-
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:
Definately not the only one, it'd be safe to say I'd be in the majority. But what would a fantasy totally candid honest inquiry expose? If there is a conspiracy, it would expose a conspiracy. If there wasn't a conspiracy, it would'nt expose anything we don't already know. Thats the crux. And as Noam Chomsky has said, there is no convincing motive or any evidence of a conspiracy. And there is plenty of evidence that is was an act of terrorism.
I should be a clairvoyant because I know exactly what you're going to say next Disco.
Disco08 said:
Only in your bizzarro world does anyone who objects to an the idea that Larry was in on the conspiracy become guilty of asserting a conspiracy. The whole point is that we are rejecting the possibility of such a conspiracy being possible.
Of all the chicanery and mental gymnastics you've thrown up in this thread, this is surely the most absurd. I'd be ashamed to be associated with such a mentally dishonest approach, personally, but intellectually ethical argument doesn't seem to fly in the "further" camp.
Disco08 said:
As my last post stated, I'm talking about your "conjecturing" about Larry S demolishing buildings and killing 3000 people after being tipped off by Bush Cheney and Rice who knew exactly when the planes would strike so he could wire up the buildings without anyone noticing and have the demo team murdered by a death squad. Just to claim the insurance on the buildings he just managed to purchase two months or so before.
These are all things you've "conjectured", and to me they sound like you've proposed a massive, complex, impractical, improbable conspiracy.
Now pay close attention Disco. These are your conjectures. Not mine. The massive ornate conspiracy is your assertion. Not mine. I happen to think it's totally wackjob BS.
So just to be very clear, I am not proposing a massive conspiracy. That would be your role in this little farce. I believe the explanation is much, much simpler.
Just in case you still don't get it, you are the proponent of mad conspiracy theories. Not me. Just because you dress them up as conjecture doesn't change their origin - ie you - or their implication.
Now I'm off to the soccer, a simple form of entertainment, where I won't have to deal with pedantic, arse-about sophistry with a man who clearly could persuade himself that the moon is made of stolen evidence in the form of steel girders flown up in Leisure Suit Larry's private Lear jet.
antman said:
Your last post clearly stated you are rejecting the possibility of a conspiracy. I already knew that and I thought you must have known that too.
My point again is that I most certainly have discussed your assertion that any argument for complicity requires a massive conspiracy despite your accusation that that's something I refuse to do.
antman said:
Realise all that too ant. Of course I disagree that complicity necessarily requires a massive, ornate or complex conspiracy but you know that.
antman said:
I'm not proposing a massive conspiracy either ant. I'm proposing the possibility of a fairly simple conspiracy. See the two blatant distinctions there?
I don't see how the official narrative is simple at all. Can you explain that a little more?
A couple of days ago we were having a decent discussion about Larry's possible involvement. Despite the insulting nature of your posts we were able to focus mainly on the facts. Here's where we were up to if you ever feel like continuing in a more mature and civilised manner.
http://puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=47559.msg1535939#msg1535939
Fairly simple conspiracy ?
The US Gov came to know of the date and type of terrorist attack planned. They changed laws and regulations to ensure the attack on their own civilians worked. They helped ensure the WTC and their own Pentagon were hi by commercial aircraft. Bush the went to Florida were his brother declared martial law to ensure Bush's safety when it all went down
You've said many times that's what you believe. Do you consider the above a fairly simple conspiracy ?
The US Gov came to know of the date and type of terrorist attack planned. They changed laws and regulations to ensure the attack on their own civilians worked. They helped ensure the WTC and their own Pentagon were hi by commercial aircraft. Bush the went to Florida were his brother declared martial law to ensure Bush's safety when it all went down
You've said many times that's what you believe. Do you consider the above a fairly simple conspiracy ?
Yep. Why isn't it?
BTW where have I said anything definitive about Jeb's weird orders?
If you were clairvoyant you probably wouldn't keep saying you're quitting the thread. :hihi
The goal of a proper inquiry is to expose as much of the truth as possible. Basically the opposite of the 9/11 commission.
What evidence is there that the US government certainly wasn't complicit?
Here's my list of evidence that supports the possibility/motive/precedent of complicity.
