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.

 

Proof of 9/11 and who was responsible

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Eyewitness86,

I read your post and was immediately struck by your uncritical acceptance and wholehearted belief in debunked, so-called "anomalies" and your uncritical acceptance of the word of DRG, an authority on nothing to do with structural engineering or or forensic investigations, and who has been repeatedly debunked and heavily criticized for his inaccuracies and lack of knowledge. Your post is an excellent example of those 9/11 Truthers who have bought into a story so strongly that they throw all rational thought and critical thinking out the window. You need to question yourself first.

You also make a classic mistake of those promoting the OTMCT by your insistence that any skeptical person of the OTMCT believes in some "official story." We only care about facts and evidence and all the facts and evidence of 9/11 come from numerous independent sources.

IMHO, your post actually describes the 9/11 Truth Movement to a T, not us skeptics. You are true believers, not driven by facts and evidence no matter where it leads, but by a strong belief in what a few - [B]a very few - people have told you and convinced you of.

I would recommend that you take a step back and question your own beliefs, and particularly where they come from. You may surprise yourself.

Cheers.




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomasThe point was to illustrate the massive problems with the OTMCT. The OCTMCT, no matter how you slice it, is LIHOP or MIHOP, both of which have many implausible implications that 9/11 Truthers cannot or will not deal with. One cannot avoid the numbers of people that would necessarily have to be involved nor assume that they would all keep quiet.

jthomas

The article failed to illustrate anything other than the intellectually dishonest views of an apparent skeptic. I'm a little surprised that you continue to defend it.

Again, how can his 'illustration' be considered credible when he treats the hijackings of four seperate aircraft as just one line item on the OT side, and then treats the planting of a passport at Ground Zero as one line item on the CT side? Where's the balance? Surely you can see that this is a gross misrepresentation of the relative complexities of each of the two events. And it's not the only one; this dishonesty characterises the whole piece.

And the dishonesty stretches beyond the obvious imbalances to other areas, as I've already explained but which you have conveniently ignored.

Some of the line items listed on the CT side but not the OT side actually belong on both sides or else on neither, such as the development of remote-controlled technology.

Additionally, not everyone believes the wider conspiracy, if there is one, necessarily includes all of the individual theories listed in the piece.


It is not a "sweeping generalization" to state that the OTMCT has failed to deal with its own contradictions and implausibility.

It is absolutely a sweeping and ill-conceived generalisation. If you want to continue to press this point with me, then kindly set out what you think my theory is and the contradictions I've failed to address.


Certainly you recognize that believers in the OTMCT wouldn't be here re-hashing the same stuff dealt with and debunked as long as six years ago if there were any substance to the OTMCT. At the same time, these same believers have failed in every attempt to refute the evidence of what happened.

You appear to suffer from the misconception that the official theory is supported by verifiable evidence. It ain't. Furthermore, when you take into account that the US government and its agencies that are under suspicion, then any 'evidence' they produce must be treated with a great deal of caution.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Coughymachine,

You are still missing MY point which has nothing to do with "defending" the JREF post. I am WAY beyond that to the larger point about the OTMCT. So can we move on to the ACTUAL points I've made?

So you claim there is an "official theory" that is not supported by verifiable evidence. In fact, there is no "official theory", but there is a mountain of evidence that in six years has never been refuted by the OTMCT. As you have already admitted, there are so many variations of the OTMCT from the bizarre assertions of David Ray Griffin and Dylan Avery & crew with their constant "revisions" of their books and films, to the hopeless and increasingly loony outbursts from Jim Fetzer, Holocaust denier and loose cannon, Kevin Barrett, and star wars beam advocate, Judy Woods. And just exactly what do you have to show for it after six years?

In fact, the evidence of what happened on 9/11 comes from hundreds and hundreds of independent sources. It all converges on the conclusions that 9/11 Truth Movement has been unable to refute or even challenge at the smallest level. And all the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement come from [b]very few sources who all just reinforce each other's claims without producing evidence or refuting the evidence against them. How is it possible for you to demonstrate otherwise in face of that cold, hard reality when none of you have yet been able to come up with anything other than "theories" and "questions", the answers to which you all ignore? Then there is the infighting to go along with it.

