911 Truth Movement

[KnightersRevenge]

Pretty fair. Once you cut through all the chaff, all you really have left is the litany of uncertainty, poor communication, confusion over who had authority to respond, and poor process that we saw in the FAA, law-enforcement, and NORAD's response on 9/11.

Where you see "complicity" I see the reality of people and systems failing to respond adequately to a complex situation.

I wonder if there was a market "plunge" on citilink the day before their whole system cracked up and gridlocked Melbourne for an entire day last year? Or did a group of people just fail to cope with and respond to an unforeseen attack on their system? Complicity or just a failure of leadership under fire?

 

[AngryAnt]

I'd say there's some arguments there that prove fairly conclusively the NORAD lied about events on 9/11. Do you agree?

Most of the "arguments" are based on the usual 911 myths and half truths so hard to judge from the information presented. The article does do a good job of presenting the very complex chains of events and communications failures that occurred. Unfortunately if you are a Truther this tends to support the official version - the FAA, local law enforcement agencies and NORAD could not really get their act together in time to intercept the aircraft.

So no surprises in there for me. Are we trying for 150 pages?

 

[Disco08]

Not really concerned with the number of pages mate.

What did you think of the discrepencies of the times NORAD reported being told of the hijackings compared to the FAA and ATC testimony?

 

[AngryAnt]

Not really concerned with the number of pages mate.

What did you think of the discrepencies of the times NORAD reported being told of the hijackings compared to the FAA and ATC testimony?

Not much

 

[Disco08]

Really?

 

[Leysy Days]

Dare say one thing this thread proves to everyone, if you dont want the circles to go forever its far better to have a debate with Disco where you know there will an outcome.

That's the one way to nail it down, prove your point and show you were correct. You guys have got no chance on a topic like this. ;D

 

[AngryAnt]

Leysey is right of course, because for Truthers

1. Conjecture=evidence of conspiracy oops sorry "complicity",
2. Evidence that contradicts the conspiracy complicity theory = doctored or planted evidence = evidence of conspiracy complicity
3. No evidence = deliberate destruction of evidence was destroyed = evidence of the conspiracy hitherto aforementioned

 

[poppa x]

Thank God the footy starts tonight.
Or is this just a rumour that can't be proved?

 

[Disco08]

Leysey is right of course, because for Truthers

1. Conjecture=evidence of conspiracy oops sorry "complicity",
2. Evidence that contradicts the conspiracy complicity theory = doctored or planted evidence = evidence of conspiracy complicity
3. No evidence = deliberate destruction of evidence was destroyed = evidence of the conspiracy hitherto aforementioned

1. Never said that. Conjecture is conjecture and mature adults should be able to discuss it a such without getting petulant.
2. Can you name some examples of evidence that contradicts the complicity theory?
3. Deliberate destruction of evidence = deliberate destruction of evidence. That's one of the main reasons so many people support re-investigation.

 

[AngryAnt]

mature adults

Lost me right there

 

[Disco08]

It's not that complex.

 

[AngryAnt]

This is relevant to my interests and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter

 

[Disco08]

Anyone with an open mind should find this essay extremely interesting and well researched. The youtube video is good if you don't want to read all 59 pages and references.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/Collateral-Damage-911-black_eagle_fund_trust.pdf

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=black+eagle+trust+fund+debunked&oq=black+eagle+trust+fund+debunked&gs_l=hp.3...13716.17115.1.17512.13.12.1.0.0.9.287.3037.2-12.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.4.psy-ab.CK9jBGvFdls&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42965579,d.dGI&fp=308f516791364cba&biw=1366&bih=592

[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk[/youtube]

 

[AngryAnt]

Anyone with an open mind should find this essay extremely interesting and well researched. The youtube video is good if you don't want to read all 59 pages

Anyone who has an open mind, is mature and civilised, never petulant, and incredibly rational. Just like Disco.

 

[Disco08]

Touchy. Especially for someone who enjoys dishing it out as much as you seem to.

 

[AngryAnt]

Touchy. Especially for someone who enjoys dishing it out as much as you seem to.

Bro, I ain't even touched yet!

I skimmed through your article though. The main thing I took home from it is that the author has profound confusion about the use of of the apostrophe of possession/apostrophe of abbreviation.

 

[Disco08]

That's a shame. When you actually take in what's being said it's very interesting.

 

[AngryAnt]

I'm sure it is interesting.

So, I'm guessing by describing it as "well-researched", you mean it has a list of references at the end.

 

[Disco08]

Yeah. Where a point is made there's a source which consistently seems to provide the evidence being implied.

 

[AngryAnt]

Yeah. Where a point is made there's a source which consistently seems to provide the evidence being implied.

oh... so like any good scholar you went and read the original sources to verify that the quotations/paraphrasings were correct? Were they mostly primary or secondary sources? How reliable were the sources in and of themselves?