Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#1786    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:23 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 23 April 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

I see Q said earlier in the piece that MSM was not to be trusted, then he said it was OK if you can verify the facts, then did a complete turn around, and attacked Annovva for not being a person

I said, “I’m quite happy to use Fox News as a source when there is no reason to doubt validity of a report”.  That is only sensible and vigilant.  I also said this applies to all media and whether of an Eastern/Western source does not change the rule.  I attacked Fox News and Annanova first and foremost for reporting false information incongruent with original bin Laden transcripts released by Al Jazeera, the BBC and FBIS.  The fact that Annanova is the world’s first ‘cyberbabe’ newscaster deserved to be mentioned as icing on the cake.  There was no ‘turnaround’ during any of this.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1787    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:36 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 03:32 AM, said:

View PostQ24, on 23 April 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

What does satellite tv prove?

A connection to the outside world!!! Gracious me, it shows us he utilised wireless technology, which is quite common these days. I doubt they want real technicians form official sources poking around in Bin Ladens house!

I am assuming you have heard of mobile phones and wireless internet?? He more likely received superior quality from the air than he would have with buried copper in that region. Egyptsat would be a better option.

View Postpsyche101, on 24 April 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

View PostQ24, on 23 April 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

What does satellite tv prove?  Most prisons I know of have satellite tv.

LOL, most prisons have phones and Internet too!

Why are you responding to my same quote twice?  Did you forget you had already replied?  Or is it just the lack of thought that went into your first response needed expanding upon?

Anyhow, please check what initially raised the topic – it is Zaphod’s claim that the presence of satellite tv rules out the prison nature of the compound.  I refuted that claim.  Your response above only serves to further backup that Zaphod’s claim has no merit.  I’m sure that was not your intention, but thank you for the assistance.

I have made my case for why I believe the bin Laden compound to be a detention facility, rather than a ‘hideout’.  Can you explain exactly how you rule out the possibility of a detention facility?

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1788    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,456 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 April 2013 - 01:43 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 24 April 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Many good points, but I think the best was that one need not offer another theory to understand that a particular theory is false and invalid.  Sky and Psyche just cannot comprehend how simple and valid that point is.

I will make it even simpler. Why have 911 Truthers failed to produce evidence that refutes the official story after more than 11 years?

Answer:  No such evidence exist for 911 Truthers to produce which explains why after more than 11 years not one shred of evidence has surfaced that implicates the U.S. government.

What is one of the evidence that 911 Truthers had claimed refuted the official story? Let's take a look.



Edited by skyeagle409, 25 April 2013 - 01:50 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1789    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 18,474 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 27 April 2013 - 03:53 AM

It just makes one think ? Do the Truthers and 9/11  Idiots are just what they are Idiots ! To be kind I will not fill in the names that believe in this Crap ! :tu:
Good one Skyeagle ! On your Six still !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1790    Midyin

Midyin

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined:15 Apr 2013

Posted 28 April 2013 - 01:46 PM

Has anyone said anything about The New World Order or Aaron Russo yet?

Anyways, here's Arron Russo telling Alex Jones what Nick Rockafeller told him about the 911 false flag operation and why they did it...

http://m.youtube.com...feature=related


#1791    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 28 April 2013 - 07:17 PM

Yes, it's a shame Aaron Russo died early.


#1792    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 April 2013 - 12:40 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

About Richard Gage. He is not credible. Check it out.
He has more credibility than you...lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects


All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

http://www.architect...y-theory_2.aspx
What peer review papers?? lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Posted Image


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/


I assume that you are unaware that Richard Gage has been caught lying on video. So what were have here, Richard Gage's papers have been debunked by peer review, and the majority of demolition experts, civil engineers and architects agree with the official story.
I am aware of you lying and that you are still employing logical fallacies in stating that the majority of demolition experts, civil engineers and architects agree with the official story, when the majority of them have never been asked.

You are assuming that everyone in ASCE agrees with the official story. Of course, I do not expect you to understand the logical fallacies you employ because you sponsor so many of them.

