911 Truth Movement

[poppa x]

This is the first time I'm looking forward to the NAB cup.

We can then get back to discussing what's important.

Sorry to deflect.

 

[tigertim]

any chance that there are levels of power above the presidency?

Again, throwing out questions. What research have u found that proves "power above the president" is stopping ANYONE from coming forward with PROOF?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

any chance that there are levels of power above the presidency?

There are constitutionally declared separate powers. However, I realise that wasn't your point.

For argument's sake, if there are over-arching grand powers hidden behind a cloak of secrecy, how do you know anything about them?

This is what I find interesting about the conspiracy theorist...they claim to KNOW and that everyone else is deluded and drinking the party-line Kool-Aid, when in fact I may suspect foul play, but in the absence of any evidence to support such a suspicion, it is just that, a suspicion. A basic knowledge of human psychology would suggest drawing conclusions from such a thing foolish, at best. In the absence of any positive, firm evidence to suggest foul play and plenty of evidence to support the main tenets of the OR, I know which way I would lean. If new, plausible evidence were to crop up, that could change.

 

[Rosy]

This is the first time I'm looking forward to the NAB cup.

We can then get back to discussing what's important.

Sorry to deflect.

Glad you were still interested enough to drop by poppa.

 

[tigertim]

And Harry. What's your opinion on what REALLY happened at the Pentagon?

 

[poppa x]

Glad to be of assistance Rosy.

I reckon Cotch and Newy would back the Official Line on 9/11.
and Dan Conners would be on the conspiracy side of the argument.
and if Jacko was one one of the pilots, he'd have missed the building.

 

[Harry]

This is what I find interesting about the conspiracy theorist...they claim to KNOW and that everyone else is deluded and drinking the party-line Kool-Aid,

no-one here has claimed they know. I've thrown up some possibilities when asked who could be behind it. Never said it's fact and that everyone else is deluded. On the flip side people raising questions of possible conspiracy have been labelled crackpots.

there is heaps of evidence out there and the only way to prove and disprove it is through a proper investigation.

 

[Baloo]

This is the first time I'm looking forward to the NAB cup.

We can then get back to discussing what's important.

Sorry to deflect.

If you're bored there are still a couple of unanswered questions for you on the ALeague thread.

 

[Harry]

And Harry. What's your opinion on what REALLY happened at the Pentagon?

no idea, but there is much more to it than what the OR is telling us. I'd only be speculating.

 

[Harry]

This is the first time I'm looking forward to the NAB cup.

We can then get back to discussing what's important.

Sorry to deflect.

yeah hurry up NAB cup

 

[tigertim]

no idea, but there is much more to it than what the OR is telling us. I'd only be speculating.

Speculate? That's all the theorist does is speculate! So go on, speculate.

 

[Harry]

Speculate? That's all the theorist does is speculate! So go on, speculate.

again, have no idea. but from a bozo's point of view, it appears impossible that a commercial plane could do that sort of damage.

explain to me in your own words what pierced through 6 levels of concrete walls and left a neat hole.

 

[AngryAnt]

It also opens a massive can of worms. How do you begin to apologise for killing so many civilians during a war based on a lie?

Of course not, but it's yet another oddity and contradiction.

People behave differently during traumatic events. Not odd. Even if it was, where is the "contradiction"?

 

[Rosy]

again, have no idea. but from a bozo's point of view, it appears impossible that a commercial plane could do that sort of damage.

explain to me in your own words what pierced through 6 levels of concrete walls and left a neat hole.

Could you please explain, in your own words, what did it? Was a commercial plane involved at all or was the photographic evidence suggesting that was the case forged?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

no-one here has claimed they know. I've thrown up some possibilities when asked who could be behind it. Never said it's fact and that everyone else is deluded. On the flip side people raising questions of possible conspiracy have been labelled crackpots.

there is heaps of evidence out there and the only way to prove and disprove it is through a proper investigation.

Yet you claim that you know (in your bozo opinion that it couldn't be caused by a plane. Why not? Do you have expertise in that area? What about Rosy's image of airliner debris? Planted? Photoshopped?

