If smaller planes were substituted in the 9/11 attacks, than the lists of passengers on the purported commercial airlines are fictious or these planes simply vanished as no one can account for them. How can anyone perfer this explanation to the official version?
9/11 Attacks-- No planes say conspiracy theorists
by Kenneson 59 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
zen nudist
while the evidence is not easy to interpret, and seems to point to gross incompetance from the most technilogically advanced nation on earth rather than conspiracy...there are still lots of questions which have been ignored and avoided.
-
one_ugly_time
I could easily comment on how abbadon did call others liars with his rhetoric.
As you have said I called other liars, unless you were attacking my statement about Blair and Bush (which in context it is obvious you are not), it is you who are lying,
You are correct this is not the context. But understand, wordsmith, that I said I could comment on "how abbadon did call others liars"... With this statement, it is obvious to me that a) I didn't lie assuming I could still comment, b) I never said or implied you called anyone on this thread a liar. c) In essense, you are calling the conspiracy theorists liars.
It really doesn't matter to me if you do or don't believe this way or that way. However, denial is still one of the safest ways to survive a tragedy and all the ensuing emotions that following.
Many of the statements about not being able to comprehend a plane that large disintegrating are most likely true.
No, I am talking about comprehension, not belief.
So, whilst you may not like my style, it worked, along with what other people who were saying about the false claims made. I ridiculed the theory, and would have happily extended that to someone who was deceptive or senseless (as I did in my discussion with Lovestruth and Ianone on the same topic), but in this thread it was the theory I was bashing, which it richly deserved.
He has a right to his own opinion. He has no right to his own facts. His argument goes against established facts. It is therefore a false argument. And it does effect his credibility, as anyone incapable of doing the research to blow clap-trap like this out of the water were BLOODY luck to get out of a cult... and quite likely to fall victim to the first conman they meet...
Yep, sounds like I lied and you bashed the theory pretty good. Thanks for the nice response.
Rather than attacking the real conspiracies that destabilise this world and set-up problems for the furture, people waste their time in nonsense. This bugs me. Apparently it doesn't bug you.
I would love to hear about the "real conspiracies"... and review the facts
gambit
-
Abaddon
one_ugly_time
I could easily comment on how abbadon did call others liars with his rhetoric.
You are correct this is not the context. But understand, wordsmith, that I said I could comment on "how abbadon did call others liars"... With this statement, it is obvious to me that a) I didn't lie assuming I could still comment, b) I never said or implied you called anyone on this thread a liar.
As you have said I called other liars, unless you were attacking my statement about Blair and Bush (which in context it is obvious you are not), it is you who are lying,In my last post I said; "Will you take responsibilty for the reaction you get?". Thank you for clarifying this for me.
c) In essense, you are calling the conspiracy theorists liars.
I am saying they are disputing established facts and go into detail about techniques used by those who develop and push such theories. Most 'conspiracists' however are dupes, not liars. They've fallen victim to a con. Others know perfectly well it happend largely as per the official version but deny it anyway for other reasons.
Holocaust deniers, for example, are largely sincere dupes. They're not lying, they're mistaken. Some however, see holocaust denial as part of an agenda to gain more power and know it happened largely as per the offical version. They are lying.
It really doesn't matter to me if you do or don't believe this way or that way. However, denial is still one of the safest ways to survive a tragedy and all the ensuing emotions that following.
You are either saying that;
a/ it is understandable people dispute the 'standard version' of events as they are in denial, or
b/ that people dispute the conspiracy theories as they are in denial about what really happened
... please clarify what you mean.
Many of the statements about not being able to comprehend a plane that large disintegrating are most likely true.
No, I am talking about comprehension, not belief.
Being unable to comprehend the peak power output of a Saturn V's first stage is fine. This lack of comprehension doesn't drive many people to believe men didn't land on the moon. Lack of comprehension is a poor excuse for believing in nonsense when that nonsense is know by those believing it to be unusual and contraversial versions of events.
