Thread: 9/11 Truth

Your debunking sites have not yet proved that the official report was possible.

Anyway, I'm not claiming that 9/11 is an inside job (let's use correct terminology since technically even the official report describes a conspiracy, anything that was planned by two or more people by definition).

All I'm claiming was that the official report is impossible, and I'll use that to theorize that the government knows its impossible, and could use that to speculate that they are keeping something from us, by logical conclusion.

And there are a ton of facts your sites have failed to debunk. You write the sources of these facts off as not-credible but that's a fallacy. You haven't examined these sites, you don't know. There are plenty of scholarly articles out there about 9/11's possible inside operation. Just because when googling we can only find websites created by obviously biased people doesn't mean the facts are suddenly disproven. They're researched facts, questions, and inaccuracies.

It's like JFK, the assassination by Oswald is impossible. It doesn't mean the government did it, but they do incriminate themselves by ignoring the fact that the shot was impossible and continuing to push the idea that it wasn't without giving evidence as to how it was possible. That's what our government is doing. You claim they don't have to waste their time with ridiculous assertions but they DO because they arne't ridiculous and to write them off that way basically means you're letting loose ends remain loose surrounding the murder of more than 3000 people. We owe it to them to find out what really happened. And don't say I'm using them as an excuse to belittle the government, because that's not why I'm raising questions. If you read my earlier posts in the other 9/11 thread I didn't think it was an inside job at all until I looked at the evidence, and now I'm just not sure but I certainly don't think it's fair to the victims to let an unshut case just fade away into history like JFKs did.

And lastly don't claim strawman because one way or another you have argued every word I just put in your mouth.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Your debunking sites have not yet proved that the official report was possible.

Are you sure? You read all of them? Those links provide access to a zillion web pages.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Anyway, I'm not claiming that 9/11 is an inside job (let's use correct terminology since technically even the official report describes a conspiracy, anything that was planned by two or more people by definition).

Okay. Smart thinking.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

All I'm claiming was that the official report is impossible, and I'll use that to theorize that the government knows its impossible, and could use that to speculate that they are keeping something from us, by logical conclusion.

My demoltion knowledge is too insufficient for me to say one way or the other on that. My social psychology knowledge says that that idea is extremely far fetched. That does not mean I am ready to claim that the report is automatically true. I am just saying that the people who claim it is false have some explaining to do far beyond their assumed demoliton understanding.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And there are a ton of facts your sites have failed to debunk. You write the sources of these facts off as not-credible but that's a fallacy. You haven't examined these sites, you don't know. There are plenty of scholarly articles out there about 9/11's possible inside operation. Just because when googling we can only find websites created by obviously biased people doesn't mean the facts are suddenly disproven. They're researched facts, questions, and inaccuracies.

I don't trust any news source that has nothing to lose and much to gain by lying. If they aren't fighting tooth and nail for dominance in financial competition, I cannot put too much belief in what they say.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And there are a ton of facts your sites have failed to debunk. You write the sources of these facts off as not-credible but that's a fallacy. You haven't examined these sites, you don't know. There are plenty of scholarly articles out there about 9/11's possible inside operation. Just because when googling we can only find websites created by obviously biased people doesn't mean the facts are suddenly disproven. They're researched facts, questions, and inaccuracies.

The government does not have the resources nor the lack of professional standing to respond to every wild claim they hear. When more than .0001% of demolition experts notice what amateurs on the internet think they have noticed, then the government will be closer to having some explaining to do, but only in terms of how they got the demolition report wrong. I don't see why that can't be a matter of incompetence if it is true. The argument that such a failure proves an inside job would have to have some good strength for the government to need to respond to it. I still don't even know what that argument is. Is there one? It is bizarre that Mystic and Memeticverb will not say what that argument is. If they had an argument, it seems like they would be going off about it. They won't even give an argument, despite my repeated and very relevant requests, yet they keep yapping. How strange is that?

The JFK assassination is different. Not only have arguments been made and backed up by solid video and rarely disputed facts about guns. The proponents of the conspiracy theory have explained precisely how those facts can be used to logically conclude that more than one gunman was involved in the JFK assassination. If they are right about that, which they very well may be, then there is proof that the claim that Oswald killed Kennedy alone is false. It is reasonable, though not necessarily factual, to conclude that Oswald's assassination is good circumstantial evidence that a person or people wanted to silence him immediately. The fact that the government's report was questionable has been verified by huge numbers of actual experts, far more than a microscopic percentage of them. And these are matters that would be difficult to screw up unintentionally, and the government had ample reason to correct the report or at least answer major questions about it. My mind is still not made up on that issue, but I at least know what the argument is and see how it follows reasonable patterns. I can't say the same about the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. If I have any hope of getting to such a point, I am going to at least need to know what the argument is. What would be the point of not telling me?

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Start by responding to even one issue of the 911 material posted here and why any of this is not true. If you don't know how to, then maybe you should find out how you ought to respond to the evidence before claiming it doesn't count for anything.

Are you even reading my posts? What would you like for me to say about what you keep posting? I don't know what its significance is. I see the supposed information. What about it? Why in the Hell would you not take two seconds to tell me? You keep posting A. You are not telling me what in the flying fuck it has to do with Q. What are you looking for me to say?

Here Mystic... Pumpkins can fly. Just look at this evidence...

