911 To Many Coincidences Were Made To Happened!

Originally posted by gavron
What a laugh! You ask me to "save my insults" in the same sentence you call me a RED HERRING? Pot - kettle - black

he did not call you a red herring, he asked you not to play red herring games here. now please look up "red herring" before you say anymore to make yourself look worse. you are attacking that grammar of someone who's first laguage is not english. yours apparently is and you already do not know what "coincidence" and "red herring" mean so you should probably refrain from mocking peoples ability to communicate in a foreign language when you get lost in your native one. aside from most of your "rebuttals" being worthless, you address the car, quaran, and flight plans found at the airport as "how else were they supposed to get there?"
what do you know about muslims, terrorist, or even muslim terrorists? you really believe that when they parked the car, they laid out a quaran, a will, and a flight plan for the police? "we are going to hijack those planes now, everyone have your will and quaran? we need to leave them on the seats so they have hard evidence later that it was realy muslim extremists." you really buy that story?

and just where exactly is all this science that backs up the NIST report? these "scientists" are doing a great job of keeping quiet about it.

[edit on 8/20/2008 by re22666]

The OP has already stated that English was his 1st language, twice I believe. His excuse had nothing to do with his use of grammar or bad spelling.

Evidence of all the terrorists doing all of what you listed above does not exist, it only exists that some did so. None of it is hard to believe, almost common in their culture.

The vast majority of experts & scientists support the basic story of 9/11. It has been posted & published repeatedly on this site. Ignoring it doesn’t make it a “great job of keeping quiet about it”, it just means you don't read stuff that doesn't fit your ideas. Plenty of explanations are there, certain people just choose to ignore it to pursue their “theories”. I think it gives them something to do and makes them feel smarter then others. Again, studies have been done about such people, but that that is/was another thread.

reply to post by Jake the Dog Man


Excellent point. There already is enough information out there to support the "mainstream" explanation of events.

The conspiracy theorists here are claiming that this is not possible, or that "too many coincidences" exist to buy the official version; therefore, it is up to them to disprove this version. Unfortunately, in order to accept their claims, you must accept an ever-widening net of theories, each more implausible and unsupported than the last. Correlation, suspicion, and anecdotal evidence are not enough to disprove anything, and yet this is exactly what conspiracy theorists are relying upon.

In order for me to believe your claim, I must first accept the conspiracy theory to begin with. And in order to support that, when viewing any current data shown to support the "official version", I must turn around and believe that this data has been "bought off", tampered with, or fabricated. In order to support that, I must be willing to take a leap of faith when regarding correlation--studies were funded by the government, and the government was part of the conspiracy...therefore, the studies are obviously false.

Again, the obvious problem with all of this is that "conspiracy" is used as a catch-all to ignore and question any proven data at all. Unfortunately, while this may work wonderfully for supporting a belief, it fails the burden of proof test on every single count.



[edit on 21-8-2008 by thrashee]

Originally posted by thrashee
Excellent point. There already is enough information out there to support the "mainstream" explanation of events.

Like what?


This is like a reincarnation of jthomas always saying NIST had proof but never being able to show where. In fact, this is the most any "debunker" has ever said for the mass media account, because the whole thing is based only on this illusion of there being evidence for a well-founded consensus already. There isn't.

If you say the 9/11 Commission, for example, tell us what part of the 9/11 Commission you're talking about (what they said) and then show us the evidence to that extent that the commission itself actually presented to the reader. This is how you find the logic (including supporting evidence) in the events that happened that day.


People will say there's all kinds of evidence, so long as they've been completely confused, but I promise you no one has ever shown any hard evidence for the critical parts of the mass media account and no one, including yourself, actually will. Take this as a challenge to post something of substance if you want.

reply to post by bsbray11


Whooah, easy there, killer.

Let's back up and start from square one:

You had an event that was witnessed personally, televised, and recorded across the globe: two planes struck the towers, and later on the towers collapsed. This is our starting point, and because this was actually seen by millions of people, the claim of what actually happened is self-evident.