So, whilst you may not like my style, it worked, along with what other people who were saying about the false claims made. I ridiculed the theory, and would have happily extended that to someone who was deceptive or senseless (as I did in my discussion with Lovestruth and Ianone on the same topic), but in this thread it was the theory I was bashing, which it richly deserved.
He has a right to his own opinion. He has no right to his own facts. His argument goes against established facts. It is therefore a false argument. And it does effect his credibility, as anyone incapable of doing the research to blow clap-trap like this out of the water were BLOODY luck to get out of a cult... and quite likely to fall victim to the first conman they meet...
Yep, sounds like I lied and you bashed the theory pretty good. Thanks for the nice response.
Awwww, that is so sweet... I think you're trying to be sarcastic! Very good! No cigar.
Commenting on the implications of a person's argument is not a personal attack if the implications are realistic.
"You support abortion, so obviously are happy if people eat babies"
... is a personal attack, amongst other things.
"You believe in fairies, so obviously your judgement is in question"
... is a supported criticism (as there are definately no fairies).
Rather than attacking the real conspiracies that destabilise this world and set-up problems for the furture, people waste their time in nonsense. This bugs me. Apparently it doesn't bug you.
I would love to hear about the "real conspiracies"... and review the facts
I've already given outline details and you're more than capable of doing the research yourself, although your sceptical little face makes me wonder why you'll even bother as you have already formed an opinion about something you apparently don't know about.
But, as an example of a conspiracy between public and private sector which was one of a half-dozen or so major signposts that set the Middle East on the path to the unstable condition it is in today, here's some information;
In 1953 Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, took power with the aid of the USA and UK secret services. This displaced the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadeq. Mossadeq had nationalised UK oil concessions that were taking 88% of the profit from Iranian oil, offering 25% instead.
The Shah was a Western supported human-rights violator, one of many that have been allowed to keep power because they are compliant to the wishes of their Western masters. His secret police were CIA supported and trained.
After 25 years the reigeme fell to Islamic fundamentalists; it is very unlikely there would have been a similar move to a theocratic totalistarian government after 25 years of democracy. The shift to a fundamental Islamic government can be seen as a direct result of Western meddling where government conspired with companies to keep profits high... no matter what the costs were later on.
Now, all this information is available on the net. If you're really interested in learning about it, fine. Please feel free to dispute any of the above facts I have given regarding Iran, obviously with supporting material.
-
one_ugly_time
I've already given outline details and you're more than capable of doing the research yourself, although your sceptical little face makes me wonder why you'll even bother as you have already formed an opinion about something you apparently don't know about.
I don't believe you ever asked or received my opinion on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. It seems you are so caught up in criticizing me personally that you failed to realize that you have no clue how I believe or whether or not I have even formed an opinion. You only know that I am open-minded enough to allow other people to express their opinion and exhaust their own means to finding their truth (since I am sure you agree that there is no such thing as an absolute truth). What is called a "conspiracy" today could very well be deemed one of the greatest political acts in history - given ALL the surrounding information.
You are either saying that;
a/ it is understandable people dispute the 'standard version' of events as they are in denial, or
b/ that people dispute the conspiracy theories as they are in denial about what really happened
... please clarify what you mean.
I'm not sure I understand the difference between a and b as you have listed them. I was leaning toward a) in my statement, but along the lines of the most recent conspiracy theory that you have mentioned, I would argue that b) clearly applies to those that don't agree with your position. I am simply saying, that we all form opinions - and yet very very rarely are those opinions based soley on "fact". Questioning "the facts" is no different than questioning "the truth".
I watched myself, on NYC new, as the reports of the 1st tower getting hit rolled in. It was originally reported as a twin engine or small powered aircraft. At the time, lots of speculation and no answer - no video or pictures readily available for the reporters. They began evacuating limited portions of the 1st tower. Commenting on the structural damage, design, and ability to withstand the event. I recall two helicopters in the air during the time that the 2nd aircraft came toward the WTC. By this time, which is only 11 minutes later, all US airspace had been officially closed. The 2nd aircraft was filmed and watched as it happened (or as close as the general public gets to live, given any FCC madated delays). Before this, the 2nd tower was cleared of any possible danger from the 1st tower, so evacuation proceedings were halted.
