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.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by suzque66
Any discussion on anything non-mainstream takes a lot of conviction to even follow through with after 10 minutes.
To some, a disbelief of or confrontation of their government/systems that they assume are a higher power, is not possible.
Some people actually put so much (or more) faith in the system they live in/under that it would be like showing them that quotes from the bible are actually defamatory to mankind--an impossibility.
Brushing everyone off who disagrees with your position
as "someone who puts too much faith in the system" is an intellectually lazy, "one size fits all" explanation
meant more to rationalize why the truthers
are having so much difficulty getting the mainstream public to accept their conspiracy scenarios, than anything else.
It's akin to some self-perceived macho guy saying, "well, she must be a lesbian" to rationalize why a woman won't go out with him, to avoid having to face the ugly truth that he's really a putz.
No, the fact is, if the truthers want to convince us mainstream public
then we need to have actual FACTS to back the claim up. Not innuendo, not five degrees of separation Kevin Bacon games, not cute internet flicks made by college students in the dorm room, not "undisclosed secret intelligence reports from anonymous sources", but actual FACTS. How about an insider coming forward to spill the beans? How about even one of the 50,000 or so people who worked in WTC witnessing seeing strange devices planted throughout the structure before the attack? How about documenting how the 9/11 commission report is lying to us?
Like most rational people, I have a set level of acceptability where, if you present enough evidence to meet that level, i can accept the scenario as legitimate. To date, the truthers have been horribly dearth in providing anything even remotely resembling evidence.
It's as if they demand we need to believe these conspiracy stories FIRST in mindless obedience, which then will allow us to accept the innuendo, the five degrees of separation Kevin Bacon games, the cute internet flicks made by college students in the dorm room, and the "undisclosed secret intelligence reports from anonymous sources" as credible evidence.
I'm sorry, but this ploy didn't work on me when the religious cults tried it so it's certainly not going to work on me when the truthers try it.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I've talked to many, many, MANY self declared members of the truth movement, and I have yet to meet ONE truther who actually read the 9/11 commission report.
GoodOlDave
The press certainly is free I.E. not controlled by the gov't,
Originally posted by EvilAxis
reply to post by rich23
An erudite, accurate and entertaining antidote to GoodOlDave's six star stinker. Thanks - I needed that.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I invite you to show me why I am incorrect in anything I just posted here.
Many of those things you're saying weren't covered in the report (I.E. gross negligence and breakdown in communications) WERE covered, and many of the things you're saying is wrong in the report (I.E. how the fires instigated the collapse) WASN'T covered becuase that's not what the report was for.
Truth never has to run and hide from falsehoods, you know. It's falsehoods that have to run and hide from the truth.
It has nothing to do with wanting to find the truth and everythign to do with wanting to protect a personal agenda. I say this becuase it's becomign increasingly obvious from their behavior that the goal of the conspiracy proponents isn't to learn the truth on anything, but for the conspiracy proponents to actively convince others to believe what they themselves want to believe, regardless of what the truth really is.
It should be little wonder then why the conspiracy proponents are encountering such great difficulty in convincing mainstream public of anything.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by kinda kurious
Ruh Roh. I thought we were discussing 'Argumentative Skills."
We ARE discussing "argumentative skills". I'm pointing out the fallacy of using the argument that the 9/11 commission report is dishonest when the critics making such a claim never even read the thing to even know why the report is dishonest.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What do you mean, "excuses"'? It says right in the article the place is where pilots from other countries are being sent for training. It even says two of the hijackers used to be Saudi Air force pilots. That explains right there why they were there- the Saudi gov't sent them there back when they were in the Saudi service.
It would be really, really weird for the military to be an intentional participant because they're openly admitting all of this and are cooperating with the investigation.
All you've done with this is to prove there really were foreign hijackers with the specialized piloting skills to pull off the 9/11 attack. You do realize that, right?
The major media has never attempted to follow those lines of investigation from everything I have seen, even without knowing any details of the issue yet.
ALL right then, give it to Michael Moore. You know as well as I do that he doesn't care about shoving microphones in people's faces and asking embarrassing questions.
Originally posted by bsbray11
though. If you are a truly brave soul maybe you'll try both perspectives on some day rather than just attacking the one from the other side?
