It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Top Four Arguements Against The 911 Conspiracy

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Top 4 Arguments Against A 911 Conspiracy

1) Lack of concrete proof. CTers rely mostly on pointing out things that are (in their opinions) fishy about the official story - hense the nonsence about cell phones, passenger manifiests etc. What gets lost in this flurry of "holes" is that CTers have NO solid proof in favour of their theories.

2) Lack of expert endorsement. The fact that no structural engineers IN THE WHOLE WORLD agrees with the controlled demo theory should be a tip off that something doesn't add up for the CTers. Needing the likes of Fetzer, Jones and Wood to bolster their case is another.

3) Lack of whistleblowers. Clinton can't hide a blowjob, Bush can't hide WMD distortions (don't you think he would have planted some?) and the CIA leaks like a sieve. Yet NO 9/11 conspirators have spilled the beans. Hmmmm....

4) Conspiacy theories can't agree on anything! If the "truth" was as obvious as they claim it is then why can't CTers come to some agreement on what it is? They can't agree on what hit the Pentagon, what hit the WTC, what happened to flight 93, where the passengers are or whether the whole thing was pulled off by Arab mercenaries, Bush, or the Jews. In the mind of CTers this simply proves what freethinkers they are; when it fact it simply serves as a glowing example of just how messed up the theory is. They regularly accuse eachother of being "agents" for crying out loud!

There are quite a few more I have seen. I think this is a good place to start.



[edit on 11-8-2006 by Duhh]




posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Well I don't know much about the 9/11 conspiracy but you don't seem either.



Top 4 Arguments Against A 911 Conspiracy

1) Lack of concrete proof. CTers rely mostly on pointing out things that are (in their opinions) fishy about the official story - hense the nonsence about cell phones, passenger manifiests etc. What gets lost in this flurry of "holes" is that CTers have NO solid proof in favour of their theories.

Concrete proof? We have concrete proof. Molten metals. Irregularities in stock market. Drills at the exact same time, exact same place. The 4 holes in the pentagon. The building 7. The insurance of the WTC. Lack of respond from Bush. Norad stand down. Ect...



2) Lack of expert endorsement. The fact that no structural engineers IN THE WHOLE WORLD agrees with the controlled demo theory should be a tip off that something doesn't add up for the CTers. Needing the likes of Fetzer, Jones and Wood to bolster their case is another.
False. A lot of experts are with the 9/11 truth movement. A lot of people agree with the control demolition. What happenned with the 100 000$ price for someone who would blow the demolition proofs? Nobody went there to claim it and prove their point.



3) Lack of whistleblowers. Clinton can't hide a blowjob, Bush can't hide WMD distortions (don't you think he would have planted some?) and the CIA leaks like a sieve. Yet NO 9/11 conspirators have spilled the beans. Hmmmm....
A lot of whistleblowers. Some witness saw a drone at the pentagon. Some terrorists are still alive. Ect...



4) Conspiacy theories can't agree on anything! If the "truth" was as obvious as they claim it is then why can't CTers come to some agreement on what it is? They can't agree on what hit the Pentagon, what hit the WTC, what happened to flight 93, where the passengers are or whether the whole thing was pulled off by Arab mercenaries, Bush, or the Jews. In the mind of CTers this simply proves what freethinkers they are; when it fact it simply serves as a glowing example of just how messed up the theory is. They regularly accuse eachother of being "agents" for crying out loud!
Can't agree? Because there is a few people who think they try to make appear the 9/11 truth movement as a bunch of crazy loons, like you. But a lot of people agree with the main movement, Scholars for truth.

Please don't post about what you don't know if you're not a government agent of disinformation.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Well I don't know much about the 9/11 conspiracy but you don't seem either.



Top 4 Arguments Against A 911 Conspiracy
Concrete proof? We have concrete proof. Molten metals. Irregularities in stock market. Drills at the exact same time, exact same place. The 4 holes in the pentagon. The building 7. The insurance of the WTC. Lack of respond from Bush. Norad stand down. Ect...



You do realize that there are other metals used in buildings . Like Aluminum and low grade steel and iron. "molten" metals, more than likely include Aluminum, as they have lower melting points than steel does. About half that of steel. And the fact that the airplanes were made up of aluminum as well, probably contributed to much of the "molten" metals you saw/have seen.

Yet agian, no concrete proof. Provide this proof of the "molten" metals you've seen, and what was their composition as investigations proceeded.

