911 diversionary tactics

Not at all. Anyone who lived through that had my respect. I reserve my disgust and disrespect for that punk con artist Dylan Avery, who distorts everything he touches up to and including Jennings for his own selfish agenda. When WTC 1 fell wreckage fell on WTC 7 so of course the remaining people inside would hear and feel explosions, I have no concerns about that. What I loathe about that punk Avery is that he's likewise perverting this into looking like they were actual explosives.

1. there were previous attempts at the towers using bombs in the basement.
2. there was an NYPD investigation into bombs in the basement on 911.
3. That investigation was never finished.
4. Many people reported explosions that did not coincide with any "known" event.

How exactly did you come to the conclusion that there were no actual explosives?

I will say it point blank:

NO ONE has the required information to come to the conclusion that there were not bombs going off that day, you can ONLY form an opinion on it.

I note your opinion and disagree wholeheartedly.

Originally posted by jprophet420
1. there were previous attempts at the towers using bombs in the basement.
2. there was an NYPD investigation into bombs in the basement on 911.
3. That investigation was never finished.
4. Many people reported explosions that did not coincide with any "known" event.

How exactly did you come to the conclusion that there were no actual explosives?

Becuase the building, just like every other building, was chock full of flammable objects that would naturally explode when they catch on fire- fuel tanks, electrical transformers, pressurized piple, fire extinguishers, etc. I know this becuase in my last job, the electrical transformer in the building across the street from us overheated and exploded like a bomb, shaking our building and setting the building across the street on fire.

I am an eyewitness to the fact that electrical transformers explode like bombs, so I know full well there are many logical reasons for what we all saw and heard. It's just that the conspiracy people are intentionally selecting the more paranoid sounding ones to suit their own antiestablishment outlook on life..

NO ONE has the required information to come to the conclusion that there were not bombs going off that day, you can ONLY form an opinion on it.

You are mistaken, as conspiracies necessarily need to follow the same laws of physics that apply to you and me. The towers began collapsing at the point of impact of the planes so yoru hypothetical explosives needed to have been planted there. Between the damage from the aircraft impact and the fires, there'd be no way any such explosives would have survived.

Tht of course doesn't even explain how anyone could have planted demolitions in an occupied building to begin with. You're not talking about parking a van full of ANFO in the garage, you're talking about controlled demolitions, and that's about as blatant as a bull in a china shop.

I note your opinion and disagree wholeheartedly.

All right, fair enough, but I need to ask- do you disagree becuase of your revire of the fct, or do you disagree becuase you WANT these conspiracy stories of yours to be true?

I am an eyewitness to the fact that electrical transformers explode like bombs, so I know full well there are many logical reasons for what we all saw and heard. It's just that the conspiracy people are intentionally selecting the more paranoid sounding ones to suit their own antiestablishment outlook on life..

More paranoid sounding ones?

1. There was a previous bombing.
2. The building was a known target for bombings aside from the one that actually detonated.
3. There was an ongoing bomb investigation.

My degree is in electronic engineering, so I know all about transformers exploding. Were there transformers in the vicinity? Of course. Is it likely that some of them exploded? Of course.

However, given the 3 statements made above, to consider it paranoid or anti establishment to think there were bombs is a ludicrous notion.

Originally posted by jprophet420
More paranoid sounding ones?

1. There was a previous bombing.
2. The building was a known target for bombings aside from the one that actually detonated.
3. There was an ongoing bomb investigation.

My degree is in electronic engineering, so I know all about transformers exploding. Were there transformers in the vicinity? Of course. Is it likely that some of them exploded? Of course.

Then logically speaking, if *some* of the explosions heard were of non-conspiracy, perfectly explainable origins, then it stands to reason that *all* the explosions could have been of non-conspiracy, perfectly explainable origins. This had been my position from day one, and I find it interesting that the more you attempt to prove your own claims, the more you only wind up proving mine.

However, given the 3 statements made above, to consider it paranoid or anti establishment to think there were bombs is a ludicrous notion.

Before you continue, I think it prudent that you fully define your vocabulary. When you say, "bombs" are you referring to controlled demolitions meant to demolish the building, or do you mean randomly planted bombs causing indeterminable destruction like the ones planted in 1993?

Originally posted by jprophet420
I did not say that. You were unable to quote me saying that which is why you did not post it in the first place, and did not use the quote function on the boards.

Let's see what you wrote...

In other words "conspiracy theory A" is false, therefore "Conspiracy theory B is true." Or specifically in this case: able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise... DOES NOT MEAN that the OS is true. Not by a longshot.

As I thought. Exactly as I characterised it.

What you said I stated was incorrect so the fact that it "makes you sad" is irrelevant, other than for entertainment purposes.