The real world is not taking you seriously. You have lots of hope, lots of passion, lots of firm beliefs. But when it comes to the reality, you have no evidence to bring to court, just claims, assertions, and undying hope. Have you ever considered questioning your own beliefs and their source? Step back and look hard.

I am trying to be brutally honest with the reality of what 9/11 Truth is and what you all claim it to be. They aren't the same.

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Coughymachine,

You are still missing MY point which has nothing to do with "defending" the JREF post.

Stop right there. You haven't done enough yet to move beyond the jref post since you failed to acknowledge its dishonesty. Do so and I will happily move on to whatever you want to discuss.

This was your first post in this thread in full:


The problem 9/11 Truthers have is actually supporting their own claims about 9/11. A post today on JREF makes clear what 9/11 Truthers face with promoting their Official 9/11 Truth Movement Conspiracy Theory (OTMCT):

forums.randi.org...

I doubt any 9/11 Truther here has thought of the implications of the OTMCT. They certainly can't deny those enumerated.


As you can see, you have cited the jref post as one that makes the point you wish to make 'clear'. Yet I have shown you how crass, dishonest and ill-considered the jref post is on multiple levels.

So, jthomas, are you prepared to accept that the jref post is a poorly conceived and dishonest piece?



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Coughyman,

The JREF post is not dishonest at all. It represents a truism that has basis in fact that I have fully delineated.

Furthermore, you have failed to answer his question:

"Would a Truther mind telling me what part of this plan is so difficult and so expensive that it you can't even fathom the possibility that these "cavemen" could pull it off?"

...

"Now I ask you, Truthers: Which of these plots would be the LEAST difficult to pull off?"

Now, let's move on to addressing my posts which deal with this very subject, please.

Cheers



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Coughyman,

The JREF post is not dishonest at all. It represents a truism that has basis in fact that I have fully delineated.

You're either not reading my earlier posts or else assuming that your view will acquire some legitimacy through repetition (alternatively, you authored that crap at jref and have become wedded to it). It won't.

Last time: anyone who compares two scenarios using a single line item to cover the complex buisness of hijacking four commerical aircraft and another single line item to cover the dropping of a passport at Ground Zero, is clearly presenting a grossly lop-sided and intellectually dishonest point of view. Admit this is and we can move on.

I am happy to spend a great deal of time discussing my views on 9/11 with anyone who can demonstrate they are prepared to be as intellectually honest with me as they'd expect me to be with them.

Your continued refusal to accept the jref post is fatally flawed is good evidence to me that you are not going to engage me on an equal footing.

It's an open invitation, jthomas - take it when you're ready. I will not answer any of your questions until we get over this obstacle.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


Coughy ~

What about the Jref post was untrue? I have read it. Nothing new there at all. He does not lump all the theories together, he actually seperates them and tells you to take your pic.

I agree that Coughy indeed has a lot of passion towards what he believes. This can also be said to those that beleive strongly in religion. It is a belief without evidence.

C.O.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
What about the Jref post was untrue? I have read it. Nothing new there at all. He does not lump all the theories together, he actually seperates them and tells you to take your pic.

Just read this thread - I've stated my objections several times already.

If you genuinely cannot see that the hijacking of four commercial airliners requires more than a single statement - the same amount he allocates to the dropping of a passport - then I think we should probably accept we ain't going to make progress in this thread.


I agree that Coughy indeed has a lot of passion towards what he believes.

Oh no, you're right. This alone casts doubt on the validity of my views.

This can also be said to those that beleive strongly in religion.

Don't forget Holocaust deniers - it'd be a pity to miss a trick.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



The problem I have with "truthers" is their inability to admit when they're wrong about certain things(they can't even agree on a theory other than that Bush was behind it). If a theory is debunked, they don't change their mind about their hypothesis, they just try to come up with a new theory(i.e. I've come to a conclusion, now let me work backwards to prove it), or they attack the debunking(as if debunk is a derogatory word). Basically anything that doesn't support an inside job theory is disregarded out of hand. On the other hand we're supposed to believe that holograms, cruise missiles, remotely controlled aircraft with no windows, high energy beams, hydrogen bombs, controlled demolition w/out anyone seeing the charges necessary to accomplish a task of that size, etc were used, and all the federal, civilian, military, etc.. that would have been involved have been gotten too(within 9 months of Bush coming into office). And what for? So some shadowy interests who really are in charge of everything can make some more dividends. And when it became apparent that cheap oil wasn't the goal, then obviously the intent was to have expensive oil. I could go on, but I'm not going to dignify the notion any more, as ludicrous as it is.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Coughyman,

I don't accept the JREF post as "fatally flawed." In fact, if you had read carefully, you would already know that I agree wholeheartedly with the intent and conclusions of the post which is clear: that any version of the OTMCT ends up with a scenario that requires a large number of people to accomplish and requires that everyone keep quiet. This is simply, IMHO, terribly implausible.