4 holes in the pentagon, along a straight path made by a crashing plane. That's the proof. Where's yours to suggest something other than a plane made those holes?

WTC insured? As a business owner of a huge building in the middle of manhanttan, wouldn't you want to insure your building? Considering that the most recent terrorist attempt was in 1993, wouldn't you thnk it be wise to insure your building against any other damage by those that seek to destroy it? Where's your proof?

Lack of response from Bush? So you're saying that his response on the same day by working with the FBI, CIA, Military and the FAA is lack of response?




False. A lot of experts are with the 9/11 truth movement. A lot of people agree with the control demolition. What happenned with the 100 000$ price for someone who would blow the demolition proofs? Nobody went there to claim it and prove their point.

Please list these experts on the 911 movement and their expertise and field of study. I can provide you a list of controlled demolitionists who say that the WTC twoers were not brought down by CD.





A lot of whistleblowers. Some witness saw a drone at the pentagon. Some terrorists are still alive. Ect...

Provide a list of witnesses who saw the "drone". Where were they when they saw it? how far were they from the pentagon?
And you honestly think that they are still alive, despite fininding their remains in the crash sites ? or do you still stick to the 9/22/01 where the media misidentified those with the same name as the terrorists as being the highjackers? On this earth, in the muslim/islam relgion, its not possible for the millions of people to not have the same name? Provide proof they are still alive please.



Can't agree? Because there is a few people who think they try to make appear the 9/11 truth movement as a bunch of crazy loons, like you. But a lot of people agree with the main movement, Scholars for truth.

The scholars for truth are just that. Scholars. They are not experts in structural engineering, chemistry, physics, or controlled demolitions. And these "scholars" are known kooks in their own right, before 9/11.




Please don't post about what you don't know if you're not a government agent of disinformation. [/quote
Pot, Kettle. Black

[edit on 11-8-2006 by RipCurl]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl

And you honestly think that they are still alive, despite fininding their remains in the crash sites ? or do you still stick to the 9/22/01 where the media misidentified those with the same name as the terrorists as being the highjackers? On this earth, in the muslim/islam relgion, its not possible for the millions of people to not have the same name? Provide proof they are still alive please.


You would think they just MIGHT recognise their own photo? Hmmm?



The scholars for truth are just that. Scholars. They are not experts in structural engineering, chemistry, physics, or controlled demolitions. And these "scholars" are known kooks in their own right, before 9/11.


Please provide absolute proof on them being 'known kooks'.

Oh and thanks for joining just to post this.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Easy Tiger
You would think they just MIGHT recognise their own photo? Hmmm?


What are you talking about/ the media misidentified and those with the same names as the highjackers. Nothing in those stories showed any imaes of those they misidentifdied. They just posted photos of "whom" they knew to be the highjackers.



The scholars for truth are just that. Scholars. They are not experts in structural engineering, chemistry, physics, or controlled demolitions. And these "scholars" are known kooks in their own right, before 9/11.


Please provide absolute proof on them being 'known kooks'.

Take a look at "whom" are teh scholars:
www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

Why isn't there among them a:
Structural Engineer?
Controlled Demolitionist?
Fire Science and Fire Investigator?
FAA Member?
Air Traffic Controller?
An Architect or builder who participated in the building of the WTC towers?
People who built the Pentagon?
Witnesses?


So, why are WE supposed to beliefve a Lawyer's opinon over that of a Structural Engineer ? Or a controlled demolitionist?
So why are we supposed to believe that a English Professor has any basis to comment on the reasons why the WTC towers fell?
Why does a cold Fusion expert have any credence to comment on why he thinks the buildings fell due to CD?

Its easy enough when BYU wont even back Steven Jones (he's a cold fusion expert, not a structural engineer, civil engineer or has any expertise on controlled demolitions, crash investigations, fire science, or the like.) - He's been denounced by the Physics Dept, and also the Civil Engineering Dept at the University. The fact that he labled a "911" conference as part of the Neo-Con agenda, shows why he is a kook.


Harvard wont even back Alex Jones, who subsequently "resigned" when he started his "truth" movement.
911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com...

Have you READ anything by these guys?


Oh and thanks for joining just to post this.

I've been here a while, thank you. Lurking is more fun.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   


Concrete proof? We have concrete proof. Molten metals. Irregularities in stock market. Drills at the exact same time, exact same place. The 4 holes in the pentagon. The building 7. The insurance of the WTC. Lack of respond from Bush. Norad stand down. Ect...


