Originally posted by BlueRaja
If you mean that I believe planes were hijacked by terrorists who crashed them into the WTC/Pentagon, then yes.

Do you believe there was nothing witheld from us? Given total truth?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by BlueRaja
If you mean that I believe planes were hijacked by terrorists who crashed them into the WTC/Pentagon, then yes.

Do you believe there was nothing witheld from us? Given total truth?

Whether we've been told everything that happened that day or not doesn't mean that terrorists didn't hijack planes and crash them into the WTC/Pentagon.

Trolling is not allowed in these waters. Please adjust your tactics accordingly.

Thank you.

Carry on.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Whether we've been told everything that happened that day or not doesn't mean that terrorists didn't hijack planes and crash them into the WTC/Pentagon.

That wasn't my question.

If we haven't been told the whole truth, how can we come to this conclusion conclusively?

BTW, MO is that there were planes, hijackers ect. I just would like to know more. Like under whos orders they were working. Usama from a cave or the Saudi official who wired the hijackers money (on 9/10) while sitting with Bush Sr. on 9/11?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by coughymachine
I just wanted to demonstrate that, when one of the entities suspected of a crime develops and controls the evidence, clearly there is a conflict of interest.

Therefore, as coughymachine eloquently states above, the government IS the suspect (because the 9/11 Truth Movement says so)...

This was the only piece worth responding to, since it is good evidence of your dishonesty.

I very clearly did not eloquently state that 'the government IS the suspect' but that it was 'one of the entities suspected of a crime'. There is a very big difference between those two statements.

The thrust of your post stems from this falsehood.

I agree that the government is obilgated to prove IT'S conspiracy theory. 911 Truthers have theories but our main objective is to get to the TRUTH, whatever that happens to be. Just because we can't prove our theories are correct, doesn't make them false. The government on the other hand claimed it had the evidence to prove it's case but never presented that evidence in court in to the public. When I talk to someone about 911 I don't claim to know exactly what happened but I do claim to know that the Official Version CANNOT possibly be true. I've read enough opinion from engineers, physicists, pilots, architects, chemists, ex-military, ex-intelligence people, who all find flaws in the government's version pertaining to their own areas of expertise, to be absolutely 100% certain that it didn't happen the way the government says it happened. There are all kinds of 'smoking guns'. Why was General Meyers, who was in charge of US Air Defense on 911, promoted over the heads of lots of other officers to become the Head of the joint Chiefs of Staff one week after 911 when by all rights he should have been sacked for the abysmal failure of the air defense network on 911?

Just to further the discussion on what may have really happened on 911, here's my 'theory' that I think fits the facts better than any other.

Cheney and the NeoCons needed an excuse to strike pre-emptively at Afganistan, Irag and Iran. The plans for invading Afganistan were in place, ready to go BEFORE 911(this has been documented). Bin Laden was a made to order patsy (and there is some evidence that he is in fact a willing accomplice of the CIA resulting from the CIA funded war against the Soviet occupation of Afganistan).

The US military/intelligence community recruited and trained Mohamed Atta and the others (substantial evidence of training at US military bases) and may have told them that they would be participating in military exercises involving simulated hijackings on 911.

Rumsfeld has to admit infront of Congress on September 10th, that 2.3 trillion $ of military spending can't be accounted for. Congress tells him to find out what happened to the money. That task is assigned to a group of civilian analysts working for the Pentagon, who just happened to be working in that part of the pentagon that was destroyed, thereby killing all of the analysts.

As many as 15 military exercises were planned for September 11th, some of which diverted fighter planes to Canada and Alaska while others flooded the Air Traffic Control system with bogus radar returns from 'hijacked' airliners. (this has also been documented)

The four commercial flights were taken over by remote control using AWACS planes that were seen flying in New York and Washington on 911. The technology to do this has been rumoured to exist for quite some time. The twin towers were hit by planes. The Pentagon was NOT hit by a plane. The explosion was cased by preplanted explosives. Because hitting the building in exactly the right spot at ground level would have been very difficult to do by remote control, and since no pilot would volunteer for a suicide mission, the plane was actually flown OVER the pentagon (as described by at least one eye witness who was in a position to see it) and the commercial airliner was likely redirected over the ocean afterwards and allowed to crash in the water. That's why no plane wreckage was found at the pentagon.

Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania by fighters. This explains why the debris was scattered over 8 square miles and why witnesses on the ground heard and saw an explosion in the sky. One possible explanation for shooting down that plane may have been that the pilot may have been able to regain control and if the plane had landed intact, the temporary loss of manual control would have been 'embarassing' for the official version.

The twin towers were NOT brought down by the government. They were brought down by Henry Silverstein, who had leased them several months previously and faced a mandatory billion $ bill to have all asbetos removed. The Mossad, who were filming the event as it happened, had warned Silverstein that the towers would be hit by planes. Silverstein then insured both building for billions against a terrorist attack, then arranged to have the buildings wired with thermite, which burns hot enough to cause the pools of molten metal found weeks later, and proceeded to cash in on the event.

End result?
Silverstein gets a huge multi-billion $ insurance windfall.
The pentagon no longer has to explain where the missing trillions went.
The NeoCons get their 'New Pearl Harbour'.
Atta and the other patsies make convenient scapegoats.