I don't know why you are avoiding the point of the JREF post. All you have done is nitpick about specific line items, declare them "fatally flawed" and therefore the whole point of the post is invalid.

If you firmly believe so, you need to offer reasons and evidence to convince the vast majority of people in this country that don't believe in the OTMCT.

So, you should start demonstrating how any one of the OTMCT variations could possibly work and list that which would necessarily have to be true for it to work. I think you will soon see in going through that process that the OTMCT becomes increasingly implausible.

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Coughyman,

I don't accept the JREF post as "fatally flawed." In fact, if you had read carefully, you would already know that I agree wholeheartedly with the intent and conclusions of the post which is clear...

So you agree with its conclusions, even though the 'preponderance of evidence' construction of the argument used to support them is flawed. No wonder you buy the official story.

Simple question for you:

If the dropping of a fake passport deserves a line all to itself on the conspiracy side, how many lines would you give the hijacking of four commercial, passenger-laden aircraft by 19 hijackers on the official side?



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


Coughy ~


here is the post by "1337m4n":


The "Official Story"

--Send some dudes to the US
--Learn to fly planes
--Train in hijacking techniques
--Locate targets of economic (WTC), military (Pentagon), and political (White House) importance.
--Coordinate a date and time
--Bring boxcutters (which were legal at the time) onto planes
--Hijack planes
--Crash planes

Would a Truther mind telling me what part of this plan is so difficult and so expensive that it you can't even fathom the possibility that these "cavemen" could pull it off?

forums.randi.org...

Although he simplifies it, please point out where he is lying? What is wrong in this post?

He continues with this:

Meanwhile, let's examine the difficulty of various CTs:


Bombing the Towers

--Fake passports
--Fake Osama videos
--Fake "hijacker" identities
--Develop airliner remote-control technology
--Develop passenger voice-morphing technology
--Develop "stealth" explosives technology
--Brainwash/bribe/silence eyewitnesses
--Brainwash/bribe/silence first responders
--Brainwash/bribe/silence air traffic controllers
--Brainwash/bribe/silence steel handlers
--Brainwash/bribe/silence Protec
--Brainwash/bribe/silence bomb-planting crews
--Brainwash/bribe/silence the media
--Fake seismic readings
--Fake attack audio
--Fake attack video
--Plant "stealth" explosives on all the floors where "squibs" were seen, without being noticed
--Plant a bomb in the basement and set it off an hour before the scheduled collapse for no [rule10]ing reason
--Use secret remote-control technology and secret voice-morphing technology to take over planes mid-flight and land them in a secret base somewhere, then brainwash/bribe/silence all the passengers
--Fly remote-controlled planes into towers
--Detonate explosives in the EXACT sequence and with the EXACT timing that would give the appearance of a progressive gravity-driven collapse
--Toss fake passport into the wreckage


Again....Coughy, what in this section of the post is not accurate?

Thanks again ,

C.O.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Three can keep a secret if two are dead.- Benjamin Franklin

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Razor

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by jthomas
Coughyman,

I don't accept the JREF post as "fatally flawed." In fact, if you had read carefully, you would already know that I agree wholeheartedly with the intent and conclusions of the post which is clear...

So you agree with its conclusions, even though the 'preponderance of evidence' construction of the argument used to support them is flawed.
No wonder you buy the official story.


Do I need to remind you again that you have failed to support your case or show any flaws in the points and conclusions of the JREF post?

Here are the JREF questions again to which you have failed to respond:


"Would a Truther mind telling me what part of this plan is so difficult and so expensive that it you can't even fathom the possibility that these "cavemen" could pull it off?"
...

"Now I ask you, Truthers: Which of these plots would be the LEAST difficult to pull off?"


I don't know why you are going out of your way to avoid supporting your claims, coughyman. In any case, I have seen nothing from you to refute the point and conclusions of JREF post with factual evidence, so I can't take you seriously.