Interesting that you're so hung up on the minutiae of quoting etiquette, yet you're unable even to quote me correctly. And that you clearly don't understand what I meant.

I wrote

This strikes me as rather sad

In the sense of pathetic. It doesn't make me upset.

Unwittingly indeed.

I don't imply anything, I simply draw the line. You can stand on either side, or straddle it, but you can't do 2 of those 3 things and be taken seriously.

This is where you're wrong. It's not up to you to draw a "line", or at any rate it's not imperative that anyone else respect it. Your attempts to define the parameters of the debate are tiresome and egocentric. They're also based on a false premise.

I stand undecided, and I catch a lot of flack from both sides for doing that. "Truthers" don't give me a star and flag for just being a "truther" like other "truthers" do. Debunkers don't give me a star for debunking. I have to earn every single point.

Who gives a flying toss about stars?

What I did in this thread was took a statement found on a .gov website, and pointed out that it used heavy fallacy and was "propaganda". The claim that it is propaganda is up for debate, the claim that the conclusion is based on fallacy is certainly not.

In technical logical terms it isn't based on a fallacy, because it doesn't make the assumption that you impress upon it. Anyway, it doesn't really matter, it's a minor point. The important thing to realise is that there is a way of analysing 9/11 which can assert that American people were lied to, that the investigation is a sham, but that the Truth Movement is also nonsense. Your "line" is irrelevant.

This is where you're wrong. It's not up to you to draw a "line", or at any rate it's not imperative that anyone else respect it. Your attempts to define the parameters of the debate are tiresome and egocentric. They're also based on a false premise.

Denying something does not make it false.

You call it tiresome and egocentric, science calls it logic.

You can agree with a hypothesis, you can disagree with a hypothesis, or you can be undecided.

You don't have to respect it at all, you are 100% right. It is simple logic however, not some "spin" that I put on it.

Originally posted by jprophet420
Denying something does not make it false.

You call it tiresome and egocentric, science calls it logic.

You can agree with a hypothesis, you can disagree with a hypothesis, or you can be undecided.

You don't have to respect it at all, you are 100% right. It is simple logic however, not some "spin" that I put on it.

Ah, now I see where you're getting confused. The assertion "9/11 was an inside job" is not a scientific hypothesis. It's not even really a zero-sum statement for logical purposes because its terms are so ill-defined. Hence one can hold a rather more nuanced view or views than the handful you choose to recognise.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by jprophet420
Denying something does not make it false.

You call it tiresome and egocentric, science calls it logic.

You can agree with a hypothesis, you can disagree with a hypothesis, or you can be undecided.

You don't have to respect it at all, you are 100% right. It is simple logic however, not some "spin" that I put on it.

Ah, now I see where you're getting confused. The assertion "9/11 was an inside job" is not a scientific hypothesis. It's not even really a zero-sum statement for logical purposes because its terms are so ill-defined. Hence one can hold a rather more nuanced view or views than the handful you choose to recognise.

a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations.

Not confused at all. And I was referring to the hypothesis laid out by the government via the media, and more specifically the NIST report.

reply to post by jprophet420


Even though I do not believe the OS for a second, I must say however that your topic is within the same perimeters as those you are trying to cite. Its a tired argument that amounts to simply bitching about the same things over & over & over & over again with no real resolution. The best thing if you want the truth is to use facts rather than opinions designed to act as gas on the big fire of truth.

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by jprophet420

 

Even though I do not believe the OS for a second, I must say however that your topic is within the same perimeters as those you are trying to cite. Its a tired argument that amounts to simply bitching about the same things over & over & over & over again with no real resolution. The best thing if you want the truth is to use facts rather than opinions designed to act as gas on the big fire of truth.

Using the facts would be a billion times easier if everyone didn't disagree on what the facts were. Everyone disagrees about damn near EVERYTHING about the 9/11 attacks. There were planes, there were not planes the towers collapsed too fast the towers collapsed at a normal speed, the rubble was too hot, the rubble was not hot enough, the molten metal was steel the molten metal was aluminum etc etc etc etc etc.

While I don't exactly believe the version 0f 9/11 events as they are presented to us, I don't exactly subscribe to any of the other "mainstream 9/11 conspiracies" either. And I agree largely with what Dave has said.

I've worked for years on various angles and it would probably be a few more before I've become "cemented" on an idea. I have a "hypothesis" that what I look into always seems to be right back at the center of probability, but I've found it hard over the years to seriously discuss it with people without eventually getting to holographic planes, or some other idea that just doesn't fit with my ideas and keeps me from collaborating those ideas with people. In the 9/11 "truth movement" some people are either so adherrent to their ideas and beliefs, so distrusting of government, or just so downright crazy that they refuse to let go of some of the most outlandish ideas, no matter how false they are proven to be. Over the years my ideas and views have changed as I've learned and been able to better understand many things, others learn those same things and just refuse to grasp the reality of it.