Both you and the Duckman have claimed that all you are after is a proper investigation and that you aren't advocating a conspiracy, but almost all of your posts imply a conspiracy (without firm evidence to back it up). How else are we expected to interpret your claims that a plane couldn't have caused the damage to the Pentagon, or Disco's suspicions on the actions on Bush and Cheney before 9-11 that allowed it to occur. These all imply a massive conspiracy, despite your protestations. Plenty has been said that weigh heavily against such a conspiracy. Hence, their outright dismissal by many on this thread.

Sure, some of the actions of the U.S. Government that allowed such a thing to happen (through lax security and intelligence) and some of their actions after the fact to reduce the appearance of incompetence are entirely plausible, but to suggest that they were actively involved or at least complicit is in the realms of the crackpot as there is nothing to support such a position.

 

[evo]

did the parallel universe open up on 911 and the impossible became possible for one day?

You posts in this thread indicate (to me at least)that you're not a particularly good judge on defining what is possible and what is impossible. At least when it comes to this particular event.

For example why do you take a small number of eyewitness accounts at the scene of WTC1,2 with soundbites strategically cut that testify they heard "explosions", but totally reject numerous eyewitness who swear they saw a plane hit the Pentagon?

I definitely not a structural engineer or pyscicist, so I don't exactly know what holes in large concrete building should look like when they are hit by planes, or how a building should 'pancake'. But I did study philosophy and psychology which is basically a training in how to think clearly. As Pantera said - and in my "expert" opinion ;D - you are exhibiting fairly classic signs of confirmation bias.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I would hazard a guess that it would be impossible. and that's the thing - we are being told to believe too many things that logic tells you could not and should not happen like 3 steel framed buildings collapsing from fire when no other steel framed building has collapsed ever, 2 planes disintegrating into nothing, a plane causing a piercing hole you'd expect from a bunker buster missile, 86 cameras at the pentagon not being able to capture one vision of the plane, most heavily guarded airspace in the world not intercepting 4 hijacked planes, the biggest terrorist act perpetrated by 19 middle class arabs and on and on. did the parallel universe open up on 911 and the impossible became possible for one day?

we can stand here all week, throwing up arguments, standing at the urinal arguing who's is bigger, but the facts remain that there are alot of unanswered questions and alot of evidence to warrant a proper independent investigation, not some circus act of which 6 of the 10 people involved with the OR said it was a farce.

Anyone can stand anywhere in our great wide brown land and say anything, it's one of the privileges of citizenship in a truly modern democracy. That does not make all statements of equal significance or equal weight. Some people have more authority when they speak, or act. I can ask a neurosurgeon about his thoughts on quantum physics, but he won't be speaking with the same authority as if I'd asked him about brain surgery wouldn't you agree? Two people who have opposing views aren't always equal just because there is an even number of them. It depends on the topic and the relative expertise of the people. It also depends on their history and where they studied, and many other factors.

You have admitted that you don't have the expertise to decipher the physics of building collapse and in the next breath you quote details that assume knowledge (steel frame buildings and fires etc). If you don't know, then the only thing you can say with any certainty is that you don't know. There is no harm in that. It is okay not to know things. It is a bit far-fetched however to conclude that because you don't know things, they are impossible.

 

[Disco08]

Where did you get the 2% number from, Duckman?

Even conceding 2% believe there is shenanghins afoot, big deal. I bet I could design a petition that said the Roswell aliens were real and get at least double that. FFS this is Americans we are talking about

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2154923/Half-Americans-believe-creationism-just-15-percent-accept-evolution.html

I don't understand why you find such a tiny number persuasive.

It's a small percentage, but not a small number. This is the God fearing, Bible loving, flag waving US of A. America, *smile* yeah. To sign a dissenting petition like this one which requires your name, occupation and qualification requires a decent step in the opposite direction to the rest of the herd. I know this is pure conjecture, but if you got a bunch of European engineers into one room and gave them a full rundown of the facts surrounding WTC7's collpase, what % do you reckon might accept the NIST report? I think you'd be lucky to match my 2%, which BTW is just a rough guess based on 2000/100000.

and you routinely ignore the mass of eyewitnesses which contradicts you opinion! Bit rich there old boy.