A multitude of specific warnings that al Qaeda terrorists were inside the US and that they were planning on flying hijacked planes into buildings such as the Pentagon and WTC. All completely ignored by the US administration.
Actions taken by the US administration to actually make it easer for such an attack to succeed.
Reactions on 9/11 which were completely anomalous that helped allow the attacks to succeed.
The complete and utter removal, suppression and destruction of vast sources of evidence.
The complete abandonment of standard procedure.
The resistance to investigate the murder of 3000 people.
The rigging of the inquiry that occurred due to immense public pressure.
The failure of the US administration to cooperate with the inquiry.
The absolute inadequacy of the OR.
The historical precedent for US administrations to contemplate faked attacks on its own citizens.
The historical precedent for the US to manipulate/create events as a platform for war.
The historical precedent for the US to use preemptive conflicts.
The documented objective of the Bush regime to gain military control of Iraq.
The documented massive gains to powerful individuals when the US is at war.
The documented anomalous trading on AA and UAL prior to 9/11.
BTW where have I said anything definitive about Jeb's weird orders?
tigersnake said:
If you were clairvoyant you probably wouldn't keep saying you're quitting the thread. :hihi
The goal of a proper inquiry is to expose as much of the truth as possible. Basically the opposite of the 9/11 commission.
What evidence is there that the US government certainly wasn't complicit?
Here's my list of evidence that supports the possibility/motive/precedent of complicity.
A multitude of specific warnings that al Qaeda terrorists were inside the US and that they were planning on flying hijacked planes into buildings such as the Pentagon and WTC. All completely ignored by the US administration.
Actions taken by the US administration to actually make it easer for such an attack to succeed.
Reactions on 9/11 which were completely anomalous that helped allow the attacks to succeed.
The complete and utter removal, suppression and destruction of vast sources of evidence.
The complete abandonment of standard procedure.
The resistance to investigate the murder of 3000 people.
The rigging of the inquiry that occurred due to immense public pressure.
The failure of the US administration to cooperate with the inquiry.
The absolute inadequacy of the OR.
The historical precedent for US administrations to contemplate faked attacks on its own citizens.
The historical precedent for the US to manipulate/create events as a platform for war.
The historical precedent for the US to use preemptive conflicts.
The documented objective of the Bush regime to gain military control of Iraq.
The documented massive gains to powerful individuals when the US is at war.
The documented anomalous trading on AA and UAL prior to 9/11.
They changed laws according to you, not just ignore the information.
But the point stands, an agency and it's operatives & analysts would have gathered the detailed, pinpoint information. People sworn to serve their country. You don't think anyone involved in the detailed intelligence gathering which forewarned of the exact date, location and type of terrorist attack would have said anything then or later ?
But the point stands, an agency and it's operatives & analysts would have gathered the detailed, pinpoint information. People sworn to serve their country. You don't think anyone involved in the detailed intelligence gathering which forewarned of the exact date, location and type of terrorist attack would have said anything then or later ?
Disco08 said:
Yes, I know you don't think it's a stretch. My question was you don't think agencies, operatives and everyone involved in the detailed intelligence gathering which forewarned of the exact date, location and type of terrorist attack would have said anything then or later ?
Disco08 said:
Sorry, had enough of self-righteous truther-babble for a few days so I'll pass. I might check back in in a few days if I can BF. In the meantime enjoy trying to convince yourself that everyone else is irrational on this issue except you. Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot Harry.
Disco08 said:
I think it's a stretch. Not one whistleblower from the conspirators. They watch over 2500 of their countryman die, watch them jump from burning towers, burn, get crushed and suffer horrific deaths and not one single person involved feels some sort of guilt? Ten years later and they can all still live with it? They are all either crazed patriots or dead I suppose?
And If al Qaeda or other anti-american groups were aware that the US had prior knowledge and were actually involved in the attacks you don't think they wouldn't be trumpeting this from the rooftops? OBL/al Qaeda would have relished releasing that bit of propoganda, it would be more damaging to the US than any terrorist attacks could ever cause.
Was there some sort of coverup - most likely, getting rid of a lot of the physical evidence indicates that but I think the truthers fail to acknowledge the number of unlikely assumptions they need to make to have some sort of conspiracy story stick.
