Invitation to post for lurkers

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Who is lying to me?

No one tells me what to think Dave. My own background and education is enough for me to understand.


Then why are you using phrases like "the Official Story" when there really isn't any OFFICIAL story. It's a story put out by many, many eyewitness accounts that all come together like a jigsaw puzzle. The only thing "official" about it is that it was the government that put the pieces together.

Case in point: Flight attendent Renee May called out to her mother from flight 77 telling her the plane was hijacked. The "official story" as you put it says the attack was carried out by hijacked aircraft, and they got that information from people like Renee May and her mother. If you're claiming the gov't is lying then you're necessarily claiming Renee May and/or her mother lying.

Question for you- ARE you claiming Renee May and/or her mother are lying? You can't insist on one without necessarily insisting on the other.




posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Then why are you using phrases like "the Official Story" when there really isn't any OFFICIAL story.


Dave you know by 'official story' I mean the NIST report etc.


It's a story put out by many, many eyewitness accounts that all come together like a jigsaw puzzle. The only thing "official" about it is that it was the government that put the pieces together.


And your point is?


Case in point: Flight attendent Renee May called out to her mother from flight 77 telling her the plane was hijacked. The "official story" as you put it says the attack was carried out by hijacked aircraft, and they got that information from people like Renee May and her mother. If you're claiming the gov't is lying then you're necessarily claiming Renee May and/or her mother lying.

Question for you- ARE you claiming Renee May and/or her mother are lying? You can't insist on one without necessarily insisting on the other.


Do I ever mention the hijacked aircraft? Sorry but I don't play straw men. She could very well have believed the plane had been hijacked. In fact the planes could very well have been hijacked. It doesn't change the fact that three steel framed buildings completely collapsed. and the government gave us some BS story to explain it.

All I can say for sure in this whole mess is that the three WTC buildings did not collapse as the NIST report and the WTC 7 report claim.

edit on 10/4/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
You are fortunate in being immune to being duped but there are people out there lying, other than the government, and some are taken in.


How do you know you're not one of them? Are you sure you are immune to being duped?

How about we discuss Newtonian physics and see who has been duped?

edit on 10/4/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Your "thinking for yourselves" isn't the problem. The problem is that you're deliberately being lied to by the conspiracy mongors in order to manipulate your thinking.


Who is lying to me?

No one tells me what to think Dave. My own background and education is enough for me to understand.

The only people lying is the government. All governments lie.

edit on 10/3/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



Everybody is either lying or confused unless GoodOlDave and company agrees with what they say.
They call us conspiracy theorists while at the same time trying to convince the world that buildings can blow up without explosives.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

It's possible to have hijacked aircraft AND an inside job both. You need to understand the role of the patsy in a reverse sting operation in this case called "The Big Wedding" a codeword used by at least one of the hijackers, the leaking of which Dick Cheney was absolutely infuriated over.

edit on 4-10-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Dave you know by 'official story' I mean the NIST report etc.


If that's the case then you're only proving my point about your simply repeating the bad information you've been told without critical analysis. The NIST report said right on the first page that their findings were an educated guess and were by no means canonical. I myself subscribe to the Purdue report (which conflicts with the NIST and FEMA reports) and that wasn't even remotely an "official story" report. It was an independent report put out by a university.

I was actually going by what another conspiracy proponent declared to be the "official story", which was eighteen hijackers stole four planes and used them in a terrorist attack. Are you telling me there isn't even any consensus among the conspiracy proponents as to what "the official story" even is?



And your point is?


And my point is that everything you consider to be "the official story" wasn't created by the government. It came from eyewitness accounts. When Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden said he saw the fires causing massive devormations in the WTC 7 structure and he knew it was going to collapse, it specifically adds to the credibility that the fires brought WTC 7. Plus, after reading the NIST report on WTC 7 it's obvious they were basing their scenario heavily on Hayden's accounts even thought they dodn't mention him by name.

All right, so you're not accusing Renee May of lying. You're actually accusing Deputy chief Peter Hayden of lying. In the end, what difference does it make what part of "the official story" it is you're contesting?


Do I ever mention the hijacked aircraft? Sorry but I don't play straw men. She could very well have believed the plane had been hijacked. In fact the planes could very well have been hijacked. It doesn't change the fact that three steel framed buildings completely collapsed. and the government gave us some BS story to explain it.