Originally posted by rich23
Hold it right there... that's a distortion of what suzque66 wrote. You might like to review the difference between the concepts of "some people" and "everyone". Intellectual dishonesty, laziness or ignorance? I don't know and wouldn't like to say which. But it's definitely one of those.
How funny. That argument, in view of the flaw I've just exposed, is deeply, deeply ironic and hypocritical.
Did you read the OP at all? Or did you just decide to be pejorative in a stolid and unimaginative way?
Granted it's a small sample size, but that's still a hugely significant statistic. Even if you factor in a huge margin of error, it's still a lot of people.
9/11_world=complete_911_timeline_9_11_criticism]this page[/url] you have a number of poll results showing huge amounts of people at least falling into the LIHOP camp: half of New Yorkers, a majority of Canadians, a third of Germans, and so on. There was also a Zogby poll that said two-thirds of New Yorkers wanted a new investigation.
Interesting assumption that you represent the mainstream public. In view of the links I've posted, it's not necessarily a safe assumption, of course.
This has all been done. The fact you seem unable to realise this is, frankly, odd. There are plenty of threads on ATS that present exactly these kind of facts.
Of course, many facts are missing. Passenger lists that include the names of the hijackers, for example. Their absence also points to a conspiracy, though it's not conclusive.
Originally posted by rich23
No? Then you've never heard of The 9/11 Commission Report, Omissions and Distortions, which takes the thing apart almost line by line.
I've read his book and checked it against the official report in enough places to convince me that he's not quoting out of context or misrepresenting the obvious meaning of any paragraphs he references.
Originally posted by rich23
Daniel Hopsicker's interview with Amanda Keller (ex-stripper and Atta's sometime squeeze) is interesting viewing.
If you think that constitutes proof of your assertion your grasp on logic and argument is even more tenuous than I'd thought. It also ignores, wilfully, one might say, all the evidence from their instructors that they were all hopeless pilots. I think it was Hani Hanjour who got as far as taxiing his Cessna to the end of the runway but then bottled it and just ran off leaving the plane where it was!
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by rich23
No? Then you've never heard of The 9/11 Commission Report, Omissions and Distortions, which takes the thing apart almost line by line.
Yes I have heard of it. I haven't read it but I know what it contains...
Give David Ray Griffin your money
His "ommissions and distortions" are entirely things which are either unproven or can never be proven
there were no arab names on the passenger list
When he implies there are "signs" flight 93 *may* have been shot down, without telling you that the commission report specifically says NORAD openly admitted they were actively hunting flight 93 and they would have destroyed it had they found it, yes, he IS quoting it out of context and yes he IS misrepresenting what he's referencing. The military obviously isn't going to openly admit they would have destroyed it if they had found it only to turn around and deny they actually destroyed it.
Originally posted by Grambler
Lastly, I would just like to say that I personally have three friends that refuse to listen to me about 9/11, because they have dealt with smug, better than thou people in the past on the issue, so it really does make a difference. Personal attacks not only do nothing to help prove your point, they can in fact convince people your wrong.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by rich23
Daniel Hopsicker's interview with Amanda Keller (ex-stripper and Atta's sometime squeeze) is interesting viewing.
Yes it is, especially since it was from Keller that we got the information that Atta was an accomplished pilot with licenses from numerous countries, plus, that he was such a hard core sociopath that he dismembered her kittens when she broke up with him.
If you're goign to accept some of her testimony then you'll necessarily have to accept all of her testimony.
One former flight instructor said a Federal Aviation Administration official placed an angry call on Dec. 27, threatening to investigate the maintenance record of the plane as well as the two pilots.
''Whatever came of that, I don't know,'' said Dan Pursell, who was then the chief instructor at Huffman Aviation in Venice, Fla., the flight school where Mr. Atta and Mr. Shehhi earned their pilot's licenses and had rented the Piper Cherokee that day. ''They said I'd hear back from them, which I never did.''
Ms. Ladner said the Phoenix staff never suspected that Mr. Hanjour was a hijacker but feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner.