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

But, no one found evidence of explosives and no bomb explosions are seen nor heard in the videos nor detected on seismic monitors.
No one checked and using Blanchards seismic data which doesn't appear to exist, highlights the fact you have nothing but repeated mantras which have been debunked...lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

What difference does that make?
It doesn't make any difference to you because you are a fool.

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Where was Rumsfeld when the Pentagon was struck?
At the Pentagon...lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

No one found planted thermite in the rubble of the WTC buildings and no  thermite cuts were found on the columns. Thermite was not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings, but as the evidence has shown, fire, not thermite, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.
Wrong on so many counts...:rolleyes:

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

On the contrary, Brent Blanchard is right on the money. There is no evidence that thermite was planted and no thermite cuts were ever found on the structures of the WTC buildings.
Jim Hoffman put Blanchards arguments to rest....lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1793    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 April 2013 - 12:43 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 April 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

I will make it even simpler. Why have 911 Truthers failed to produce evidence that refutes the official story after more than 11 years?

Answer:  No such evidence exist for 911 Truthers to produce which explains why after more than 11 years not one shred of evidence has surfaced that implicates the U.S. government.

What is one of the evidence that 911 Truthers had claimed refuted the official story? Let's take a look.




There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1794    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 33,898 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

As I said, because people are critical of government, that doesn't make them anti government. I'm sure there are those who actively oppose the things that governments do and do not trust them, but that still doesn't make them anti government.

If you are anti government, then you are against being governed. Out of all the ones that I have met, I have not met a single person who claims they are anti government, as I think you'll probably find that most people understand as a society, we need laws and regulations to be governed by. Its like when people criticise America and then get called Anti American, being critical of something doesn't mean you are anti it.

I would call the following, all from UM, Anti Government. There is a common agenda, and Babe Ruth is a prime example. It matters not what the subject is, the Government is to blame, and they want to keep us in the dark, Flying Saucers, Bombs, Bigfoot, you name it, the Government is to blame.

Obama is a lying piece of ****, I don't trust him with signing food and health things which is worse than faking the killing of a terrorist. Hell it's worse than 9/11.

In my view, that is a diversionary tactic to distract from the real issue; government suppression of intimate knowledge of ET life and the UFO phenomena.

The government is controlled by special interests, pure and simple.  Whether they own the government or merely control it, is hard to tell.  The barbarians are indeed inside the gate, and so many of them wear business suits.

So I'm pretty sure most of you guys are familiar with the conspiracy that the Illuminati are driving the world to having a one world government dictatorship

I know the so called government should care about us  lol and provide subsidies to these things, if they get free from lobbying and giving money to the rich

"have you seen anything unusual in the sky, think you may have missing time, nightmares, wake up frozen with fear.... have unusual heat rashes… whoops I mean alien experimental injection sites, well you are entitled to government benefits and money for pain and suffering. Call 1-800-SUE-THEM, and get restitution for the terror and mental/medical problems that you have suffered because of the governments 60 years of lies and cover-up"

And from Dr. Jones, the arch nemesis of government story apologists, No explanation for the presence of iron-rich and silicate spheres is given in the USGS reports.

People are prevented from being individuals, from being who they are born to be.  They are prevented from thinking for themselves.  They must think what the government tells them to think, or what science tells them to think, they must say what they are told to say and must do what they are told to do.  This is another death.No one's saying the government does this EVERYDAY, but it DOES happen a lot and the media puts a little article about it in the news, yet when a bomb goes off in Boston they report it everywhere, and are SOO sympathetic to the victims and the families.


View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

I disagree that if people know something to be true, they will stand up for it. Again I can cite many examples of people knowing things to be true and not standing up for it. Again, I point back to the Saville case, plenty of people caught him in compromising positions with young girls and were well aware of what he was up to, yet nobody said anything until long after he had died.