But then the conspiracy proponents have yet to give an adequate explanation as to why what was said was BS. For that matter, the conspiracy proponents can hardly agree amongst themselves as to what was BS. You do know there are many conspiracy proponents who don't even believe a plane actually hit the towers OR the PEntagon, don't you?
edit on 5-10-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

It's possible to have hijacked aircraft AND an inside job both. You need to understand the role of the patsy in a reverse sting operation in this case called "The Big Wedding" a codeword used by at least one of the hijackers, the leaking of which Dick Cheney was absolutely infuriated over.


I don't need to tell you this is a violation of Occam's Razor, that says the most likely explanation is usually the simplest one, unless simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. Using hijacked aircraft AND an inside job only increases the complexity of this hypothetical conspiracy scenario with no real benefit in return, and only raises more questions than it actually answers. At the end of the day, you still cannot get around the fact that terrorists bombed the WTC in 1993 so there was no need whatsoever to conceal any further bombing, nor was there any legitimate reason for the conspirators to commit the immense resources to engineer the building to collapse in the way it did since a number of the surrounding buildings were so smashed up by falling debris that they needed to be demolished anyway.

Rather than using a conspiracy to explain what happened that day, you're trying to reverse engineer what happened that day into a conspiracy and it simply isn't working out for you.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



When Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden said he saw the fires causing massive devormations in the WTC 7 structure and he knew it was going to collapse, it specifically adds to the credibility that the fires brought WTC 7.


Enough with the Chief Hayden story already Dave... It specifically adds credibility that WTC 7 had a fire and partial damage in it. But it certainly does not bring any credibility to the "fires brought down WTC 7" nonsense.



All right, so you're not accusing Renee May of lying. You're actually accusing Deputy chief Peter Hayden of lying.


I must have missed the part where ANOK accused Chief Hayden of lying. Can you clarify that for me?




But then the conspiracy proponents have yet to give an adequate explanation as to why what was said was BS. For that matter, the conspiracy proponents can hardly agree amongst themselves as to what was BS. You do know there are many conspiracy proponents who don't even believe a plane actually hit the towers OR the PEntagon, don't you?


As much as you love talking about the lasers from space/no planes theories, you know that ANOK is not talking about those types conspiracy proponents.

Most people that you call conspiracy theorists agree that NIST, FIMA, Commission don't make any sense and is a insult to peoples intelligence. And the cover ups by the government makes it even more obvious.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

At the end of the day, you still cannot get around the fact that terrorists bombed the WTC in 1993 so there was no need whatsoever to conceal any further bombing


That was also an inside job with patsy/controlled assets scenario, facilitated by the FBI, albeit a much smaller and less complex operation.

edit on 5-10-2012 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
It seems this thread was constructed to "bait" truthers. Then convert them by presenting evidence to counter claims.

Epic fail.

Maybe all evidence can be accounted for, maybe it was a true terrorist attack.

Money and business runs deep through out this world. Those looking for control will do anything to see their plan through, can afford it, and have the means to hide it well away from the public. I'm talking way above top secret.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains
 

Don't knock their efforts, which serve as a phenomenal and much needed "foil" against which to continue rolling the truth out before the observing readership/observers who are astute enough to make their own evaluations. If any of these people really are "shills" then they ought to be in big trouble with their bosses!


edit on 5-10-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
continue rolling the truth out before the observing readership/observers who are astute enough to make their own evaluations


*leaves one tiny corner of internet

*is shocked when 9/11 "Truth" vanishes



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
 

Enough with the Chief Hayden story already Dave... It specifically adds credibility that WTC 7 had a fire and partial damage in it. But it certainly does not bring any credibility to the "fires brought down WTC 7" nonsense.


So when firefighters say they knew the building was going to collapse from the fire damage they were seeing, you're saying it doesn't add credibility to the building collapsing from the fire damage they were seeing?? Would you mind terribly explaining that one?



I must have missed the part where ANOK accused Chief Hayden of lying. Can you clarify that for me?


In algebra it's called the associative law, where if A equals B, and B equals C, then A necessarily equals C. Therefore, solving for A, B and C, if "the official story" equals "a bunch of lies", and "the official story" equals "eyewitness testimony", then this necessarily means "eyewitness testimony" equals "a bunch of lies".

So, either ANOK thinks the eyewitnesses are lying, or, he has little or no understanding what the official story even is. I will leave it to you two to determine which one is the case.




As much as you love talking about the lasers from space/no planes theories, you know that ANOK is not talking about those types conspiracy proponents.


Excuse me, but what do you mean by "THOSE types of conspiracy proponents"? All this time every single one of the conspiracy proponents...including THOSE conspiracy proponents...have all steadfastly insisted they've come to their conclusions by a objective review of the facts. Are you saying that this isn't true and they're simply seeing what they themselves want to see?

Be really careful on how you answer that.