The conspiracy theorists watch these events, and start to question. They wonder if what they've seen with their own eyes might not be true. They wonder if it's possible for the towers to have collapsed based upon what they, in fact saw.

So now we get to your counter-claims, and your burden of proof. If you're doubting what was visibly witnessed by so many people, then it is up to you to disprove that event. You are stepping up loudly proclaiming, "What you saw was a lie! And here's why!" Therefore, you have assumed a negative claim, and you now bear a burden of proof.

Your attempts at doing so have ranged from such laughable theories as "holographic planes" to planting inside bombs. This should be your first clue: whenever you must construct an even more unprovable or implausible theory to support your first one, you should know you're on the wrong path.

So forget my proof--your tossing the ball back to me is erroneous, because it is not up to me to prove my claim in order to disprove yours.

Originally posted by thrashee
You had an event that was witnessed personally, televised, and recorded across the globe: two planes struck the towers, and later on the towers collapsed. This is our starting point, and because this was actually seen by millions of people

Agreed. And some people actually suspected demolition, for example, the moment they saw the towers fall. I wasn't one of them, but that opinion was certainly there from the start.

the claim of what actually happened is self-evident.

Now this gets fuzzy because when you say "what actually happened is self-evident" are you sure you aren't referring to what you think happened? Because what you think happened (for example, inside those buildings as they fell) is a completely different ball game than what actually happened inside of them, which is what we're arguing about in the first place because neither of us really know.

So now we get to your counter-claims, and your burden of proof.

The "our consensus was here first!" thing is immature and not scientific by any standard whatsoever. The theory is that the airliners and fire brought the buildings down, for example, but that was never a scientifically-supported theory, so you can't argue that there is really anything to refute in the first place.

So forget my proof

The only reason I have is because I know it doesn't exist. Otherwise I would definitely want proof from you, and you really should try to provide some for others if you want to make any case to them at all. We have no reason to take your word for anything.

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
The OP has already stated that English was his 1st language, twice I believe. His excuse had nothing to do with his use of grammar or bad spelling.

Did not have anything to do with his use of bad grammar or bad spelling?

Did he not state that he had gone through 14 years of child abuse?

Try THAT road of hell and see how you end up learning grammar and spelling. One of the signs of child abuse to look for as a teacher is not being able to pay enough attention in class to learn in conjunction with some other tell-tale signs. I don't know if I could have paid attention in school after that. I don't know if anyone could. Like the phoenix rising from the ashes his intelligence and human feeling were still not damaged. Intelligence has nothing to do with learning to drill something into memory from school, if you were awake you would understand that.

Jake The Dog Man...

Originally posted by thrashee
The conspiracy theorists watch these events, and start to question. They wonder if what they've seen with their own eyes might not be true. They wonder if it's possible for the towers to have collapsed based upon what they, in fact saw.

Wrong dude. Most people that question the events of that day at the time were sheep and did not question anything fed by the main stream media and government. I will admit I was one of them. The events of THAT day was the catalyst for millions t awaken from there slumber.

I reiterate… the OP has already stated that English was his 1st language, twice I believe. His excuse had nothing to do with his use of grammar or bad spelling.

Reread the post… I didn’t claim this; I was just pointing it out.

Don’t look for trouble where there is none.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Agreed. And some people actually suspected demolition, for example, the moment they saw the towers fall. I wasn't one of them, but that opinion was certainly there from the start.

The opinion may have been there from the start, but any opinion can exist from the start. Someone from ATS could have watched and thought, "There we go, the Greys have just lasered the towers from their cloaked saucers"...does that make it plausible?

Now this gets fuzzy because when you say "what actually happened is self-evident" are you sure you aren't referring to what you think happened? Because what you think happened (for example, inside those buildings as they fell) is a completely different ball game than what actually happened inside of them, which is what we're arguing about in the first place because neither of us really know.

