911 Truth Movement

[Baloo]

Yeah, the fact his book was the right way up changes everything. FWIW, I'm trying to make my point without googlng every detail. I'm happy to be corrected too.

Now, Baloo. Can you please explain to me how doubting the official narrative and supporting the push for a proper investigation makes me a conspiracist.

Changes everything. It was a) the right way up and b) a different day. I now need to double check all these facts you've posted to see if they are as factually correct as the book fact. But I don't have the time so I just need to assume its all made up.

The alternative to what happened is that the Global Overseers of Doom masterminded everything. If you don't believe the the mainstream report then you're believing there is a conspiracy. Or is there a 3rd alternative ?

 

[Disco08]

I'm happy for you to make that assumption. I'd rather have this discussion with someone prepared to take it seriously anyway.

FWIW, if a fully funded independent inquiry found that Al Qaeda was wholly responsible for every detal of 9/11 I'd accept it. As long as that process is denied for no apparent reason other than to hide the true facts I'll keep supporting the TM.

 

[TigerForce]

Geez I wonder how those sheep-headed Lance Armstrong followers feel now.........

 

[Baloo]

I'm happy for you to make that assumption. I'd rather have this discussion with someone prepared to take it seriously anyway.

That's good.

FWIW I did take it seriously but when you said that the power brokers / rich families / etc were probably behind it I gave up. There is no way I can debate that when there is no proof they exist.

The debunking URL I posted before covers every topic of WTC so all I'd be doing from here on is cutting and pasting from that site which would be futile really. If anyone is interested in the rebuttal of the conspiracist facts, they are there.

 

[Disco08]

Do they give a reason as to why Bush only spent $15M investigating all aspects of the attacks and aftermath? Do they give a reason for Bush and Cheney's refusal to be interviewed in the standard manner?

Why base your opinion on one site? What if the debunking has been debunked? Do you even consider that or look for it?

 

[Baloo]

Do they give a reason as to why Bush only spent $15M investigating all aspects of the attacks and aftermath? Do they give a reason for Bush and Cheney's refusal to be interviewed in the standard manner?

Dunno. As someone who demands answers I would have thought you'll have read the debunking sites as well before taking this stance that you have.

Why base your opinion on one site? What if the debunking has been debunked? Do you even consider that or look for it?

I don't, as you well know. All my links when I was taking the debate seriously were from Wikipedia, an independent reference site. But now that I've stopped really caring, I'll just refer to the debunking site if anyone asks me. Though that's not entirely true. When I debunked the upside book I just typed "bush upside down 911" in to google and had the answer instantly.

 

[Baloo]

Just for laughs I typed "911 investigation costs 911" into google. Look what the first hit came up with

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Comparing_costs

Looks like there is a fair bit more than 15mill, by why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

 

[tigertim]

From my personal point of view, the most suspicious uncontested facts/actions are:

Bush was in Florida on 9/11. Four days previous, Jeb his brother and governor of the state enacted executive order 01-261 placing Florida in a state of martial law. I've read debunking efforts of this fact but they don't change the fact that had Bush been caught out (assuming he was comlicit) he would have faced trial by the Florida National Guard and not the usual process.

At the time Bush is told of the attacks he sits in a classroom with 16 children listening to a story, holding his book upside down. He stayed there for over 20 minutes when his constitutional duty was to command the defense of his country. As one of only two people able to authorise the shooting down of a hijacked plane (a law introduced only a month earlier) it was crucial he assume his post immediately.

At the time the attacks Cheney was in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center and was made aware of the plane being flown towards Washington when it was still at least 50 miles away. Eyewitness testimony from the Minister for Transport Norman Minetta states that during updates Cheney was asked "do the orders still stand?".

Bush took 441 days to authorise an investigation into the events of 9/11. He also enacted severe restrictions of the power given to investigators including allocating only $600k to the effort.

Bush refused to authorise an independent investigation.

Bush authorised the removal and destruction of all physical evidence from the twin towers before it could be forensically examined.

Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath before the commission. They also insisted that they be questioned together when they were specifically asked to interview alone, as is standard procedure. They also refused to allow recording or transcripts of their interviews.

Bush strongly opposed an investigation into the government's reaction to the attacks again in 2009.

Now, I'm not saying by any means that these facts prove anything. I do however think they demand further and proper investigation.

Why? Operation Northwoods was a proposed US government operation to fake terror attacks (using drone aircraft) against its own citizens to justify initiating a war against Cuba. That's fact. If that's a fact why is it such insanityto believe it might enact such a plan in 2001 when many of the facts surrounding the events suggest government complicity?