Most people that you call conspiracy theorists agree that NIST, FIMA, Commission don't make any sense and is a insult to peoples intelligence. And the cover ups by the government makes it even more obvious.


But there's a difference between reviewing the myriad reports and concluding which one sounds the most plausible, and accusing the report of being a pack of lies to suit a political agenda without even actually reading it. Anok accused the NIST report of being "the official story" which says right there he never even bothered to read the first page of the report that says it's an educated guess and it shouldn't be considered canonical.

Or was that you who said that? In the end, same difference.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
That was also an inside job with patsy/controlled assets scenario, facilitated by the FBI, albeit a much smaller and less complex operation.


No, actually, that has pretty much been debunked already as being more Alex Jones fakery.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




So when firefighters say they knew the building was going to collapse from the fire damage they were seeing, you're saying it doesn't add credibility to the building collapsing from the fire damage they were seeing?? Would you mind terribly explaining that one?


Actually I do mind because I already explained it about ten times. You just forgot as usual.



In algebra it's called the associative law, where if A equals B, and B equals C, then A necessarily equals C. Therefore, solving for A, B and C, if "the official story" equals "a bunch of lies", and "the official story" equals "eyewitness testimony", then this necessarily means "eyewitness testimony" equals "a bunch of lies".


I wonder why the associative law does not apply when you claim (Truth movement = control demolition = a bunch of lies) then eyewitness testimony about explosives = a bunch of lies ?



Excuse me, but what do you mean by "THOSE types of conspiracy proponents"? All this time every single one of the conspiracy proponents...including THOSE conspiracy proponents...have all steadfastly insisted they've come to their conclusions by a objective review of the facts. Are you saying that this isn't true and they're simply seeing what they themselves want to see?


I have no idea how people come to a conclusion of space lasers or nukes or no planes... I haven't seen ANOK pushing THOSE types of conspiracy proponents tho.

You claim that you subscribe to the Purdue report and you get annoyed when people tell you that you believe the the official story.

So why do you have the need to insert space lasers into a conversation with a person who never said anything about any space lasers?



But there's a difference between reviewing the myriad reports and concluding which one sounds the most plausible, and accusing the report of being a pack of lies to suit a political agenda without even actually reading it. Anok accused the NIST report of being "the official story" which says right there he never even bothered to read the first page of the report that says it's an educated guess and it shouldn't be considered canonical.


The entire official story is based on a bunch of "educated guesses" but as you know the investigations ended and we'll never know anything other that the "educated guesses" story. Therefore NIST report is the official story because it is the final story.
edit on 8-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Actually I do mind because I already explained it about ten times. You just forgot as usual.


Possibly. The last discussion on that topic I can recall was entirely over what eyewitnesses were saying about WTC 7. It ignored what eyewitnesses were saying about the towers (I.E. NYPD helicopter pilots reporting the columns at the WTC impact areas were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were going to collapse). Was that you?



In algebra it's called the associative law, where if A equals B, and B equals C, then A necessarily equals C.
I wonder why the associative law does not apply when you claim (Truth movement = control demolition = a bunch of lies) then eyewitness testimony about explosives = a bunch of lies ?


Would you mind terribly pointing out a link to even one post where I ever said eyewitness accounts who said they heard explosions were lying?



I have no idea how people come to a conclusion of space lasers or nukes or no planes... I haven't seen ANOK pushing THOSE types of conspiracy proponents tho.


Yes you do know- one or more of those damned fool conspiracy web sites put the idea into their heads. It's the entire reason why there are more "the REAL truth behind the 9/11 attack" than there are grains of sand on the beach- it all depends on which one of the dozens of those damned fool conspiracy web sites managed to sucker them into believing it. The "No planes hit the Pentagon" is coming from those Pilots for 9/11 truth snake oil peddlers, while "Lasers from outer space" is coming from that crackpot Judy Wood. As I've pointed out numerous times, the entire "pull it is lingo for controlled demolitions" bit was invented by Alex Jones.

Whether these people were suckered by those sources directly or were suckered by intermediaries is really immaterial.


You claim that you subscribe to the Purdue report and you get annoyed when people tell you that you believe the the official story.

So why do you have the need to insert space lasers into a conversation with a person who never said anything about any space lasers?


Excellent question, actually. The reason is, despite the myriad different competing conspiracy theories, they all have one thing in common- their proponents all think THEIR theores are right and everyone ELSE'S theories are wrong. My contention is that ALL your alternative conspiracy claims are equally wrong, so in my point of view, "lasers from outer space" is no more or less credible as "secret controlled demolitions". You might as well ask whether Jar Jar Binks or Wesley Crusher was the less annoying sci-fi character when it really doesn't matter; they both needed to be thrown out an airlock.