The sun is not really going to turn into a red giant, like the predominant theory says. - Theodore Roberts, Professor of Astronomy at Pearl River College and Bush hater who wrote a book to make money

Address the evidence! Pumpkins can fly. Address the evidence!

The JFK assassination is different. Not only have arguments been made and backed up by solid video and rarely disputed facts about guns. The proponents of the conspiracy theory have explained precisely how those facts can be used to logically conclude that more than one gunman was involved in the JFK assassination. If they are right about that, which they very well may be, then there is proof that the claim that Oswald killed Kennedy alone is false. It is reasonable, though not necessarily factual, to conclude that Oswald's assassination is good circumstantial evidence that a person or people wanted to silence him immediately. The fact that the government's report was questionable has been verified by huge numbers of actual experts, far more than a microscopic percentage of them. And these are matters that would be difficult to screw up unintentionally, and the government had ample reason to correct the report or at least answer major questions about it. My mind is still not made up on that issue, but I at least know what the argument is and see how it follows reasonable patterns. I can't say the same about the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. If I have any hope of getting to such a point, I am going to at least need to know what the argument is. What would be the point of not telling me?

At least try to use this as a grounds for understanding my position, though. I understand political reformists have a lot to gain by making people think 9/11 is an inside job, but I took that into account when I looked at the evidence, and the fact is, even though I'm no demolitions expert, it still seems to me like there are quite a few things about 9/11 that just don't add up. We've discussed just a couple of these, and frankly mystic has already posted all the evidence, whether some of his facts are abviously debunked or what. You don't have to see these loose ends as legitimate, but I do and I have no liberal agenda to this, I just see these loose ends as significant and want them answered, but our government won't.

As far as social psychology goes, I don't think this is THAT far fetched considering how much the cabinet and its monetary supporters have gained from the incident. It's happened before, remember how Hitler burned his house down?

And here's all the evidence I need for my opinion. The owner of WTC7 clearly stating the evacuation of the building and its "Pull" as separate incidents:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

As far as social psychology goes, I don't think this is THAT far fetched considering how much the cabinet and its monetary supporters have gained from the incident. It's happened before, remember how Hitler burned his house down?

I am not talking about the cabinet. I am talking the gigantic sea of demolition experts out there, from master architects and engineers all the way down to country Bubba construction workers. I am talking about millions and millions of people. The vast silence speaks volumes. 9/11 is the biggest news story in history, and I am certain even the lowest level experts can notice anything you, Mystic, and Memeticverb can notice. Can they not? Their noticing would lead to talk that leads to more talk that perpetuates into a yell so loud that the entire world is bombarded by it. 9/11 is an issue so gigantic that practically a world war is being fought over the perceived terrorism threat significance that resulted from it. We are talking about the most enormous issue ever. Obvious flaws in a report about how the WTC fell would be monstrously gigantic news in every social circle in the world.

Click one god damned link mystic posted and you'll see this silence you're referring to does not exist.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Click one god damned link mystic posted and you'll see this silence you're referring to does not exist.

Quit getting fucking rude with me. Do you remember promoting "love" a few days ago? Prove that you cherish it on any level so I don't continue to question whether you are being severely hypocritical. Give peace a chance, if you actually give a damn about it. I could swear you have a split personality.

I have clicked all of them. I don't see what they prove. Tell me. A building was supposedly ordered to be "pulled" so the fire could be contained, so the lease owner claims. Okay, yeah, he claims that. Let's assume he got paid nothing for that interview, being the money hungry business man he most likely is having a lease for a building like that in Manhattan. What about it? They had a means of pulling the building in case it ever caught on fire? Yippie dippy wooptie woo!

And once again, I was talking about vast, vast majority silence, not 100% silence. How many times do I need to explain that to you?

Universal Mind. Let me know when your ready to respond to the material you can't possibly explain away. The information is here ready for you, waiting. Mocking you with it's presence.

Originally Posted by The evidence

Originally Posted by mystic

1. The failure of the FAA and Military's standard operating procedures to intercept off-course or out of contact aircraft.
2. The multiple wargames happening on 9/11
3. The unexplained collapse of WTC building 7, and the demoltion-like collapse of the towers themselves. Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of WTC 7, admits it was "pulled."
4. The foreign warnings received by our government/intelligence agencies prior to 9/11
5. The fact that several of the supposed hijackers have turned up alive
6. The failure of the 9/11 Commission to address certain questions, and the suspect members of this commission.
7. Insider trading on put options prior to 9/11. The SEC refused to track the trades. The story was killed in the US media.
8. The historical precedents of government deceptions and "false-flag operations," including Operation Northwoods.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

1. The Mastermind, the Hijackers and the Planes
2. The Twin Towers
3. The Pentagon
4. Flight 93
5. The President's Response
6. Osama and WTC 7
7. How the Case was Cracked
8. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel
9. The Undead Hijackers

Originally Posted by Mystic7

911 COMMISSION
HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS
PRIOR WARNINGS OF PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS
WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH
EXPERTS TALK ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
HOW DID THEY KNOW?
WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON?
BUT COULD THIS REALLY HAPPEN IN MODERN AMERICA?
911 FACT SHEET

The NIST report is debunked

I say damn and suddenly I'm all hateful? Just because I can get frustrated doesn't mean I support hate. You are really good at making people frustrated. I'm not the one supporting a war where we shot depleted uranium at civillians.

You seem to hear what you want to hear.