It may be a completely different ball game than what actually happened, yes. Sure, it's possible. I'm not denying that. My point is that when such things happen, you start off with plausibility. Is it possible that every person who witnessed these events was mislead by holographs, and that the media was involved in misinformation? Well, sure...anything's possible. But what's more plausible? Why should we start off questioning what we saw with our own eyes? Why should we immediately be suspicious of this event?

Here's what I saw: jets crashing into massive structures, and causing some serious structural damage. Those same structures eventually collapsing. Logically, there is nothing about this that immediately makes me suspicious. In other words, it's more plausible to assume the cause and effect that I saw than to begin entertaining all the implications of an inside job. I am taking more of a leap of faith to being going down this road than what was reported both by the media and by eye witness accounts.

The "our consensus was here first!" thing is immature and not scientific by any standard whatsoever. The theory is that the airliners and fire brought the buildings down, for example, but that was never a scientifically-supported theory, so you can't argue that there is really anything to refute in the first place.

It's not a matter of what was there first. Again, it's what was witnessed. I have no reason to doubt what I saw happen. We're not talking about an isolated report of a UFO where the witness must provide evidence that it was, in fact, a UFO. We're talking about an event that will probably be the most publicized occurrence of the decade. It's illogical to have seen all this happen, and then expect everyone to say, "Well, forget what we saw: it must be scientifically proven that planes did, indeed, hit those buildings, and that those crashes, did, indeed, cause the collapse of the towers." This is what you expect out of everyone regarding 9/11, and it all hinges upon conjecture and again, your counter-claim that more had to be going on.

The only reason I have is because I know it doesn't exist.
Otherwise I would definitely want proof from you, and you really should try to provide some for others if you want to make any case to them at all. We have no reason to take your word for anything.

But this is my point. I don't have to prove any case to you. It's readily plausible to accept, again, what millions of people saw. It's less plausible to believe holographs were at play, that a shadow government set it all up, that the media, and scientists, and universities, are all in on one giant conspiracy.

You are providing a counter claim that opposes what was witnessed, again, by millions of people. So now it's up to you to prove that counter claim, and merely flipping that back around stating, "But wait, you all never proved that what you saw actually happened" is disingenuous, precisely because you're making a counter claim. If you merely stated, "What was witnessed and reported is not enough for me to believe", then you're not making a claim at all, and that's well and good. If, however, you either claim, "That's not what really happened", or even further, "This is actually what happened", then you are most definitely making a claim, and you assume a burden of proof by doing so.





[edit on 21-8-2008 by thrashee]

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by thrashee
The conspiracy theorists watch these events, and start to question. They wonder if what they've seen with their own eyes might not be true. They wonder if it's possible for the towers to have collapsed based upon what they, in fact saw.

Wrong dude. Most people that question the events of that day at the time were sheep and did not question anything fed by the main stream media and government. I will admit I was one of them. The events of THAT day was the catalyst for millions t awaken from there slumber.

I'm assuming that you're one of the theorists. So you're stating that you never questioned the events of that day, and that you never wondered if an alternative was possible. How, then, did you come to accept an alternate theory?

Or are you confusing things along temporal lines? I never said when they began to question, and frankly, it's irrelevant.

Although I like your ad hominem slants in calling those that believe the mainstream to be sheep. It's certainly not a cliche, and it only serves to make us take conspiracy theorists more seriously

reply to post by thrashee


(So now we get to your counter-claims, and your burden of proof. If you're doubting what was visibly witnessed by so many people, then it is up to you to disprove that event. You are stepping up loudly proclaiming, "What you saw was a lie! And here's why!" Therefore, you have assumed a negative claim, and you now bear a burden of proof.)

Some of us are doubtful because we are not taken in by liers.
Most normal people are not suckered in everything they see on TV.
Yes, you said (witnessed by so many people.) Thanks for sharing that we didnt know.
Parts of the events have been disproved by science (The Steven Jones report.) But people like you just hand wave it as a conspiracies and parrot
Bill OReilly and Fox news and the rest of the news pundants.
You are right about (stepping up loudly.) Because we dont have the power as the Government has, or the money, or the media help!
(assumed a negative claim)? All of 911 was negative.