You might have concrete in what you call proof, but you have no PROOF of any of these accusations.
The insurance was forced by the banks( more conspirators?). 4 Holes? Building 7?
Drills? Norad stand down, again what are you talking about? Kool Aide= Bad!

O' ya molten metal( atleast you got that right). There was molten METAL! So what!
You might wanna look up the stock issue,.......just a thought!

How bout live hijackers, cellphones, manifests, yada yada yada?
LOL!



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh



Concrete proof? We have concrete proof. Molten metals. Irregularities in stock market. Drills at the exact same time, exact same place. The 4 holes in the pentagon. The building 7. The insurance of the WTC. Lack of respond from Bush. Norad stand down. Ect...


You might have concrete in what you call proof, but you have no PROOF of any of these accusations.
The insurance was forced by the banks( more conspirators?). 4 Holes? Building 7?
Drills? Norad stand down, again what are you talking about? Kool Aide= Bad!

O' ya molten metal( atleast you got that right). There was molten METAL! So what!
You might wanna look up the stock issue,.......just a thought!

How bout live hijackers, cellphones, manifests, yada yada yada?
LOL!

Duhh maybe right but he is not expert.
Lets see concrete proof even the government had no concrete proof who did it.
Lets take ATTA who lost his passport in 1999 and got another, his lost 1999 passport turned up on the streets of New York not burnt and that is concrete evidence for the government. The four holes relate to the pentagon I believe not really sure there. The drills there were four drills happening during 911 some were about highjacked plans flying into WTC, pentagon. The Insurance silverstein sued in court for his award! Building 7 was very special indeed. You need to do more research Duhh but your a good character and you pose good questions that need answers and many times they get them. 911 is like the JFK, RFK and other deaths there are a lot of answers but no solutions. Why could there not be dead highjackers, seat phones, and no recordings of visuals of the highjackers on some of the planes. Everything is a question in 911 we know now that we were a sleeping nation, and now we are a scared nation, when will it end. We even have not found out who was behind the stock market transactions, but they did go through Koeing company who is know in charge of the CIA.!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
1) Lack of concrete proof. CTers rely mostly on pointing out things that are (in their opinions) fishy about the official story - hense the nonsence about cell phones, passenger manifiests etc. What gets lost in this flurry of "holes" is that CTers have NO solid proof in favour of their theories.


How else are suppose to make a conspiracy theory, if we had concrete proof it would be a conspiracy FACT, get your terms straight bud and the logic you use to apply it.


Originally posted by Duhh
2) Lack of expert endorsement. The fact that no structural engineers IN THE WHOLE WORLD agrees with the controlled demo theory should be a tip off that something doesn't add up for the CTers. Needing the likes of Fetzer, Jones and Wood to bolster their case is another.


Nice assumption. Next.


Originally posted by Duhh
3) Lack of whistleblowers. Clinton can't hide a blowjob, Bush can't hide WMD distortions (don't you think he would have planted some?) and the CIA leaks like a sieve. Yet NO 9/11 conspirators have spilled the beans. Hmmmm....


What angle are you coming from? The government was involved in making 9/11 happen or another organization in coherts with Bush? By the way, the Bush family is a big more threatening, scary and powerful than Clinton, just to keep that in mind.


Originally posted by Duhh
4) Conspiacy theories can't agree on anything! If the "truth" was as obvious as they claim it is then why can't CTers come to some agreement on what it is? They can't agree on what hit the Pentagon, what hit the WTC, what happened to flight 93, where the passengers are or whether the whole thing was pulled off by Arab mercenaries, Bush, or the Jews. In the mind of CTers this simply proves what freethinkers they are; when it fact it simply serves as a glowing example of just how messed up the theory is. They regularly accuse eachother of being "agents" for crying out loud!


-- Can't agree on what hit the Pentagon? How does an aluminum alloy aircraft body penetrate that deep into a recently renovated (structurally reinforced) past that many rings? Got an answer?

-- What happened to Flight 93? It's hard to put up a 757, even if it did hit the ground at some odd miles an hour, lacking so much evidence of any plane being there. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it vaporized but you're not going to have just bits and pieces of the plane.

-- I like your biased attacks
keep em coming buddy. You're really making a name for yourself out there in the big world of AboveTopSecret.com



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Can you say Valujet?
And it only hit the water.
Some value.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
If that is your top 4 arguments, then we win!