Other interesting facts.
Bin laden supposedly communicates with his minions by satellite phone. That satellite phone depends on a network of low orbit satellites owned by a company that went bankrupt. The company was bought out and allowed to continue operating by the Bin Laden family(this has been confirmed and documented). The Bin Ladens and the Bushes are close friends(not disputed) Is Osama just playing the role that Bush Senior wants him to play?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
The problem is that there is no "Official Story." There is only the independent evidence from thousands of sources, never originating with nor controlled by the government.

This is total BS and you know you're lying.

I am telling the truth. There is NO "Official Story."

Please provide these thousands of sources that independently investigated 9/11. Also, please show that these sources have had ALL the evidence presented to them.

I bet you can't.

Since I never once said anything about thousands of sources "independently investigating 9/11", you are going to have to reread what I wrote.

"Never originating from the government"? How in the hell can you claim this and not be banned for posting knowingly false information, I have no idea.

Please provide ONE source that didn't originate from the government.

So, you are claiming that William Rodriquez's recounting of his experience originated with the government. Interesting.

And you are claiming that ALL of the eyewitnesses that witnessed the crashes of AA11, UA175 into WTC 1 and WTC 2 and AA77 into the Pentagon who have their accounts recorded were actually all employed by the government.

Not to speak of all the accounts provided by FDNY. They didn't actually work for FDNY, they had to be Federal Government employees who knex exactly what to say, according to you.

And just think of all that physical evidence, all the debris from the crashed jets. Well, just think, it all originated with the government.

It's rather incredible. Who woulda thunk?

Your post makes no sense at all and is just the type of failure to think critically that I am talking about.

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by coughymachine
I just wanted to demonstrate that, when one of the entities suspected of a crime develops and controls the evidence, clearly there is a conflict of interest.

Therefore, as coughymachine eloquently states above, the government IS the suspect (because the 9/11 Truth Movement says so)...

This was the only piece worth responding to, since it is good evidence of your dishonesty.

Actually, you'll want to retract that accusation.

I very clearly did not eloquently state that 'the government IS the suspect' but that it was 'one of the entities suspected of a crime'. There is a very big difference between those two statements.

The thrust of your post stems from this falsehood.

Every post of yours in this thread refers only to one "entity". I suggest you re-read what you wrote than get back to me with your retraction.

You are perfectly capable of revealing who your "other entities" are, but when you refer to only one - the government and it's "official story" - you are taken at your word.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
I agree that the government is obilgated to prove IT'S conspiracy theory.

The government has no obligation to "prove" anything. Much less because you declare it has to, against all reason.

911 Truthers have theories but our main objective is to get to the TRUTH, whatever that happens to be.

If you have chosen this as your mission, you have to play by the rules. That means producing evidence to support your claims. You haven't.

Just because we can't prove our theories are correct, doesn't make them false.

Just because you make claims without supporting them doesn't mean anyone has to accept them. All you are saying in your statement is, "We propose A, B, & C as theories. We cannot prove A, B, and C are correct. But because we thought of them doesn't mean they are false."

The government on the other hand claimed it had the evidence to prove it's case but never presented that evidence in court in to the public.

The government has never been in any position to have to "prove" any case. It is not a defendant in any case real or imagined as much as you wish it were. YOU are the ones making the claim that the government is responsible for 9/11 or "allowed" it to happen, therefore, by the rule of law, YOU have to make a case that the government is responsible for anything and you must have sufficient grounds to even get a court case heard.

By the rule of law. This is still a free country and lynch mobs are illegal.

Again, you are not even thinking about what you are writing.

At this point, I am going to agree with Griff. This thread was a trolling expedition from the start.
In my view, the intent of the OP was to provoke, not discuss. While the OP continually harps on about "logic and critical reasoning", he seems to be unable to formulate a coherent premise. The discussion has devolved into pettiness and argumentum ad infinitum, because no formal argument was posited to begin with; merely a thinly veiled insult.

Originally posted by Smack
At this point, I am going to agree with Griff. This thread was a trolling expedition from the start.
In my view, the intent of the OP was to provoke, not discuss. While the OP continually harps on about "logic and critical reasoning", he seems to be unable to formulate a coherent premise. The discussion has devolved into pettiness and argumentum ad infinitum, because no formal argument was posited to begin with; merely a thinly veiled insult.

On the contrary. If you had read my posts, I offered to discuss logic and critical thinking as it applies to 9/11 Truther claims. Why have you refused that opportunity to discuss your claims?

And do you actually want to state that the video I presented is not REAL nor representative of the views of many of us on the state of your political movement?







[edit on 12-3-2008 by jthomas]

Unless this thread starts generating content which is discussed, and the veiled insults are tabled, this thread is in danger of closing.

And further displays of attitude will not be viewed lightly.

I trust this is crystal clear to all involved?

Originally posted by jthomas

On the contrary. If you had read my posts, I offered to discuss logic and critical thinking as it applies to 9/11 Truther claims. Why have you refused that opportunity to discuss your claims?

And do you actually want to state that the video I presented is not REAL nor representative of the views of many of us on the state of your political movement?

[edit on 12-3-2008 by jthomas]

You have offered to apply logic and critical thinking to the claims of others, yet you have shown none of it yourself. If you are truly interested in debate, drop this thread and create a new one, taking care to craft a solid formal argument, based upon those lofty attributes -- logic and critical thinking. Perhaps then, we might engage in an argument worth having.
I am done with this thread.

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." - Thomas Paine