(Your attempts at doing so have ranged from such laughable theories as "holographic planes" to planting inside bombs. This should be your first clue: whenever you must construct an even more unprovable or implausible theory to support your first one, you should know you're on the wrong path.)

Wow! so you think that everyone who dosent believe in the Government version of 911 believes in holographic planes. I think you are on the wrong path in your deluded thinking.

(whenever you must construct an even more unprovable or implausible theory to support your first one.) Yes this is what the Government has been doing in all their 911 reports. lol Infact their tripping over their lies
they cant get it right! the 911 reports contradic each other, its a laughable joke!

I feel your pain and your anger no one likes a lier!

Originally posted by cashlink
Some of us are doubtful because we are not taken in by liers.
Most normal people are not suckered in everything they see on TV.
Yes, you said (witnessed by so many people.) Thanks for sharing that we didnt know.

This is nothing but another claim. It's self-supporting logic. First you must prove that all of these people are liars. And I'm sorry, but just because it's the media doesn't mean it was all a lie. Gotta prove it, especially considering how many reports there were.

Parts of the events have been disproved by science (The Steven Jones report.) But people like you just hand wave it as a conspiracies and parrot
Bill OReilly and Fox news and the rest of the news pundants.

Firstly, you are making yet another assumption--I can't stand Fox news or Bill O'Reilly, so political-affiliation smear tactics have no place here. All you're demonstrating here is that if I disagree with you, I must be part of a right-wing machine. Bad, bad assumption.

All of 911 was negative.

Great. Now prove it.

Wow! so you think that everyone who dosent believe in the Government version of 911 believes in holographic planes. I think you are on the wrong path in your deluded thinking.

Nope, I never stated that. It was an example that has come out of the conspiracy camp. If you don't like that theory, I suggest you take it up amongst yourselves.

Yes this is what the Government has been doing in all their 911 reports. lol Infact their tripping over their lies
they cant get it right! the 911 reports contradic each other, its a laughable joke!

Even if they do contradict each other, you can't readily assume, therefore, that it was all a lie. It could simply be contradictions. That doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that bureaucracy can be bloated and often out of communication with constituent parts. Are you really surprised by that?

Originally posted by thrashee

Although I like your ad hominem slants in calling those that believe the mainstream to be sheep. It's certainly not a cliche, and it only serves to make us take conspiracy theorists more seriously

Sheep accept what they are fed.

I run with the wolves.

Our founding fathers ran with the wolves.

When you are old will you say "I lived life to the fullest and gave the ones that tried to hold us down hell, I ran with the wolves"

Or will you look down in shame to your grandkids that may end up being corporate fodder and say "I did what they told me, they fed me so I just followed"

That is what a sheep is.

On the back of one of our rescue rigs it says "lead follow or get out of the way"

I am a proud MAN. I will always be a FREE MAN dead or alive.

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
I reiterate… the OP has already stated that English was his 1st language, twice I believe. His excuse had nothing to do with his use of grammar or bad spelling.

Reread the post… I didn’t claim this; I was just pointing it out.

Don’t look for trouble where there is none.

How does one look at themselves in the mirror in the morning stating things like that.

To be a man is not to be cold and unfeeling.

A real man picks himself up by the balls and takes care of business when he has too. He also knows how to feel and take care of others that have fallen.

reply to post by LoneGunMan


While your emotional appeals to greatness versus cowardice are certainly entertaining (I especially liked the part about grandchildren), it still doesn't make this any less of an ad hominem attack.

Is there anything else you'd like to say regarding how people who disagree with you and actually believe what was reported on 9/11 are nothing but sheep, or does this type of fallacy suffice for you?

Originally posted by thrashee
reply to post by LoneGunMan

 

While your emotional appeals to greatness versus cowardice are certainly entertaining (I especially liked the part about grandchildren), it still doesn't make this any less of an ad hominem attack.