Since there is no "official story", I have nothing to buy into. What we have is the preponderance of evidence that the OTMCT has never been able to refute.

Cheers



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
This reply is to both you, CO, and jthomas, who makes this claim:


Do I need to remind you again that you have failed to support your case or show any flaws in the points and conclusions of the JREF post?


I have alleged that the jref post is flawed and intellectually dishonest. It grossly misrepresents both side of this debate and provides a lop-sided comparison of their respective elements.

I have pointed this out with examples on at least four occasions now, yet you still ask me to 'show any flaws in the points...'.

This is the last time I will do it. If you cannot accept this, then we will agree to disagree and end this discussion.

Again, I am happy to debate the jref poster's overall conclusion, but only once you accept the piece he has constructed is flawed and imbalanced.


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by coughymachine
 


--Hijack planes

*SNIP

--Toss fake passport into the wreckage


Can you seriously not see the flaw in a piece that uses one line to cover the hijackings by 19 men of four commercial, passenger-laden aircraft; and one line to cover the tossing of a fake passport into the wreckage?

Is that how you would have represented these events if you were going through the same exercise?

The bottom line, jthomas, is that you would love to skip over the fact that you brought this jref piece to the debate in order to clarify your position. But, if you use this to support your view, then you must be prepared to have it challenged in the same way that I would expect you to challenge anything I used to support my view if you disagreed with it.

If your reply is no more than a rehash of your previous attempts to wriggle out of addressing this issue, then you can expect no further response from me.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by coughymachine
 
Again....Coughy, what in this section of the post is not accurate?

To answer this point specifically, a great deal is either flat wrong or intellectually dishonest.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Thank you for the replies thus far but I fear the same mistakes are being made, the thread is about what evidence the doubters would need to believe that their goverment/or people within it would need to make them believe.

In other words the truth is out there it just needs a concerted independant assesment of what happened that day. To those who believe that to many would need to be in on it therefore it would be impossible are patently wrong, we are all acustomed to believing things a certain way and it dose not matter how many are involved only a few will really know the truth.

Point in question how many US tropps are there in Iraq, and how many of them know why they are relly there, they are all players in the game but they do not have all the game instructions so therefore do not have the whole picture.

Put it another way if I had a thousand piece jigsaw and I gave a thousand people a piece each not one of them would know what the whole picture looked like yet they all have a piece of it, each individual would not know if it was a hundred piece jigsaw or a ten thousand piece jigsaw.

Thats what you do with info you compartmentize it with each person/group knowing only a few details yet all play a part but conversly not knowing or aware of what another person/group are doing.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The evidence is already there man, Its getting the arrogant folks to listen that is the problem :s



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

I have alleged that the jref post is flawed and intellectually dishonest. It grossly misrepresents both side of this debate and provides a lop-sided comparison of their respective elements.


You haven't replied yet but keep evading the question the JREF poster aske you Here are the JREF questions again to which you have failed to respond:


"Would a Truther mind telling me what part of this plan is so difficult and so expensive that it you can't even fathom the possibility that these "cavemen" could pull it off?"
...

"Now I ask you, Truthers: Which of these plots would be the LEAST difficult to pull off?"


Now, coughyman, are you going to keep avoiding answering the questions? Please address the questions with evidence to support your case. You are doing the same thing Ultima1 did and whom I reported for trolling.

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

You haven't replied yet but keep evading the question the JREF poster aske you Here are the JREF questions again to which you have failed to respond:


"Would a Truther mind telling me what part of this plan is so difficult and so expensive that it you can't even fathom the possibility that these "cavemen" could pull it off?"
...

"Now I ask you, Truthers: Which of these plots would be the LEAST difficult to pull off?"





the part that is so difficult and so expensive?

how about lining the towers with explosives?

how about locking up the entire north american air defence in complete confusion?

how about stonewalling any secret service investigation and action against bin laden?

how about getting sole access to the skies over america for relatives of the alleged perp to fly back to arabia?

how about getting the media to never mention wtc7?

how about anthrax mailings?

how about tim osman?

how about terrorists in training living within walking distance of the agencies which are supposed to monitor and stymie the ill intentions of these terrorists?

sorry, the jref 'hit piece' punches like a five yr. old girl.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join