sources. Your essay lacks any coherent narrative and the conclusions you draw seem unrelated to any argument made in the body of the text. Writing history is not the same as writing a laundry list. Suggest transferring to creative a writing course, but please address your confusion over the use of apostrophes."

Still no comment at all on the OBL CIA asset controversy or the inconsistent and seemingly faked confessions?

The CIA and Al Qaeda are organisations that specialise in spreading disinformation, amongst many other nefarious activities. This may come as a surprise to you, but not to me. Like most Truther positions, you take a set of facts/assertions/myths, add water, stir, and produce sea monkeys.

How about US patent #6183569 lodged in February 2001 for the "linear thermite cutting apparatus"? Recent enough? If you were going to surreptitiously demolish buildings with the world watching wouldn't you want to use something not quite so obvious as the methods usually used in most contemporary controlled demolitions?

Do you have any examples of the technology mentioned in that patent being used to demolish very large buildings?

But hooray - we've made progress. You've admitted that the fall of the buildings doesn't look like any previously filmed controlled demolition. Now it's a "surreptitious demolition". :clap

As much as you hate it Jones' thermite evidence is far from disproved.

Neither is his theory that Jesus visited the Mayans in South America and drank hot cocoa with them, but I'm not losing any sleep over that either.

Bush's anti aircraft missiles is a fact reported in the mainstream media. Ridicule it all you want but it's a proven fact. Why run away from that?

And what does it prove?

Also fact is that Larry paid way over the odds for buildings his buddy wanted to demolish despite his other buddy having warnings coming at him from all angles suggesting the same buildings were the target of an imminent terrorist attack. Not to mention Larry didn't have breakky at his usual place on 9/11.

Yawn. Let's please not go over the insurance scam thing again. Because then we are back to Larry praying his friends didn't get the date wrong and looking nervously out the window, probably while packing a parachute in his backpack. And paying off the death squads that hit the demolition squads.

The BEFT stuff you're ridiculing also comes from mainstream historical records. Have you looked into it at all or just glanced over it?

That's the long laundry list of the CIA's greatest hits we mentioned earlier right? Call it whatever you like dude, but history it ain't.

 

[Disco08]

Lighten up dude.

"Honest research" perhaps, but if you submitted that as an essay in a first year history course at university, you'd fail. The lecturer's comments would read thusly - "you have strung together a series of unrelated events from a set of mostly secondary sources. Your essay lacks any coherent narrative and the conclusions you draw seem unrelated to any argument made in the body of the text. Writing history is not the same as writing a laundry list. Suggest transferring to creative a writing course, but please address your confusion over the use of apostrophes."

More fantastic irony. Cheers ant.

You must have really studied the essay hard to have reached all those conclusions. Good on you.

The CIA and Al Qaeda are organisations that specialise in spreading disinformation, amongst many other nefarious activities. This may come as a surprise to you, but not to me. Like most Truther positions, you take a set of facts/assertions/myths, add water, stir, and produce sea monkeys.

LOL. Great comment.

Do you have any examples of the technology mentioned in that patent being used to demolish very large buildings?

But hooray - we've made progress. You've admitted that the fall of the buildings doesn't look like any previously filmed controlled demolition. Now it's a "surreptitious demolition". :clap

No. Can you show me a site that details all the controlled demolitions performed during the 90's and what method was used? Did my point about not being too obvious go straight over your head?

The collapses resemble controlled demolition to many experts. The method seems rather irrelevant to the appearance.

Neither is his theory that Jesus visited the Mayans in South America and drank hot cocoa with them, but I'm not losing any sleep over that either.

And what does it prove?

Yawn. Let's please not go over the insurance scam thing again. Because then we are back to Larry praying his friends didn't get the date wrong and looking nervously out the window, probably while packing a parachute in his backpack. And paying off the death squads that hit the demolition squads.

That's the long laundry list of the CIA's greatest hits we mentioned earlier right? Call it whatever you like dude, but history it ain't.

You admit Jones' theories aren't disproven? Progress! :clap

The missiles on the roof would prove Bush was worried provided that wasn't standard procedure wouldn't you say? Have you buried your head so far that you can reconcile such a fact as pure coincidence? Seriously?

If you want to keep your head in the sand I'm happy not to mention the compelling facts about Larry's decision.

History is generally accepted as facts proven. Newspaper reports are generally regarded among the more reliable forms of recording history. You disagree?

 

[evo]

"Honest research" perhaps, but if you submitted that as an essay in a first year history course at university, you'd fail. The lecturer's comments would read thusly - "you have strung together a series of unrelated events from a set of mostly secondary sources. Your essay lacks any coherent narrative and the conclusions you draw seem unrelated to any argument made in the body of the text. Writing history is not the same as writing a laundry list. Suggest transferring to creative a writing course, but please address your confusion over the use of apostrophes."

Heh.

PRE really needs a like button.

 

[AngryAnt]

More fantastic irony. Cheers ant.

You must have really studied the essay hard to have reached all those conclusions. Good on you.

I studied it about as hard as it merited study. I used to teach at university so you get pretty good at assessing merit pretty quickly.

No. Can you show me a site that details all the controlled demolitions performed during the 90's and what method was used? Did my point about not being too obvious go straight over your head?

Actually, there are quite a few sites detailing the history of controlled demolition. http://www.implosionworld.com/industryhistory.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition

Unfortunately I can't find any sites that detail "the history of surreptitious controlled demolition".

The collapses resemble controlled demolition to many experts. The method seems rather irrelevant to the appearance.

They resembled controlled demolition in the sense that the buildings fell down. Not in many other ways. Of course, it was all part of the cunning plan that they looked different to other controlled demolitions because that would have been just too obvious if Larry was photographed next to a large pushdown detonator from Acme Co. like Wile E Coyote.

You admit Jones' theories aren't disproven? Progress! :clap

Only in the sense that the magical thermite fairy theory isn't disproven either. Have you got any evidence that contradicts my theory that magical fairies installed magical thermite dust the midnight before the buildings came down?

The missiles on the roof would prove Bush was worried provided that wasn't standard procedure wouldn't you say? Have you buried your head so far that you can reconcile such a fact as pure coincidence? Seriously?

I have no historical data on when and where Bush kept his bazookas, so I can't really comment. Would have been a great headline though - "President shoots down plane load of civilian passengers and a few terrorists". I could imagine Arnie doing it as governor of California, would have made a great movie.

If you want to keep your head in the sand I'm happy not to mention the compelling facts about Larry's decision.

Larry's decision to go to breakfast across town? Perhaps he heard they made a nice Eggs Benedict.

History is generally accepted as facts proven. Newspaper reports are generally regarded among the more reliable forms of recording history. You disagree?

Sure do. For example, there were a lot of newspaper reports at the time that told me that a bunch of terrorists flew planes into WTC in the service of OBL. In fact, these sorts of stories filled the newspapers for weeks and months. On the other hand, I couldn't find any newspaper reports stating that the WTC were demolished with thermite, or that George and Larry rigged the whole thing.

Funny that, I guess your faith in newspaper reports is misplaced.

 

[tigertim]

Also fact is that Larry paid way over the odds for buildings his buddy wanted to demolish despite his other buddy having warnings coming at him from all angles suggesting the same buildings were the target of an imminent terrorist attack. Not to mention Larry didn't have breakky at his usual place on 9/11.

Seriously dude? You,re taking pish aren't you?

 

[evo]

I'd certainly cross town for a good Eggs Benedict.