Standing up for something sometimes leads to more trouble than it is worth. I watched a nurse who worked in a care home stand up against the neglect and poor standards of care the patients were receiving. She reported it her superiors who ignored her, so when she reported it to the media and secretly filmed the conditions, it received media attention. The care quality commissions investigations admitted that she was correct and that patients had been neglected but she was struck off the nursing and midwifery council and now her 20 year career as a nurse, a job which she loved is now over.

http://www.telegraph...n-Panorama.html

Sometimes standing up for something isn't that easy especially if there are threats or risks in doing so.
That is exactly what has happened with some of the members of AIA. They have signed Gages petition.

We do not know how many of the AIA members have read the report or are aware of A&E 9/11 group. We cannot ASSUME that all AIA members have read it and disagree with Gages assertion because the organisation doesn't support him. Individuals within the group clearly do, some might totally agree with him but they still might not wish to sign or join his group.

Well I do not feel you have presented a case to prove what you believe is indeed the case. I have looked into the Saville case, there are many that suspected him over the years, claims go back as far as 1963, not to mention he was connected with a child sex ring back as far as 1964. The Yorkshire police are being investigated themselves as a result. Same thing happened within the Catholic Church, these things do come out, people will only stand for so much.

You will note that Nurse was not only reinstated, but received an award. - LINK Nursing Times - Margaret Haywood, a nurse who had been struck off for whistleblowing and exposing her concerns over poor standards of care, has described herself as ‘absolutely delighted’ to have been reinstated on the register.

What we do know is that not one person is confident enough to be publicly associated with Gage. You can speculate until the cows come home about how many, or if any, but you are only guessing that anyone supports him, this is not fact, it is merely suspicion. You need to know if the support is warranted, or just some cheerleaders. Without conviction, you have nothing but speculation. As facts stand, not one professional stands up and supports these findings. Speculation won't resolve this, nor will bias, facts will, and the facts are against Gage.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

We THINK we know the answer, but the reality is we do not know for sure. Nobody knows. We have theories which we think explain things and they might be the best theories, but we do not know.

With evolution? I disagree, yes we do know. Evolution is both fact and theory.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

As I said, you do not have to prove to me that you didn't rob me by providing a better theory of who did rob me. The fact you disprove it is you is enough for me to be aware that it was someone else. If truther can prove that the towers didn't collapse by planes and fires, then asking them to provide a better that theory of how the towers collapse does not mean they are wrong. It just means that they do not know how it was done.

I am not trying to do that, is that not what the CT is doing? It is saying that it could not been terrorists, so it must have been the Government? The hypothesis I defend is the original as far as I am aware. It's not a better one, or an alternate, it's the result of outright confessions. Would you not say a confession is somewhat decent evidence? With the claims, I have not given alternates, I said why they do not add up, which I cannot see as the same thing as giving a better theory? The investigations were always going to happen.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

Have I?? lol Unless by stating that there are no absolutes, I am stating one....lol

That you are matey. :D Tricky business philosophy isn't it. ;)

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

I think you are right when you say the CT is being over thought, I think this is why laser beams and hologram theories exist. lol

And Alex Jones.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

The information which tips me in the favour of a CT has nothing to do with WTC, WTC7, the Pentagon crash, Shanksville or any of the usual theories associated with 9/11. My own investigation into the movements of Dick Cheney on the morning of 9/11 is enough to convince me in the possibility of a conspiracy because of the discrepancies in the commissions account and that of him and others. Again, it is something that requires its own thread.

Is there such a thread? I would be interested to see your thoughts. To me the outright confessions are rather damming.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

The claim of some CTers is that thermite was laid within the building. However, if you believe that no thermite was needed and the plane and fires was enough, then why would it matter where it was placed when you believe that none was needed anyway?

Because that is how Thermite works. For a structural collapse, the charges have to be laid in certain places. This is what is being claimed to have happened - controlled demolition. It's all part of the same claim that does not work.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

The building had 110 floors and each floor was over 4 million square meters. Nobody is going to take any notice of people accessing structural columns especially as there would be maintenance men all over the place doing odd jobs. And we are aware of who was in charge of security, it was the same security companies which manned the airports the hijackers flew from too. It is easy to get around security if you know what security checks are in place.