Such as? I try and reply to every point in every post directed at me, even though at times they come 20 deep with 4 or 5 of you on the attack while I'm trying to make coffees at the same time. ;D I'd be very interested to see these points/posts I've ignored Tim. I'll also try and address them if you can quote them for me.

I've only bothered to do some research on your more ludicrous "facts". Upside down book, second plane wasn't a passenger plane, black boxes found but hidden, aircraft debris and human remans 8 miles away, WTC was blown up by explosives.

Basically any fact that lends itself to proof that there was a great mastermind who planned and executed 911 from within the US Government that despite requiring multi-agency cooperation, international media outlets and local authorities remains still unproven are the facts I have bothered to research. The premise that this was a US Givernment led and conceived event is just *smile* ridiculous and deserves derision.

So far none of those have proved to have an substance to them. That's not the OR's fault, nor mine.

If the argument was that the US Government has worked to cover up its failings and the failings of the President before, during and after the event, I reckon this thread would be like the Lance Armstrong thread where everyone is in violent agreement. But its not. You and Harry are claiming something totally different and as believable as ID.

There you go again. How's that search for a credible expert who supports ID going?

Why you cared about the upside down book is beyond me. Like I said, it makes no point and was a throw away line. What is solid evidence though is Bush's response. Do you have any thoughts about this?

I think the removal of commercial pilots' ability to defend themselves adequately and the change in shootdown protocal to make he and Cheney the sole people able to stop the incoming attacks is very pertinent in regard to Bush's response. Any sane person, with the knowledge that only they and one other person could stop further attacks (without knowledge of what was happening he couldn't have had any idea how many more planes might have been heading towards targets or how many had already been intercepted by F-16's awaiting the green light to bring them down, especially given he'd already stated he knew the first plane had already crashed into WTC1) would have moved as quickly as possible to get in a position to do just that. As it was, Bush sat motionless (some psychologsts and eyewitnesses say looking very nervous) for nearly half an hour.

I'd love to see a rational explanation of this evidence. This isn't a rhetorical question. I've thought about it but can't imagine one.

It's a little more substantial than an upside down book wouldn't you say?

Flight 93 debris fields debunked by you? No way. Not even close. Barry Jennings' testimony of multiple explosions within WTC7 before either tower collapsed debunked by you? Again, not even close. Finally the gray planes theory. All I asked was a good photo that disproved it as it's obviously a very outlandish theory that would change everything if proven. You didn't provide one though, I found that on my own.

If Bush and his government had decided that a terrorist attack would be a good way to go to war against Afghanistan (for a start) a la Northwoods then this was the perfect chance. All these countries are warning them of the attack. They know it's coming. All they have to do is make sure it succeeds and off they go. They certainly jumped at the chance quite enthusiatically, didn't they? Didn't take them long to have the terrorists' profiles and a fake Bin Laden confession up to parade in front of the hysterical masses did it?

The problem was it was a foolish plan that had no chance of succeeding. Box cutters against pistols? Yeah right. Hijacked 767's flown by rookie pilots against F-16's with a state of the art defense force on full alert and able to think for itself? Sure. Hijackers able to check into flights with false names if the Bin Laden taskforce had been tracking them because of their suspicious activity leading up to 9/11? I don't think so. Those 4 facts alone are a smoking gun. Not an upside down book. Heaps of forewarning was made from other countries regarding an impending Al Qaeda terrorist attack using hijacked commercial airliners. As a response to that (and with that knowledge in mind) Bush's administration dismantles the Al Qaeda taskforce, removes commercial pilots' ability to defend themselves in a hijack situation and removes the defense force's ability to act appropriately and autonomously to such a threat. Again, this is the type of evidence that deserves debate here. I'm willing to be convinced as to why this was a reasonable response but you guys have yet to offer anything even remotely compelling in its defense.

Maybe ask Disco, he now believes a plane crashed here whereas 3 days ago he didn't,.

Really? Care to try and back that up Tim?

Disco has 'watched a lot of episodes of Air Crash Investigations'? Come on, fair dinkum.

That was a throw away line in response to an absurd suggestion by KR. Disingenuous much snakey?

Sorry, so the opposition, Obama and any others won't out Bush because they don't want to apologise for killing so many civilians and going to war?