All that being said, questions like this....

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
How the heck did these invisible controlled demolitions get in the building without anyone noticing?

Bring me back to statements like this....

...Anyway, at this point three guys started running towards me. One guy believe it or not -- it may sound weird, but to me an Arabic-looking guy, American though. And the twho guys that were chasing were yelling, "Stop, stop, FBI, FBI." One guy was a tall white guy. He had a long-sleeved white shirt and tie on. Anyway, I watched them chase this fellow toward me. Just as the guy was passing to my right maybe about 12 feet away, the so-called FBI guys, they get a hold of the guy, threw him on the floor and put cuffs on him. The next second I heard that loudest noise in the world that I was describing before getting louder and louder...

I'm not explicitly saying this guy planted some bombs. But this is a pretty interesting statement, something I've never really seen any followup news in regards to. Could have just been a misunderstanding.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster

...Anyway, at this point three guys started running towards me. One guy believe it or not -- it may sound weird, but to me an Arabic-looking guy, American though. And the twho guys that were chasing were yelling, "Stop, stop, FBI, FBI." One guy was a tall white guy. He had a long-sleeved white shirt and tie on. Anyway, I watched them chase this fellow toward me. Just as the guy was passing to my right maybe about 12 feet away, the so-called FBI guys, they get a hold of the guy, threw him on the floor and put cuffs on him. The next second I heard that loudest noise in the world that I was describing before getting louder and louder...

I'm not explicitly saying this guy planted some bombs. But this is a pretty interesting statement, something I've never really seen any followup news in regards to. Could have just been a misunderstanding.

If it hadn't been mentioned that this guy was Arab-looking, or that it happened in proximity to 9/11, what would you normally think when FBI agents chase down and arrest someone in New York City? I daresay it's the same thing you're thinking when you hear of FBI agents arresting people in New York City today.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


All I said is that it is an interesting statement, I don't think even you can deny that.

But I'm doing what anyone would and should do and I'm taking it in context. Him being arab looking or not has nothing to do with it. The fact that for whatever reason these FBI agents deemed it necessary to chase this guy down is interesting, and warrants further looking into. There were tons of people running away from the buildings, I've failed to find one other instance of someone being tackled and arrested. Although I have heard this same account in other interviews.

Your comment really has no bearing, considering what was going on. I'd normally think the guy had did something wrong, if he ran from a building that exploded seconds later I'd REALLY think he did something wrong. And I'd wonder what became of him.

I'd think that's quite normal. What would you think to be normal?

I got wind of what is really going on... and it is worse than anything we can possibly imagine - we are being bled at every step in our economy.
and its for a purpose - and we just keep thinking about Conspiracy this Conspiracy that - I am researching time line's for a common theme other than we lose our rights - I believe we will be lucky to live through the next 10 years folks - but I just cant put my finger on it. I will get a vision when I stumble on the truth. its just the way it is, and the agents here normally confirm the truth - thats what is so cool about ATS. so many Mossad and other intel agencies match wits here - they must not be paying much because some are well (cant say it and be nice and courtous) DECORUM AND ALL.

still think the planes could have been holograms

Originally posted by jprophet420

a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations.

Not confused at all. And I was referring to the hypothesis laid out by the government via the media, and more specifically the NIST report.

Well, one can disagree with that and still not agree with you, or the Truth Movement.

That's the positions I ascribe to. So does MikeLee by the looks of it. So I'm not sure who put you in charge with regard to what people are allowed to think.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by jprophet420

a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations.

Not confused at all. And I was referring to the hypothesis laid out by the government via the media, and more specifically the NIST report.

Well, one can disagree with that and still not agree with you, or the Truth Movement.

That's the positions I ascribe to. So does MikeLee by the looks of it. So I'm not sure who put you in charge with regard to what people are allowed to think.

I encourage people to think freely, that's the whole point. And when I see people who arrive at the conclusion that they agree with the NIST report on every point except that ones that don't debunk conspiracy I know they haven't.

As I said I encourage everyone to think. It really separates the men from the boys, so to speak.

reply to post by jprophet420


Well, good luck with those people.

Personally I disagree with you though. It's possible to have an open mind about 9/11 that doesn't reference conspiracy at all, or any kind of line between conspiracy and non-conspiracy thinking. Indeed its arguably much more open minded. Still, good luck ploughing your furrow.

"The best thing if you want the truth is to use facts rather than opinions designed to act as gas on the big fire of truth."

This coming from a person who created an entire non-fact based thread stating that his "opinion" about 9/11 had changed.