The entire official story is based on a bunch of "educated guesses" but as you know the investigations ended and we'll never know anything other that the "educated guesses" story. Therefore NIST report is the official story because it is the final story.


Not true. The Purdue report came out after the NIST report.
edit on 8-10-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




Possibly. The last discussion on that topic I can recall was entirely over what eyewitnesses were saying about WTC 7. It ignored what eyewitnesses were saying about the towers (I.E. NYPD helicopter pilots reporting the columns at the WTC impact areas were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were going to collapse). Was that you?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you want to talk about NYPD helicopter pilots you should first actually read what they were saying..


NYPD aviation did not foresee the collapse of the South Tower, though at 9:55 a.m., four minutes before the collapse, a helicopter pilot radioed that a large piece of the South Tower looked like it was about to fall. Immediately after the collapse of the South Tower, a helicopter pilot radioed that news. This transmission was followed by others, beginning at 10:08 a.m., warning that the North Tower might collapse, beginning at 10:08, 18 minutes before the building fell. These calls reinforced the urgency of the NYPD’s evacuation of the area.


For some reason there's no mention of any glowing red column at the impact area.



Would you mind terribly pointing out a link to even one post where I ever said eyewitness accounts who said they heard explosions were lying?


Exactly... You say that the are not talking about explosives even though they use words like bombs and secondary explosions. And I'm saying that when firefighters say that buildings had fires and damage they are not talking about a complete collapse possibility.

They are not lying but you are putting words in their mouths...


Excellent question, actually. The reason is, despite the myriad different competing conspiracy theories, they all have one thing in common- their proponents all think THEIR theores are right and everyone ELSE'S theories are wrong. My contention is that ALL your alternative conspiracy claims are equally wrong, so in my point of view, "lasers from outer space" is no more or less credible as "secret controlled demolitions". You might as well ask whether Jar Jar Binks or Wesley Crusher was the less annoying sci-fi character when it really doesn't matter; they both needed to be thrown out an airlock.



That's interesting....

So you have a point of view that everybody is wrong except you. Because a group of people say that space lasers were used that means everybody that say there were bombs also think that space lasers destroyed the towers?

It's like saying a guy thinks he saw a UFO but he's wrong because some people don't believe that we landed on the moon...



Not true. The Purdue report came out after the NIST report.


Does it say in the Purdue report that it's 100 % correct or is it also based on educated guesses? Also did NIST or FEMA agree with Purdue report?



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Possibly. The last discussion on that topic I can recall was entirely over what eyewitnesses were saying about WTC 7. It ignored what eyewitnesses were saying about the towers (I.E. NYPD helicopter pilots reporting the columns at the WTC impact areas were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were going to collapse). Was that you?


What you keep ignoring is the fact that there is no way ANYONE could have predicted that WTC 7 was going to completely collapse into it's own footprint. There was no precedence for such a claim.

Have you ever thought that the rumour that it was going to collapse came from the fact that it was set up and planed to be collapsed? If it wasn't planned how did the news media get a report that it had collapse before it did? Are the MSM the expert at predicting building collapses, or did someone else create the news report for them to read (which is the norm btw), which they did too early because the actual collapse was late for some reason.

Saying the building is going to collapse, and saying the building is going to completely collapse into it's own footprint are two completely different claims. And saying the building collapsed before it did is just more nails in the coffin of the official story.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
What you keep ignoring is the fact that there is no way ANYONE could have predicted that WTC 7 was going to completely collapse into it's own footprint. There was no precedence for such a claim.


No one ever knows exactly how a building will collapse. There was no precedence for any of the circumstances on 9/11. Have you forgotten that?



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
No one ever knows exactly how a building will collapse. There was no precedence for any of the circumstances on 9/11. Have you forgotten that?


Actually yes we do know how a building will collapse when not rigged with explosives, it will not collapse completely and mostly land in it's own footprint. We KNOW it takes a lot of work to get a building to collapse that way.

You seem to be unable to grasp that fact.

There is plenty of precedence for steel framed building fires, and plenty of known physical facts that contradict what you claim.

There is no precedence for a steel framed building collapsing into it's own footprint from fire, thus no one could have made that claim before it happened. No one on Gods Earth could have made the claim that the building was going to collapse into it's own footprint, no professional would do that. They either meant the building was at risk of localised collapses, or someone who new the building was going to be completely collapsed leaked that info to reduce the risk of more deaths.

No one could have predicted a complete collapse, period. So obviously they didn't mean what you want to think they did.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join