ONeil would and he was head of security, and died in the attack. I doubt any person on earth would be more knowledgable on the subject than ONeil. If there was something untoward I find it very hard to believe it would just slip past the man whop was expecting this.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

I thought she had said that the papers topic lies outside her expertise and she couldn't comment whether it was bad or good.


That is even worse is it not? She is an editor, so it is hard to see her being an expert in Thermites.

"They have printed the article without my authorization else, so when you wrote to me, I did not mean that the article was published. I can not accept, and I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them, "says Marie-Paule Pileni, which daily is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the prestigious Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France .

“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Concludes the former editor in chief.

Sounds pretty straightforward even with the language filters. LINK As you can see, her objection is to the lack of scientific content, and the amount of political agenda. Scientific content seems prudent when making such wild allegations.


View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

And I have read Blanchards paper and Jim Hoffmans rebuttal. Blanchard reasoning against thermite does not stand up to scrutiny and there is plenty of evidence that contradicts his claims

One big and notable difference between Hoffman and Blanchard is that Blanchard is a specialist in controlled demolition. Blanchard actually gives explanations does he not? Does not Hoffman pretty much say, well he is wrong, and all demolitions are not the same, and this one was differnt? Blanchard works for a demolition company who had seimic spikes all over the place thet did not record what Hoffman says they should. Hoffman is lacking expertise, and I have to say has more ambiguities in his claim than he alleges Blanchard does. And he attacks truthers for his own credibility, something of a vampire I feel.


View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

When you consider that it cost $40 million to investigate Bill Clinton and $60 million for the Challenger disaster, then being given $3 million to investigate the biggest terrorist attack is certainly something worth complaining about if you want a full account of what happened.  
They also wished they had asked harder question from Giuliani but it wasn't professional animosity or evasiveness for the reasons they think they were set up to fail, their claims go much further than that, because they said people were advancing accounts which were not true and that they were lying.

I think the sensitivity of Clinton, and the expected law suits might have raised that bar, and the Challenger disaster was spread all over the place. In this case we had specific sites, ONiel's notes, and an outright confession with people dancing in the streets. It seems most of the work was done. Did they ever insist on more funds, or just whine about what they had been issued?

You also seem to be using the broad brush you said I had in my hand, people lied? That's a bit vague isn't it? And is it reason to suspect your own people over rejoicing Jihadists proud of their work? Or is it reason to suspect some people could have done their job a little better and are now worried about that complacency costing them their livelihoods?

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

Max claimed the White House were covering up. Richard Clarke also stated that the group were focused on Iraq and not AQ the day after the attacks, all without a shred of evidence that Iraq was involved. If AQ are involved, talking about Iraq the next day doesn't sound like you think AQ are the problem. We know that the Neocons wanted to invade Iraq during Clintons admin by the open letters they sent since the mid 90's. We also know that former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill has said that the Bush admin were talking and planning about invading Iraq days after his inauguration.

So if members of the Bush admin were talking about attacking Iraq before his presidency and planning it at that start of his presidency, then talking about it the day after the attacks when there is no evidence for Iraqs involvement, then invade Iraq and then cover up any investigations into the attacks. Is it any surprise that people think the Bush Admin/government think they may have been involved whether they let it happen or helped to make it happen?
I'm not sure how or Jones benefits from these questions. I'm sure his job at Brigham was financially more beneficial than running his truth group. Although I have no idea of his financial dealings to confirm or deny it but you think he earns big dollars, I would say that it pales to insignificant to the amount that others have made off the back of the tragedy and subsequent wars.


This all comes from Captain Hindsight, Paul ONeill doesn't it? He was sacked. By Bush. People love to hate Bush, read any thread of Regenratia's. IN any case, this case of sour grapes says Bush had no idea what was going on around him.

In the book, O'Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."