Is that version close ? Without video camera or tape recorder, that is how I remember the day... the events are scattered, time stood still, was it REALLY a jumbo jet ? If I only got to see it once, and didn't see the headline photos and constant replays for the next week, I am not sure I would have believed my own eyes. It wasn't simply beyond comprehension from a destruction standpoint... it was emotionally deep and cutting.. it changed America and the American public. It raised doubts about our National Security and our CIA...
I have personally never seen a video recording of anything striking the Pentagon. Easily in the top 10 of the most guarded and secure facilities in the world. Cameras exist all over the Washington DC area... in the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington monument, and elsewhere... yet, I have still never seen a video recording of anything striking the Pentagon. So, was it as BIG as reported. Remember, the original reports for the WTC crash were of a smaller twin engine aircraft. Somebody who watched it happened got it wrong !!! Or why else would that have been said ?
"You believe in fairies, so obviously your judgement is in question"
... is a supported criticism (as there are definately no fairies).
The comment "so obviously your judgement is in question", although not nearly as harsh as some of the previous statements, including my skeptical little face, it is still a personal attack. Justification for the attack does not reduce that idea that you made a generalized attack on an individuals ability to make a judgement.
"You support abortion, so obviously are happy if people eat babies"
... is a personal attack, amongst other things.
I beg to differ... "so obviously you are happy if people eat babies" is not an attack at all. It is an erroneous conclusion made by someone (other than the person that supports abortion) with very poor analytic skills and little understanding of what a logical syllogism is. It is a poor conclusion based upon a premise that has no correlation to the conclusion - except with the individual "creating" the attack.
Being unable to comprehend the peak power output of a Saturn V's first stage is fine. This lack of comprehension doesn't drive many people to believe men didn't land on the moon. Lack of comprehension is a poor excuse for believing in nonsense when that nonsense is know by those believing it to be unusual and contraversial versions of events.
You are correct. However, the amount of radiation measured in space, especially near the moon and other planets, along with the aluminum-foiled, polypropelene mesh suits that lacked any resistance to radiation... as well as the fragile nature of the outter lining of the space suits... and the "flying flag" video... have left some doubt in the minds of more than one reputable and respected scientist and scholar. They have access to the same "facts" as everyone else and yet draw different conclusions, based not upon emotion, but training and education... Now, 30+ years later, none of the astronauts that "landed on the moon" have any symptoms of the level of radiation exposure that would have been eminent if they really did land on the moon. Is it a conspiracy or simply uninformed scientists?
Now, all this information is available on the net. If you're really interested in learning about it, fine. Please feel free to dispute any of the above facts I have given regarding Iran, obviously with supporting material.
In all seriousness, if I did find any "facts" that disagreed with yours, you would simply discount them as uninformed or maybe even "credulous morons". You see, you already have your version - and it is undisputable. I accept that. And don't believe you to be a liar even if you disagree with my "facts"... Making these issues personal is exactly what the conspiracy theorists wanted to do...
Well wishes... I am going treasure hunting
one_ugly_time
-
EvilForce
I suggest you watch the Penn & Teller show where they talk about conspiracy theory and the "faking" of a moon landing. 40 years gone by and not a single shred of evidence that is was ever faked. The government can't keep that good of secrets. So put down the bong, let the paranoia clear your mind, and join society.
-
one_ugly_time
So you are saying it is uninformed scientists and scholars ? And the Penn and Teller have all the facts. After all, they made a show ?!
Haven't touched a bong in over 20 years and not paranoid. Again, it is you who drew the conclusion on how I believed based upon the information I presented. I never said I believed the moon landing was faked; nor did I imply I believed that. I was very straight about presenting the beliefs and notions of others. Why is it assumed I believe what I present to be others points of views - AND stated that they were others points of views.