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Concrete proof? We have concrete proof. Molten metals. Irregularities in stock market. Drills at the exact same time, exact same place. The 4 holes in the pentagon. The building 7. The insurance of the WTC. Lack of respond from Bush. Norad stand down. Ect...


No you don't have concrete proof. If it was concrete proof you would have fact. It has been shown that the holes in the pentagon match that of a 757. People saw a 757 hit the building. When these things are brought up the CT'ers conviently don't read what's being said. The lack of response from Bush is called emotion mate. If you're a President and someone comes up to you and says "Sir we are under attack" what do you expect? He was in shock.



False. A lot of experts are with the 9/11 truth movement. A lot of people agree with the control demolition. What happenned with the 100 000$ price for someone who would blow the demolition proofs? Nobody went there to claim it and prove their point.


Yes true, there are alot of "experts" with the 9/11 truth movement. Unfortunatley none of them are in the correct field. There have been SEVERAL REAL structural engineers and controlled demolishion staff interviewed and all have said the CT theory is down right stupid. The number one demolishion company in the world was interviewed and asked about the 9/11 theory and the said that the building was brought down due to the supports being weakened from the fire.

As for the 10,000. Are you fully aware of how hell bent on the theory that whack job is? There is no way he would ever accept being wrong about 9/11. Even if he was shown all the proof in the world, like most CT'ers, he would still never believe the official story.

Penn and Teller showed some good background on this guy. He's downright insane.


A lot of whistleblowers. Some witness saw a drone at the pentagon. Some terrorists are still alive. Ect...


Incorrect. ONE guy said he saw a plane with no windows. 158 others said they saw a 757.

The terrorists aren't still alive. The people who had their identity stolen by the terrorists are. People with the same names are. NOT the actual people.



Can't agree? Because there is a few people who think they try to make appear the 9/11 truth movement as a bunch of crazy loons, like you. But a lot of people agree with the main movement, Scholars for truth.


WRONG. It's the people like fetzer and the makers of loose change who spit in the faces of the victims, laugh at them and mock them who are ruining your 'movement'. They pretend they have concern with the loss of life when all they are doing is pushing their agenda. Laughing and mocking the people who lost their lives on Flight 93.

To quote Mr Avery... "The people are really secondary".

It's not the people debunking the theories and supporting the official story. It's the CT'ers who have taken things WAY to far.

99% of the people who follow the 9/11 theories only look at one side of the story and believe it so easily because it fits with the anti-bush agenda they had before they heard the story. They don't look at the FACTS provided... they look at the theories provided... because once you believe something and pushing the theory for so long.... being proven wrong is something CT'ers just cannot accept.

"Bush is bad... that means he MUST have been behind 9/11"... yeah right.

And for those of you who say "if you don't believe it, why do you post here". I believe other theories. And the 9/11 movement is destroying not only 9/11 CT'ers... but the credibility of every CT'er.

That's me done



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
You seem to be making an attempt at building a "career" of debunking "popular conspiracy mythos" related to 9/11 here on ATS. You've often used the terms "CT" and "CTers" in a derogatory context. However, like many 9/11-conspiracy supporters, you seem to be limiting your context of "conspiracy theory" to a narrow subset of ideas and a narrow slice of time (everything after 9/11). We need skeptics, and indeed embrace a critical approach to conspiracy speculation... but we also demand manners.

There is much to dislike about the dearth of overwhelming speculation related to the events of 9/11. Much of it is fueled by individuals with no prior experience in conspiracy theory research who suddenly become inspired by the several dozen popular videos and Flash animations circulating throughout the web. All of these videos contain both interesting tidbits that might be something, and outlandish claims seeming designed purely for shock-value.

Many of those inside the "Scholars of 9/11 Truth" and the "9/11 Truth Movement" have been speculating that 9/11 conspiracy theories are a conspiracy as well. The volume of outlandish and inaccurate material far outweighs the credible efforts to examine the possibility of real conspiracies and cover-ups related to the events of 9/11.

However, you seem to want to throw the smelly wet blanket of "it's all crap" onto all 9/11 conspiracy research, seemingly because you dislike the more extravagant conspiracy topics.



Originally posted by Duhh
Top 4 Arguments Against A 911 Conspiracy
1) Lack of concrete proof.