LINK

He also reckons he was warned not to do the book, but walking around quite happily today isn't he. What a load of rubbish. Disgruntled ex employees might have plenty of dirt, but it's mainly BS.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

I do not understand your comment about CTers wanting to keep the CT alive. I can't understand why someone would want to believe that members of their own government were involved or ignored warnings of the attacks for financial or political gains. Its a horrible thought and I think that most CTer are doing it because they believe it to be true and such a horrible idea.

I think people enjoy the controversy. I do not see any progress, I only see truthers getting a worse name than they already do. No compassion, no empathy, no ethics the way I see it. For instance, only yourself and Q have put up any sort of decent debate in this thread. Look at all the other responses, hell look at Babe Ruths responses. They have no technical information, no countering debate, nothing, just someone on a soapbox.

View PostStundie, on 24 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

I do not think that believing something is possible means that it is likely to have happened. Some people didn't make mistakes, some people lied as the commissioner stated.

You are appear to be angry at the CTers for peddling lies, but yet I do not see the same anger at the people/departments who peddled lies to the commission.

I feel that this double standard highlights a hatred of conspiracy theorists rather than people lying in general because you would also be talking about the liars in government rather than trying to excuse their lies as evasiveness and professional animosity.

We cannot just say lies were told, hell that could mean someone said they had a sandwich for lunch when they had a roll, I am not angry at CT'ers. I despise their motives and their morals, and what they largely stand for, which I do not believe is a pursuit of the ruth at all. Some I am sure I could not stand, but some I could, I think it depends on the person and the depth of their belief in the CT. Looking at yourself as an example, you seem to lie someplace in between but lean towards the CT side, and I most certainly do not have a problem with you at all, in fact I find you very pleasant in discussion.
From what I have seen, the people in Government are covering their backsides, some were complacent, Bodine feels she has no responsibility, but we all know she is primarily responsible. I can understand self preservation, I cannot understand the jerks at Ground Zero Lounge saying that Daddy faked his death for the Government. You and your ideology are not the majority with regards to blind belief in the CT, people without argument, and sorry Babe Ruth, but I will be using you as an example here. Babe Ruth has not ever that I have seen put up an argument, let alone a convincing argument, He just says "believe the truthers" and makes stuff up like he did about Wally Miller. He is blindly regurgitating the nonsense the guys like Jones spew onto the public. Give me a reason to hate the US Government, because nobody has done so to date, they have only told me to join up with them. Q is just a hypocrite. His standards only apply to himself. The examples of truthers that you and I can put up are not only less than convincing, they have little information to depart. Is there anything is this thread, after the ten years of mulling over that you fid convincing? Or do you have your own train of thought, and where did it originate? What is actually accomplished by the truth movement other than dragging out pain and suffering? That is one thing I cannot condone.

Mate, what about yourself, are you not turning a blind eye to Babe Ruths Panto support?


My only support of all truther groups is that I support a new investigation.

I do not mind being labelled as one either as I have been called much worse names than a twoofer...lol



But it is one way. You see the deep explanations from truthers as a right, but you do not seem to extend this right to those who understand the official story to be roughly the main sequence of events? At the end of the day it comes down to one ting does it not? Who controlled the planes into the towers. Do you feel there is any reason to think the US Government actuated this atrocity?

I'd rather just call you Stundie I think :D


I would have to agree that Bodine didn't help O'Neil and it probably played a small part in to why the terrorist were successful but I think it goes far deeper than that too.

It is clear from the commissioner themselves that they had unanswered questions and that investigation is by no means a full account of what happened, yet anyone who dares to question the commissions account is automatically labelled as a truther. Any deviation from what the commission says is met with the label of a being a truther whether there is any truth to it or not and it is designed to stifle debate.



Small part? I certainly would consider that something of a major understatement. I think it goes deeper too, there is the Pikard connection.

It depends on what aspect the commission is defending, do you see any reason to absolve terrorists as the main culprit according to discrepancies in the commission, or do you see something untoward, which can really mean a million different things?

Being labelled a truther should not stifle debate. If these people really do believe this nonsense, they should be proud of that label.