It may be that those scientists and scholars need to put down the bong and join society. However, if they did that, we wouldn't have the class of people in society that kept the checks and balances on such events.
one_ugly_time
The true morality of a man is shown by what he does when nobody knows and nobody will find out. * cant remember, but not original *
-
stevenyc
My wife was close by and saw the planes hit, along with many other New Yorkers. If you want conspiracy theories, then I'd suggest choosing something that didn't involve hundreds of eyewitnesses.
steve
-
Bendrr
For crying out loud the government can't keep a lid on the Prez gettin a blow job INSIDE the Oval Office. Can't keep a lid on abuse in Iraq. I mean really, trying to mislead millions of people...don't think so.
Amen, Brother!
If Klinton or Algore had been in office when the attacks happened, the conspiracy theorists on the right would blame the U.N. and the ones on the left would blame the airline industry.
As it happened, a very polarizing President was in office and fortunately for them he's a Republican. So the theory is easy. He and his cabal of oil buddies stage a hoax on a scale magnitudes greater than the "fake moon landing"......over oil.
Look y'all, pull yourselves together! Back in the 90's the "assault weapons ban" was the final step in disarming the American people. There were "massive detention camps" and "processing centers" all over the country, the then-new Denver Airport being one such processing center. U.N. troops were stationed at military bases nationwide, poised for the invasion. Klinton was ready to sign over American sovreignty to the New World Order's one world government led by the United Nations.
Yes, this was told as the gospel truth by the conspiracy theorists. If you missed shortwave in the 90's you missed some good stuff indeed!
So now 9/11 is just fodder for more conspiracy theories. Let me tell you something. Y'all jackasses that go around making accusations like that are spitting on the graves of thousands of innocent civilians who were murdered just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You're no better than the ragheads that danced in celebration as the towers fell. You have shown hatred for everything great about America and honestly, if you fear the government that much then you should follow the example of those in times past who risked their lives to flee East Germany and the Soviet Union and just leave. I hear Iran and North Korea have pretty honest and benevolent governments, why don't you find a nice little place over there? I'm sure you and your new neighbors will have plenty in common to talk about.
Mike.
-
one_ugly_time
Y'all jackasses that go around making accusations like that are spitting on the graves of thousands of innocent civilians who were murdered just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Obviously a heated topic and still emotionally touches nearly everyone that recalls the events of this tragedy. I agree, Mike, that those that deny the tragedy and the severe impact of these events are scum of the earth. And those involved with the planning and execution of this event are beyond evil.
However, I don't believe this topic was started in an attempt to deny any such thing. It was someones inquiry into the possibility that the sick, evil, and twisted minds involved could possibly be from American soil and/or a direct result of American politics played to the limit. (If this were true, these so-called America's involved would certainly conspire in every imaginable way to cover up their involvement.) It was an inquiry into the possibility that the pentagon attack was not what we have come to believe. Yes, I realize they mentioned the WTC as well, but this is not really the just of most of these theories.
Conspiracy theorists get us and keep us emotionally attached to events. I choose to find the value for myself in that feeling and will counter their arguments with action rather than words. When the original "Hunt the jumbo jet" production was released, I took a step back and watched with an open mind.
I came to one simple conclusion - very much like the Kennedy assasination -- there was more behind this tragedy than the American people know or will ever come to understand. And that conclusion INCLUDES the higher powers within the American government. Even they will never fully "know" all of the "facts".
Through this tragedy, the government has learned more about what is necessary to truly protect a nation. Nearly 5 walls of one of the nations most secure facilities where penetrated and the impact it took to accomplish this was never anticipated. I imagine facilities in WV and Colorado in particular are being heavily re-inforced due to the number of "unimaginable" methods of penetration that our national securites group are now imagining as possible.
On a positive note --
I read an email the other day that truly touched me... I don't have it right now, but to paraphrase... it gave 20 or so samples of individual lives that were spared from this tragedy...
One ladies son forgot his homework, so she was late heading out to her office that day...
One man spilled his coffee and stopped to pick up a shirt before going into work...
....
None of these people ended up going to work that day.
These people all worked at the WTC on Sept 11, 2001...
OUT