Only 4?
If you have experience with historical conspiracies and conspiracy speculation prior to 9/11, there are several items that mirror and/or mimic known conspiracies and cover-ups.

For example (just one)... the 9/11 Commission documents several loose ends, dead ends, and administration stone walls that are a nearly complete mirror of the same issues discovered during the Iran Contra investigations. Some 10 years after those investigations, new details surfaced such as the Regan team negotiating to sell weapons to terrorists who held US prisoners. If history is a lesson, we sill eventually see similar details about administration cover-ups related to 9/11.

Concrete proof is hard to find, but parallels to historical conspiracies and cover-ups do indeed exist (if you bother to research beyond 5 years ago)... and those parallels are proof to those of us who have been paying attention to conspiracies for more than 5 years.



2) Lack of expert endorsement. The fact that no structural engineers IN THE WHOLE WORLD agrees with the controlled demo theory

Moot point. Most speculative conspiracy researchers I've talked to dismiss the "controlled demolition theory". It's not a valid item to use in an attempt to disprove all 9/11-related conspiracy speculation.

The web was a very different place in 2001 than it is today. Blogs and discussion boards were in their infancy, and ATS only averaged about 60 posts a day. However, there were a few sources (one is RumorMillNews.com) that were somewhat popular who had startling stories of an internal Pentagon power-struggle between two powerful covert factions. From my recollection, three previously credible sources of internal "dirt" all pointed to this power struggle as the real source behind the attacks. The going theory (corroborated by at least two different sources), was that one of these groups infiltrated terrorist groups and organized the attacks (similar to the Operation Northwoods plan created by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a pretext for war with Iran). However, the real target was specific computers and personnel in the Pentagon and the NYC attacks were designed to solidify the primary story of "terrorist attacks". Three months later, all mention of this theory was cleansed from the sites containing it, and the sources were not heard from again.



3) Lack of whistleblowers.

See above.

First, after the scandals of the past few decades, administrations have learned how to best cover their tracks. Time is on the side of the conspiracy theorist. And if history is our guide, not enough time has yet transpired for credible "whistleblowing sources" to step forward.



4) Conspiacy theories can't agree on anything! If the "truth" was as obvious as they claim it is then why can't CTers come to some agreement on what it is?

Sadly (and I hope many ATS members don't take offense to this), the majority of people interested in 9/11 conspiracy theory have first become interested in conspiracies because of 9/11 and lack the critical analysis experience necessary to be skeptical of everything.

That's the key. Many people confuse my chosen site name as someone who is skeptical of conspiracy theories... far from it... I'm skeptical of everything, including overly vocal conspiracy speculators. We need harsh criticism and analysis of 9/11 conspiracy ideas, but that criticism must come from years of experience in conspiracy research, not from a desire for morbid entertainment.



They regularly accuse eachother of being "agents" for crying out loud!

I am convinced there is an organized effort to blanket the web with disastrously absurd conspiracy theories related to 9/11 as an effort to create the kind of reaction you now seem to have -- "all 9/11 conspiracies are rubbish".

It's working. It's brilliant.

But only through experienced critical analysis can we see through the maddening noise and find what truths lie within.

Derogatory remarks and debunking for personal entertainment only add to the noise.



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Perhaps Duhh (Name will now and forever be a pun to me) is not smart enough to see the actual reality of the evidence. Maybe that is everyones problem, they actually can't see it. Because his attempt to lay out the arguements in on such an elementary level that I am at a loss for words.

Duhh? If you want to be a real debunker, watch "Loose Change" and see the real list of discrepancies and then start a post of refuting the real evidence. I WOULD LOVE THAT.
AAC



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   


AAC
Duhh? If you want to be a real debunker, watch "Loose Change" and see the real list of discrepancies and then start a post of refuting the real evidence. I WOULD LOVE THAT.


That is the easiest of them all. Lucky for me, a pal named Gravy did this a while ago. All debunked. Happy?

www.ccdominoes.com...

Now this is only about, the second version of the "truth" from LC!
When the new "truth" LC FC the final insult comes out. There will be updates!
COOL?



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh

Top 4 Arguments Against A 911 Conspiracy

1) Lack of concrete proof. CTers rely mostly on pointing out things that are (in their opinions) fishy about the official story - hense the nonsence about cell phones, passenger manifiests etc. What gets lost in this flurry of "holes" is that CTers have NO solid proof in favour of their theories.