Are you a psychologist? Psychiatrist? Do you even know what classic psychologically imbalanced behaviour is?

I am not a psychologist but lovely wife is a Dr of psychology. Of course it's strange that you can throw up your diagnosis of one who laughs at others but demand a CV from me when I do. Interesting.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-narcissus-in-all-us/200809/paranoia-and-the-roots-conspiracy-theories

 

[tigertim]

Anyway, I don't wish to try and convince of the blatantly obvious and you're obviously entitled to believe whatever you so desire. Enjoy.

 

[AngryAnt]

I'm all for scepticism, just find most conspiracies are implausible. The scenario you posit has a few assumptions built in, like the idea of a well co-ordinated attack and central authority. Could be they got lucky, may have expected one or none of them to get to their target.

One plane didn't reach its target, Flight 93. Of course, there is a conspiracy theory to explain this as well.

Its kind of cool really - evidence supporting the conspiracy is evidence supporting the conspiracy. Evidence against the conspiracy is part of the conspiracy, BECAUSE THE CONSPIRACY IS DAMN CLEVER.

 

[Disco08]

That's flight 93 which supposedly crashed yet parts of it were found up to 8 miles away? Killing passengers on this flight is no difference to killing passengers on the other flights. It obviously wouldn't bother the concience of people capable of killing or at least justifying the death of thousands anyway.

Dunno. As someone who demands answers I would have thought you'll have read the debunking sites as well before taking this stance that you have.

I don't, as you well know. All my links when I was taking the debate seriously were from Wikipedia, an independent reference site. But now that I've stopped really caring, I'll just refer to the debunking site if anyone asks me. Though that's not entirely true. When I debunked the upside book I just typed "bush upside down 911" in to google and had the answer instantly.

I've spent some time looking for any reasoning on why the commission was so poorly funded and why Bush and Cheney refused to cooperate fully with their investigation. I couldn't find anything.

If you don't care, why are you still discussing it?

Wiki is obliged to present the official narrative as the true version of events.

I am not a psychologist but lovely wife is a Dr of psychology. Of course it's strange that you can throw up your diagnosis of one who laughs at others but demand a CV from me when I do. Interesting.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-narcissus-in-all-us/200809/paranoia-and-the-roots-conspiracy-theories

Pretty poor analysis if you ask me. Assumptions much?

All I did was call your attitude arrogant and classically apologist. You suggested millions of people are psychologically imbalanced because of their beliefs regarding 9/11.

Anyway, I don't wish to try and convince of the blatantly obvious and you're obviously entitled to believe whatever you so desire. Enjoy.

If it was blatantly obvious there'd be no argument. In fact if it was all so obvious you might have even answered when I asked for some footage that proves inconclusively that 9/11 was a terrorist attack. I'd settle for video or even a good photo of flight 77. It, after all, flew right through some of the most protected airspace in the world and US defence forces were tracking it for its last 50 miles. Surely someone thought to get some footage, right?

 

[Baloo]

If you don't care, why are you still discussing it?

Because you keep asking me questions so I'm being polite.

 

[Disco08]

How'd you go with Bush and Cheney's interview demands?

Just for laughs I typed "911 investigation costs 911" into google. Look what the first hit came up with

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Comparing_costs

Looks like there is a fair bit more than 15mill, by why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

The major point seems to be the money spent on FBI wages. How much investigation do you think they did into the government repsonse or the reports of explosions inside WTC7 (for example)? Those hours represent the FBI chasing terrorists, not investigating the events and evidence of 9/11. Similarly, NIST's spending is used to try and make a point but their focus was purely on explaining how the buildings collapsed.

 

[Baloo]

How'd you go with Bush and Cheney's interview demands?

You seriously want me to stay in this debate that badly?

The major point seems to be the money spent on FBI wages. How much investigation do you think they did into the government repsonse or the reports of explosions inside WTC7 (for example)? Those hours represent the FBI chasing terrorists, not investigating the events and evidence of 9/11. Similarly, NIST's spending is used to try and make a point but their focus was purely on explaining how the buildings collapsed.

I don't know what more you want. I totally debunk one of your ascertains and then provide information that another of yours was wrong or at a minimum misleading. These are the only 2 I looked into. I really have no cause to keep debunking your claims Disco. It's pretty obvious you're blinding believing what you're reading on conspiracy sites, just like you're accusing us of doing with the official report sites.

The difference is your claiming that there is a GOD who created all of this despite any proof. We're saying prove it.

 

[tigersnake]

How'd you go with Bush and Cheney's interview demands?

I answered that pages ago, they would have made gooses of themselves. There were stuff-ups. And Then when the planes hit Bush bravely ran away, and the leadership generally ran around like headless chooks in the initial aftermath.