Seriously? Obama and many others wouldn't want to uncover the biggest cover up in history because its too hard and embarrassing and might put himself in a pickle?

Wouldn't ant potential president want to uncover this cover up and guarantee himself presidency?

The greatest atrocity is the civilians (and even the soldiers) killed in the name of the war on terror that they started by delberately allowing these attacks to succeed. The US would never recover from that.

That's assuming if it was a cover up all the evidence wasn't destroyed. They didn't need too many powerful conspiritors to enact the scenario I outlined above and to pervert the course of justice afterwards. Keeping the physical evidence hidden wouldn't be any more difficult than keeping the Northwoods documentation hidden.

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck...

WTC7, Bush and Cheney say "Hi!".

You are still trying to set up a false dichotomy here. For and against, them and us. It's simplistic to try to frame everything as black and white. It might suit your purposes but it doesn't describe reality. I don't find anything substantive in the "eyewitness" testimony you claim (source?) or the "experts" (in what exactly?). The fact that so many of the things you have used as proof have been discredited by me, and Baloo and others is now on record. That is simply done to make sure that informed debate can happen without the use of falsehoods and conjecture. I have not advocated for the OR, you have advocated against it so I have tested your evidence. If you wish to continue to believe something after many of its postulates have been disproved is your prerogative.

Sure a coincidence might have greater meaning, but it might not. And nothing you have presented has lifted it above the realm of supposition IMO.

Just like Baloo, what have you disproved/discredited? Black boxes not found? Fair enough, like I said I should have brushed up before posting. What about the fact that so much of their evidence is being suppressed?

BTW, talking of false dichotemies, I've never said any of this evidence proves US complicity. I've only ever said it demands that a proper investigation be undertaken. You know that I'm sure.

If you can't see that jumping to the defense of the OR every step of the way is in fact defending it, we need to rethink our use of the word "defend".

Both you and the Duckman have claimed that all you are after is a proper investigation and that you aren't advocating a conspiracy, but almost all of your posts imply a conspiracy (without firm evidence to back it up). How else are we expected to interpret your claims that a plane couldn't have caused the damage to the Pentagon, or Disco's suspicions on the actions on Bush and Cheney before 9-11 that allowed it to occur. These all imply a massive conspiracy, despite your protestations.

Yes they do. The difference is I'm willing to accept that there might be a reasonable explanation for it (any ideas? I gave you the list of evidence you asked you a few days ago and you haven't acknowledged it which isn't like you) and the best way to find the truth is through thorough independent investigation. Don't you agree? Don't you agree with Noam Chomsky that the US reaction was severely bungled and that if it wasn't the attacks could possibly have been thwarted? If you do, why is it you wouldn't support an investigation into these facts? Just because it makes the conspiracy nutcases happy?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Yes they do. The difference is I'm willing to accept that there might be a reasonable explanation for it (any ideas? I gave you the list of evidence you asked you a few days ago and you haven't acknowledged it which isn't like you) and the best way to find the truth is through thorough independent investigation. Don't you agree? Don't you agree with Noam Chomsky that the US reaction was severely bungled and that if it wasn't the attacks could possibly have been thwarted? If you do, why is it you wouldn't support an investigation into these facts? Just because it makes the conspiracy nutcases happy?

You aren't insinuating bungling in isolation though. As you admit, you are insinuating a massive conspiracy. You shift the goal posts in a single paragraph - (You say that they insinuate a conspiracy and then ask if I agree with Chomsky - 2 very different things). Like I said in my previous post, I wouldn't be surprised if the US government bungled in its failure to prevent the events of 9/11, nor in their attempts to minimise their appearance of ineptitude after the fact (also Chomsky's position). You are pointing out 'evidence' of a conspiracy. I just don't see it.

No, I don't support an investigation, because I haven't seen one shred of hard evidence to justify the massive expense of such a thing. You have pointed out hearsay, innuendo, coincidence and circumstantial evidence, but not one shred of incriminating evidence. In the absence of such evidence, how do you justify such a stance - I know you value such things.

 

[Tigers of Old]

What benefit was there of Bush and his team murdering thousands of innocent civilians? How are they benefitting from this now?