2) Lack of expert endorsement. The fact that no structural engineers IN THE WHOLE WORLD agrees with the controlled demo theory should be a tip off that something doesn't add up for the CTers. Needing the likes of Fetzer, Jones and Wood to bolster their case is another.

3) Lack of whistleblowers. Clinton can't hide a blowjob, Bush can't hide WMD distortions (don't you think he would have planted some?) and the CIA leaks like a sieve. Yet NO 9/11 conspirators have spilled the beans. Hmmmm....

4) Conspiacy theories can't agree on anything! If the "truth" was as obvious as they claim it is then why can't CTers come to some agreement on what it is? They can't agree on what hit the Pentagon, what hit the WTC, what happened to flight 93, where the passengers are or whether the whole thing was pulled off by Arab mercenaries, Bush, or the Jews. In the mind of CTers this simply proves what freethinkers they are; when it fact it simply serves as a glowing example of just how messed up the theory is. They regularly accuse eachother of being "agents" for crying out loud!

There are quite a few more I have seen. I think this is a good place to start.


Actually I don't see the top of anything here. You've formulated your opinion as if it is a checklist of facts. It is, in fact, not.


1) Lack of concrete proof. CTers rely mostly on pointing out things that are (in their opinions) fishy about the official story - hense the nonsence about cell phones, passenger manifiests etc. What gets lost in this flurry of "holes" is that CTers have NO solid proof in favour of their theories.


I have found that this is not a true statement. We can't take the "kookie" theories (i.e. you can't use a cell phone on a plane!) and apply the wrongness of that theory to all other "non-official" theories. You don't get that luxury, no matter how much you want it. You take each theory separately and you analyze it on its own merits. You disregard what is illogical, you retain that which cannot be readily dismissed for further investigation. If you are truly aiming for the truth, you allow yourself to dance on the otherside at times. If you are "married to your theory" you act like you have been acting....and learn nothing more.


2) Lack of expert endorsement.


What difference does this make, and who decides who is the "expert" for endorsement? I'm a rather well established person, so what's to say I haven't given some endorsement, on some theory? Who are you to say the appropriate "expert" hasn't been involved yet? Again, you take the logical in any theory, and you retain it for further investigation. You don't go into an argument trying to "kill" the other side, because if you do, you WILL end up just as wrong as the opposing side (guaranteed).


3) Lack of whistleblowers


This applies to only those theories that mandate the "government" did it. There are many people out here who do not believe the government did it, but instead believe that the analysis of the facts of the day have been unsatisfactory and that the facts show there was more to the attack than what the official report states. That takes much less "controllable assets" and most of those are not of the sub-quality level of having a penis in their mouth at some point during the day. The integrity of the intelligence seems to be directly proportional to the gravity of the situation. I don't think comparing blow-jobs to incompetence in a day that over 2000 people died is appropriate; no matter how much you want to "win".


4) Conspiacy theories can't agree on anything!


Neither can the official story. Why do you insinuate that ALL theories must coincide in order to be right? The official story has Flight 93 impacting at 10:03, but two separate groups of geologists (one commissioned by the Pentagon), placed the impact at 10:06...does this mean we need to dismiss ALL of the official record because it can't completely be rectified? No, I don't think you want that, do you?

[edit on 8-12-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   


I have found that this is not a true statement. We can't take the "kookie" theories (i.e. you can't use a cell phone on a plane!) and apply the wrongness of that theory to all other "non-official" theories. You don't get that luxury, no matter how much you want it. You take each theory separately and you analyze it on its own merits. You disregard what is illogical, you retain that which cannot be readily dismissed for further investigation. If you are truly aiming for the truth, you allow yourself to dance on the otherside at times. If you are "married to your theory" you act like you have been acting....and learn nothing more.


I agree with this.




What difference does this make, and who decides who is the "expert" for endorsement? I'm a rather well established person, so what's to say I haven't given some endorsement, on some theory? Who are you to say the appropriate "expert" hasn't been involved yet? Again, you take the logical in any theory, and you retain it for further investigation. You don't go into an argument trying to "kill" the other side, because if you do, you WILL end up just as wrong as the opposing side (guaranteed).