You still haven't really responded to Chomsky's analysis Disco Duck. I'll say it again:

1) one of the greatest intellects of our times,
2) has written scathing critiques of US government foreign policy and military interventions, to the point where he's had to hire bodyguards. Has been at times a pariah to the US establishment
3) has written what is acknowledged as some of the greatest analysis of the media and how it acts in concert with governments and big business to keep the masses dumb: 'Manufacturing Consent',

Chomsky is a fearless and brilliant political researcher and analyst, one of the best, if not the best. He never toes the party line, is about as far from an apologist as you could ever get, did I mention he has a brain the size of 100 PREs?

Mr Chomsky thinks there is no evidence for a conspiracy, and the idea, even without evidence, is implausable. He thinks that there were a lot of stuff ups though.

 

[Disco08]

You seriously want me to stay in this debate that badly?

Not at all. I just thought you were being polite so I'd ask again. Seems you'll do anything to avoid answering a question not covered by debunkers eh? Here's another one you can avoid - why did Bush allow all the material evidence of WTC1, 2 & 7 to be removed, shipped overseas and destroyed before it could be examined?

I don't know what more you want. I totally debunk one of your ascertains and then provide information that another of yours was wrong or at a minimum misleading. These are the only 2 I looked into. I really have no cause to keep debunking your claims Disco. It's pretty obvious you're blinding believing what you're reading on conspiracy sites, just like you're accusing us of doing with the official report sites.

The difference is your claiming that there is a GOD who created all of this despite any proof. We're saying prove it.

That page totally debunks nothing. As I said, the FBI hours are meaningless in terms of investigating the way events unfolded on 9/11. You think given the massive failure of the interior defense (hamstrung or otherwise) there'd be massive funding on that aspect alone, no? $40M investigating Clinton's affair and $15M investigating the president and vice president's failure to do their constitutional duty.

Loving the new GOD thing you've come up with. It's nearly as good as your ID analogy.

 

[tigersnake]

Loving the new GOD thing you've come up with. It's nearly as good as your ID analogy.

The ID analogy was logically valid. a good one. It perfectly captured the point that you'll be able to dig up some 'experts' for any cause or theory. I find it odd you are so dogmatically resistant to the idea.

 

[Disco08]

It's a poor analogy which is flawed from every angle. I asked Baloo to name me one expert in their field that champions ID and hasn't been discredited. He hasn't answered but seeing you think it's a good, logical analogy perhaps you could answer for him.

I answered that pages ago, they would have made gooses of themselves. There were stuff-ups. And Then when the planes hit Bush bravely ran away.

You still haven't really responded to Chompsy's analysis Disco Duck. I'll say it again:

1) one of the greatest intellects of our times,
2) has written scathing critiques of US government foreign policy and military interventions, to the point where he's had to hire bodyguards. Has been at times a pariah to the US establishment
3) has written what is acknowledged as some of the greatest analysis of the media and how it acts in concert with governments and big business to keep the masses dumb: 'Manufacturing Consent',

Chomsky is a fearless and brilliant political researcher and analyst, one of the best, if not the best. He never toes the party line, is about as far from an apologist as you could ever get, did I mention he has a brain the size of 100 PREs?

Mr Chompsy thinks there is no evidence for a conspiracy, and the idea, even without evidence, is implausable. He thinks that there were a lot of stuff ups though.

The idea is clearly not implausable. The US government already had the idea to kill its own citizens to orchestrate war half a century ago. If you think there were stuff ups wouldn't that imply those same stuff ups could have been deliberate acts to allow the plot to succeed?

Your reasoning about Bush and Cheney seems pretty feeble to me. These actions have raised plenty of doubt about their actions and that was very predictable. People know dodgy when they see it. You can't tell me they risked that through fear of embarassment over their performance. Has either of them even admitted to being less than happy with the way they performed their duty on 9/11?

 

[Baloo]

That page totally debunks nothing.

I totally debunked the Bush holding a book upside down while being told the a plane had crashed into the WTC (btw, how do you know the US knew they were under attack at that point ?).

The second page is where the fact you're stating is wrong, or at least misleading. One investigation cost 15mill, but it wasnt the only investigation.

Also note, neither of those two pieces of information came from the debunking site I posted. They came from a google search.

 

[Disco08]

Bush holding the book upside down was a sidebar to a number of other points in the same post you've totally ignored. I already admitted error on that point as well but I'm sure you can harp on about it for a few more posts.

The commisson was the only investigation into the full scope of evidence surrounding 9/11. I've already explained why that page doesn't debunk that fact at all.