''There was no suspicion as far as evildoing,'' Ms. Ladner said. ''It was more of a very typical instructional concern that 'you really shouldn't be in the air.' ''
....
Ultimately, administrators at the school told Mr. Hanjour that he would not qualify for the advanced certificate. But the ex-employee said Mr. Hanjour continued to pay to train on a simulator for Boeing 737 jets. ''He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course,'' the ex-employee said.
Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.
''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''
How the heck can they be "hopeless pilots" when your OWN SOURCES just said several hijackers were former Saudi Air Force pilots who received advanced training at a US flight school,
The statements obviously contradict each other, so obviously only one statement or the other can be correct.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You are splitting hairs in your argument and you know it. It's blatantly obvious her point was (becuase she came out and actually said it) that she felt the reason people weren't taking these conspiracy accusations seriously is becuase they're too horrified at the prospect at the gov't ever doing anythign wrong. It's a complete evasion of the OTHER obvious reason, namely, that the conspiracy movement is suffering from ghastly credibility problems (I.E. no planes, lasers from outer space, nukes in the basement, etc etc etc.) becuase she didn't want to face the ugly possibility that the conspiracy movement is having credibility issues. Whether she means "some" or "all" in her statement is entirely moot.
How funny. That argument, in view of the flaw I've just exposed, is deeply, deeply ironic and hypocritical.
I'm glad you're amused. Would you please explain how my statement above is incorrect?
Did you read the OP at all? Or did you just decide to be pejorative in a stolid and unimaginative way?
One would think that to be pejorative AND stolid, particularly in a forum devoted to discussing sensitive issues like controversial conspiracy theories, one would necessarily need to take great care in being imaginative in expressing it, or else it wouldn't really be stolid.
Do you even know what those words mean?
Granted it's a small sample size, but that's still a hugely significant statistic. Even if you factor in a huge margin of error, it's still a lot of people.
You are overlookign the obvious fact that the belief in something does not by itself prove the thing is correct.
9/11_world=complete_911_timeline_9_11_criticism]this page[/url] you have a number of poll results showing huge amounts of people at least falling into the LIHOP camp: half of New Yorkers, a majority of Canadians, a third of Germans, and so on. There was also a Zogby poll that said two-thirds of New Yorkers wanted a new investigation.
Nowhere does it say WHY they want a new investigation. I too wouldn't mind another investigation, not becuase of any imagined secret conspiracies but becuase I'd like to know exactly how badly the gov't f**ked up in its responsibility to stop the attack.
Seeing that the only place I can even find you conspiracy people is on these conspiracy chat boards...and I even went to a 9/11 memorial at ground zero a few years back specifically to look for you people, and I STILL couldn't find any of you...yes I can say I represent the mainstream public, or I should say, I represent the mainstream public much more accurately than you do.
Not innuendo, not five degrees of separation Kevin Bacon games, not cute internet flicks made by college students in the dorm room, not "undisclosed secret intelligence reports from anonymous sources", but actual FACTS.
...
It's as if they demand we need to believe these conspiracy stories FIRST in mindless obedience, which then will allow us to accept the innuendo, the five degrees of separation Kevin Bacon games, the cute internet flicks made by college students in the dorm room, and the "undisclosed secret intelligence reports from anonymous sources"
All you DO have is innuendo, five degrees of separation Kevin Bacon games, cute internet flicks made by college students in the dorm room, and "undisclosed secret intelligence reports from anonymous sources". All you're doing is rehashing them in new and exciting ways.
The hijackers were not absent from the passenger lists, so the claim it supposed "points to a conspiracy" is fundamentally flawed.
Originally posted by rich23
What a very odd thing to title your link. In fact, it's a smear. Where on the page you linked does he ask for money? He's published a book, but you yourself have admitted that you know what it contains because he's posted the summary on your link.
The link is also useful because it lists 115 points, of which the first one is that some of the alleged hijackers are still alive. This is irrefutable and I'm glad you don't try, in your cherrypicking way, to refute it, simply because it would have been embarrassing.
So please provide original passenger lists for all flights showing the names of the alleged hijackers.
I'm glad you have such a fine grasp of the military mind. Can you refer me to the part of the 9/11 Commission Report you're talking about so I can make up my own mind on this?