The appropiate expert is the one train in that field, structural engineers, demolishionists, ect. The CTers don't have a single one. This means their views aren't supported by the people who know what they're talking about.



his applies to only those theories that mandate the "government" did it. There are many people out here who do not believe the government did it, but instead believe that the analysis of the facts of the day have been unsatisfactory and that the facts show there was more to the attack than what the official report states. That takes much less "controllable assets" and most of those are not of the sub-quality level of having a penis in their mouth at some point during the day. The integrity of the intelligence seems to be directly proportional to the gravity of the situation. I don't think comparing blow-jobs to incompetence in a day that over 2000 people died is appropriate; no matter how much you want to "win".


The 4 points are direct to the people who think the goverment did it, the people who think the goverment is inept or covering its butt aren't CTers by the commonly accepted definition.



Neither can the official story. Why do you insinuate that ALL theories must coincide in order to be right? The official story has Flight 93 impacting at 10:03, but two separate groups of geologists (one commissioned by the Pentagon), placed the impact at 10:06...does this mean we need to dismiss ALL of the official record because it can't completely be rectified? No, I don't think you want that, do you?


TThe 'official story'does aggree with its self, the example you give is just nitpicking over exactly when Flight 93 crashed, not whether it was a plane or a bomb. This can be explaned by clocks being set to different times, they aggree what happened, the plane crashed there. The deniers however can't agree on if the 93 and 77 crashed where the news said they did.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy


TThe 'official story'does aggree with its self, the example you give is just nitpicking over exactly when Flight 93 crashed, not whether it was a plane or a bomb. This can be explaned by clocks being set to different times, they aggree what happened, the plane crashed there. The deniers however can't agree on if the 93 and 77 crashed where the news said they did.


Actually it's more than nit-picking, and more than clocks set differently - and as far as the official story agreeing with itself, this is the only point I've found so far in the entirety of 9/11 discussions, papers and official documents I have read, that the official story does NOT agree with its self. This issue has been discussed in depth here on the board, and it has enough merit to not be dismissed without further investigation.

And no - I don't believe there was a great government conspiracy surrounding 9/11, but I do believe there are two areas of 9/11 that behoove us to not simply take the 9/11 Commission Report, stick it on the shelf, and say...Well, they got that done! Let's go talk Hoffa!

1. I don't believe due diligence was performed in all of the investigation, and I believe certain evidence was missed/dismissed that should not have been. If the commission's task was to find the truth - to the best of their ability - so we all could learn from it and better secure ourselves against it, these evidences needed to be included and investigated.

2. I DO believe there is a possible cover-up concerning Flight 93. I believe the plane may have been shot down, and they lied about that action. I do NOT think it is okay for the government to lie to us. If they decided to shoot the plane down, they need to have the integrity and honesty to just admit it.

There are some people out there "married to their theory", but they are not the majority - and they exist on both sides of this issue. Those obsessed on a theory are not looking for the truth, they are looking to prove themselves...I avoid them. But for the majority of people who believe there was a conspiracy and who remain open to all data, I have found that even though I do not believe it, we are both doing the same thing - searching for the truth - we're just walking down different paths. And as I've said several times before, as long as each of us stay committed to finding the truth, we'll eventually meet up in the same place - because the truth isn't moving. It's just sitting there waiting on us to find it. What I don't understand is why some people insist every one walk the same path.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Here you go Duhh (Pardon the pun). Wasn't it you that said that not one structural engineer agrees with the conspiracy theories? Well, I posted a link so you can stop reiterating that nonsense. AAC


911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com... tural-engineers-are-they-all-in.html



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

Here you go Duhh (Pardon the pun). Wasn't it you that said that not one structural engineer agrees with the conspiracy theories? Well, I posted a link so you can stop reiterating that nonsense. AAC


911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com... tural-engineers-are-they-all-in.html


WoW! Here is what you linked me to. Did you read it wrong? Here I'll post it for y'all!

Structural engineers - are they ALL in on it?
A factoid that should humiliate the nutbar contingency is the lack of structural engineers on the list of folks who believe in controlled demolitions. Wonder why that is? Certainl, anyone educated in such things knows the WTC towers and WTC 7 collapsed because of the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires or both.

I'd like to take this opportunity to re-iterate that not a single structural engineer has supported the 9/11 theory of controlled demolition of the WTC towers. And in fact, every single structural engineer in the entire US (and the world as far as I know) finds the official explanation more than adequate.


So where is your engineer that will stop me from" Reiterating Nonsense?"
You might wanna read before posting next time. Did you finish Gravy's Debunk of LC?



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
SCROLL DOWN DUHH? Maybe you should read things before posting. It is a chain of messages. The one you qouted was from a retard. AAC



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join