It is not an as hominem attack. It is the only way to describe someone that never questions the Government or what the boob tube tells them. You have been in front of the corporate indoctrination machine too long if you are being a sheep.

An emotional appeal to greatness? I am humble,talking about running with the wolves, if you feel that is greater than being a sheep then try it.

Last great thing I did was pull a woman from a mangled wreck that had 7 compound fractures and a 3 year old girl in the backseat that will never feel anything again from the neck down.

Try and swallow that and keep walking with the wolves buddy, personally I don't think you have what it takes.


[edit on 21-8-2008 by LoneGunMan]

How does one look at themselves in the mirror in the morning stating things like that.

To be a man is not to be cold and unfeeling.

A real man picks himself up by the balls and takes care of business when he has too. He also knows how to feel and take care of others that have fallen.

When you’re out running with the wolves, what are you smoking? READ the thread… in order. I was not the one who said that. Maybe you missed that while you were out finding more sympathetic avatars, maybe you were out saving the world, I don’t know. Just learn to read.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
It is not an as hominem attack. It is the only way to describe someone that never questions the Government or what the boob tube tells them. You have been in front of the corporate indoctrination machine too long if you are being a sheep.

Except what makes you think I never question the government or that I always believe what's on TV? You're assuming this simply because I do not agree with you in this instance, and this is yet another breakdown of logic.

An emotional appeal to greatness? I am humble,talking about running with the wolves, if you feel that is greater than being a sheep then try it.

Last great thing I did was pull a woman from a mangled wreck that had 7 compound fractures and a 3 year old girl in the backseat that will never feel anything again from the neck down. Try and swallow that and keep walking with the wolves buddy, personally I don't think you have what it takes.

Is that an example of how humble you are?



[edit on 21-8-2008 by thrashee]

i have no doubt in my mind that 9/11 was a inside job! i just saw a video recently that showed 2 hours of proof scientific and such. some things i remember. no particular order just written as they come to me.

1.calls down. the calls on the plane to the ground were impossible at that time they had like a .006 chance of the phone call even making it. american airline just receintly released the ability to do that in 05

2.terrorists. after the terrorists photos where released most called in and were still alive and fine

3. the pentagon attack. complete bs. no plane debrees was said to have burned up. poles that it hit didnt break the just popped out of the ground. even the hole there were no wings just a hole and the ground the plane slid on was perfectly fine. finally all the cammeras in the area (at the hotel and gas station nearby) were confiscated)

4.black boxes! none recovered or shown at least to public.

5.twin towers. after the planes hit the towers you could see as they fell at near free fall speed little explosions that shook cameras comming out the sides. the three towers that fell that day are the first 3 towers to ever fall in history because of fire. building 7 fell beacause of "twin tower debree" fell straight down not touching any other building in 6 seconds.

some examples

july 28 1945 b52 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the empire state building 14 people dead 1,000,000 in damage. did not collapse.

february 14 1975 3 alarm fire brke out between the 9-14 floor of the north tower sprinklers installed. did not collapse.

may 4 1988 a 62 story tower in L.A burned for 3 hours spread over 4 floors. did not collapse.

february 23 1991 38 story skyscraper in philly that was built in 1973 burned for more than 19 hours spread over 8 floors. did not collapse.

october 17 2004 a 56 story skyscraper in venesuala (something like that) built in 1976 burned for over 17 hours spread over 26 floors eventually reaching the roof. did not collapse.

february 12 2005 a 32 story tower in madrid burned for almost 24! hours completely destroying the upper 10 stories. did not collapse.

september 11 2001 two 110 story skyscrapers made in 1973 burned for 56 and 103 minutes respectively over 4 floors. fell to the ground!!!

i could go on and on but it just makes me mad so you get it it was a inside job no doubt not to mention the gold under the tower that the took. one of the worlds largest gold deposits was stored under the WTC in 1993 the gold was estimated at 1 billlion dollars. in '01 the value was beleived to be 160 billion. about 140 million was found in the rubble. so i got to go but i have more for later peace people