I find that it's hard for any panto debunker to accept mistakes or even outright lies that are in the official account. I think this is down to a fear that there is some validity behind some of the truthers claims and this is why they are so motivated to debate and counter their arguments.


I do not see that here, and I do not feel that is Sky at all. I feel that is Babe Ruth being described All you really have in here is myself and Sky from what I have seen over many pages, do these panto debunkers frequent here?

Your main beef with Sky is that he uses MSM is it not? Which will overlook faults on the behalf of the US, and really, would you expect different? It seems to me that some backside covering has ballooned into an attack from the US government on it's own people? MSM has the basics right, that being that soe religious fundamentals wanted to hurt America, and their small minds could not look past money, and attacked what they perceive to be the US source of wealth. And that is hardly surprising from a group of maniac killers who want to rule the world with their religion that accepted the US help with the Soviets, but were not gracious enough to continue to accomodate these benevolent people after the fact, and went to war with them over perceived sovereign issues. The US should have just left them sort their own battles out with Russia, and the US might not have lost 3,000 people to an insane attack.


I do not believe in religious beliefs, I accept that there are people who do believe in them, but I don't challenge their beliefs or debate with them by telling them they are wrong or that they are nutters because I am comfortable with my own beliefs. I do not need to challenge what others believe even if I think it's a bunch of crapola on toast. I would only challenge their beliefs and thoughts on religion if I wasn't to sure or comfortable with my own beliefs. I think this is why panto debunkers are so vehemently against any conspiracy that they will even lie to themselves in order to keep the official story as the biblical standards of truth about what happened that day.


To a point I can run with that, I just do ot think that people have the right to try to change entire countries to accept their belief system, and many Muslim Muftis have stated that the world (and even Australia has been particularly noted) would be a better pace if it was Muslim, and that it must one day be so. But when it comes to stonging kids for talking to the opposite sex, I think that is totally screwed, and everyone involved in such barbaric nonsense should just be removed from society, even by placing a small lead ball in the left ear with a gun if need be. There is no place in the modern world for stoning's  beheadings, hangings and other barbaric slow and painful deaths for minor social discrepancies. That is pure evil. As mentioned, no religion would be great, but removing the most violent and barbaric ones would be a good start. I can never condone religious acceptance of honor killing. Honor killing is an oxymoron.


Anyway, have a stubby or whatever your poison is for me and have a good day out.  

Cheers

Stundie



I did that, and rather enjoyed the well deserved break.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 30 April 2013 - 08:53 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1795    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 33,898 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 30 April 2013 - 08:26 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 24 April 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Stundie

An outstanding series of posts! :tu:

I wish I could say the same about you, really I do, but you just keep cheerleading, I do not think you have contributed a link or an explanation yet, but out in front leading the brigade.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 24 April 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Many good points, but I think the best was that one need not offer another theory to understand that a particular theory is false and invalid.  Sky and Psyche just cannot comprehend how simple and valid that point is.

I do not think you got the point. Stindie was saying another hypothesis is not required to replace a failed one. Yet what do you do?

View PostBabe Ruth, on 24 April 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

To understand that the Official Conspiracy Theory is false, one need not offer another theory.  Of course one MAY offer another theory if one has constructed another, but it's quite possible to recognize a lie and deception without offering an alternative explanation.

Another theory was not offered! It is the official chain of events that you "Truthers" challenge! You have it backward Mr. The "Truthers" are offering the alternative long winded BS claims that they say falsifies the official story, yet it does not. And I suspect that is why you Cheerlead as opposed to offering evidence to back your clams? I think deep down you know it is a pile of Horse Hockey, but enjoy the controversy and the fast and thick conversation.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 24 April 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

The best example is magic tricks and card tricks.  I can easily understand I am being tricked and deceived, EVEN THOUGH I do not understand exactly how the magician pulled it off.  Though I cannot explain the details, I know I've been duped.

Yeah, that is what James Randi is for, to learn how you get duped. In this case, normal people went to experts and got the details, and they have been published numerous times. You just cannot wrap your head around it all be the problem and enjoy just yelling conspiracies from a soap box. If that is what floats you boat, so be it, but expect to be challenged. I do not know why you would think everyone would just fall into line behind you.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 24 April 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

That is too sophisticated for Sky & Psyche.

It would appear I understand it better than you do.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1796    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 33,898 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 30 April 2013 - 08:29 AM

View PostQ24, on 24 April 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

I said, “I’m quite happy to use Fox News as a source when there is no reason to doubt validity of a report”.  That is only sensible and vigilant.  I also said this applies to all media and whether of an Eastern/Western source does not change the rule.  I attacked Fox News and Annanova first and foremost for reporting false information incongruent with original bin Laden transcripts released by Al Jazeera, the BBC and FBIS.  The fact that Annanova is the world’s first ‘cyberbabe’ newscaster deserved to be mentioned as icing on the cake.  There was no ‘turnaround’ during any of this.

And yet I showed you that Annova did not have false information at all, and the three sources you provided clearly showed the obvious evolution of the sentence! You just refuse to accept that you are wrong. That is why you went to personal attacks on Annova because the information is sound, and you cannot attack it. The more you do, the more the evolution of the sentence becomes obvious. What you have proven is that if the information does not agree with you that you will Ad Hom the source, and you provided a fine example yet again to prove my point. If anything, you have provided an example of the panto debunking Stundie referred to. What the heck does the Cyberbabe comment have to do with the information presented? Don't you like girls?

Edited by psyche101, 30 April 2013 - 08:56 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1797    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 33,898 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 30 April 2013 - 08:38 AM

View PostQ24, on 24 April 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

Why are you responding to my same quote twice?  Did you forget you had already replied?  Or is it just the lack of thought that went into your first response needed expanding upon?

Just thought I might take the opportunity to point out that you use big words to peddle crap ;)

View PostQ24, on 24 April 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

Anyhow, please check what initially raised the topic – it is Zaphod’s claim that the presence of satellite tv rules out the prison nature of the compound.  I refuted that claim.  Your response above only serves to further backup that Zaphod’s claim has no merit.  I’m sure that was not your intention, but thank you for the assistance.

You did not refute nor confirm it. You have not proven what that dish actually does, you just assumed it. But I am sure you are proud of the speculation, that is one thing I see you do well, and frequently.

View PostQ24, on 24 April 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

I have made my case for why I believe the bin Laden compound to be a detention facility, rather than a ‘hideout’.  Can you explain exactly how you rule out the possibility of a detention facility?

I already  did, and made my case, that being you have no case and have presented opinion and tried to make out your opinion is fact. A man trap does not make a prison and you have not refuted that. Not do single walls, nor does the inside of the place confirm anything prison like at all. Wives in prison? Where else do people take their wives to prison with them? It is a secure home which one would want for the leader of Al Qaeda, and one of the most wanted men in the world.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1798    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 33,898 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 30 April 2013 - 08:47 AM

View PostStundie, on 29 April 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

What peer review papers?? lol

I do not think the silence of alleged engineers and Architects is much is an argument to be frank Stundie.

AIA also seems to be a peer monitored Association. That seems to me a darn site easier for alleged individuals to stand up. Debate is expected in peer review.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1799    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 30 April 2013 - 11:59 AM

The editorials written by Fire Engineering Magazine were exactly right, and they had the courage to write them at the heighth of the hysteria regarding the events.

Laws were broken by the authorities as they destroyed the forensic evidence, and they made a joke of proper forensic procedures.


#1800    poppet

poppet

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined:09 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2013 - 07:08 PM



Life-long activist, Splitting the Sky appeared at St. Ann's Academy on November 29, 2008. In this impassioned and authoritative speech he meticulously follows the bloody and labyrinthine trail of corruption and money, which leads him to conclude that a cast of top-level financiers and international secret service agencies were behind the events of 9/11.


here is more on the activist Splitting the Sky and his suspicious death on Saturday, March 23, 2013.

http://splittingthesky.blogspot.co.uk/





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users