2233 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

The Silver Thong, on 15 January 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

No but yes,  by allies of the United States of America,

Let's see about that.

Osama bin Laden declares war on the United States and  you say that makes him an ally of America.. The Philippine government revealed documentation that terrorist planned to bomb a number of American airliners out of the sky, so that qualifies them as allies of the United States. The CIA has dispatched most of  the original senior leadership of al-Qaeda and that makes the CIA an ally of al-Qaeda. Documents revealed that terrorist planned to fly an airplane into the headquarters of the CIA, so that makes those terrorist an ally of the CIA. I understand your mindset now!

BTW, I have beachfront property along the "Sea of Tranquility" for sale for only $3 billion and if you act now, I will throw in the moon for free.

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 January 2013 - 07:26 AM.

[skyeagle409]

The Silver Thong, on 15 January 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

Your an airforce guy that claims the US is hiding aliens should be able to explain that easy right. Or should we go back to it was to cover up the aliens you claim to be here.

Sky you claim the US is hiding the biggest discovery ever aka aliens and you can`t grasp your government to cover up a false war lol

The government has been doing a bad job keeping secrets, whether on UFOs or Watergate, but let's take a look back into history to see who else was interested in UFOs.

The Silver Thong, on 30 May 2008 - 02:42 PM, said:

There is no doubt in my mind that some of the ufo's reported are our's. That's not the point. It's the one's we can't explain that leave us scratching our heads in tottal amazement that I'm interested in.

The Silver Thong, on 21 December 2010 - 04:43 AM, said:

... I will continue to believe in aliens  

I also have a dune buggy for sale for only $4 million, but if you act know, I will lower the price to $3,999,999.99, and that is a serious price drop, but if that is what it takes to make a deal, I can suffer financial drain. For an additional $1 million, I will let you keep the attached satellite dish so you can watch your favorite space movies on the monitor that's installed on the dashboard. The only catch is, you will have to  pick it up yourself and it is only a bit over 200,000 miles away.

Perhaps, you can ask your alien friends to give you a lift, literally, or should I say, get yourself abducted, but watch out for their 10-foot probes.

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 January 2013 - 07:42 AM.

[freetoroam]

The Silver Thong, on 15 January 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

No but yes,  by allies of the United States of America, The same people George Bush kissed on the lips with. Saudia Arabia should have been bombed to hell and back

The islamic fundamentalists are no allies of the west. Problem is, too many lefties do not realise this.

[Little Fish]

redhen, on 14 January 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

Facts don't suggest, people's interpretation of the facts suggest.

you tell me why he stayed in the classroom whilst the attacks were underway for the length of time he did. under your own standards - give me a reasoned argument, not based on speculation but based on facts.
take account of the following facts:
1. there was a security threat the day before when bush was staying in florida, a camera crew turned up where he was staying requesting an interview. there was an al queda suicide camera crew which assassinated the leader of the afghan northern alliance a few days before, so there was a security threat to the president from the ground.
2. 22 planes were thought to be hijacked whereabouts unknown during the attacks, presenting a security threat from the air.
3. the first hijack was known about about 7:30am (memory?)
4. the first crash was known at 8:45am
5 the second crash was known at 9:03am
6. bush stayed at the school until 9:45am (memory?) even doing a tv broadcast from the school.
7. airforce one was minutes away ready with a fighter escort.
8. dick cheney was quickly whisked to a bunker for his safety, his security team even picked him up by his belt and ran.

"they all panicked" is not a reasoned argument.

Quote

It may be self evident to you (if that's what you mean) but if it was then everyone would believe it. And that's not the case.

not true. studies have been done that conclude 71% of people are unable to reason for themselves. I only became aware of bush's stay at the school after watching michael moore's film Fahrenheit 911 some years after the event. how many people have looked into it and know the facts? I bet you haven't, you're on record as stating you won't read the cfr document "imagining the transforming event" which is a critical document to understand 911. one's views are a composite of the information you are exposed to. some unfortunately inoculate themselves against new information for psychological and emotional reasons, they look for reasons to ignore some of the facts, rather than look for explanations that assimilate the facts.

Quote

Perhaps he didn't want to flee and cause a panic?

that's not a reasoned argument. apply your own standards to your own argument.

Quote

That's right, just a convincing argument.

"didn't want to flee and cause a panic" is a convincing argument?
apply your own standards to your own arguments. you're clearly not stupid, but you just said something really stupid. "don't worry kids and teachers, there's reports of bombs going off all over the country and there's 22 suicide planes in the air crashing into buildings all over the place. we don't know where they are but the president is going to sit with you for the next hour and see what happens, everyone knows the president is here, his itinerary has been on the whitehouse website for the last few weeks, there's no reason to panic". simply stating "apologies, but the president has important business to attend to and has to leave" would have been the correct thing to do, but you only see the possibilty of them running around like headless chickens.

Quote

No, that's an empirical argument and is easily solved. What we have in this thread is a casual argument.

The point i'm making with the 1+1 analogy is that it is possible to construct any reality you want if your own views are not absolutely proven and out of the other side of your mind reject a differing view because it isn't absolutely proven. you should let your thinking construct your belief, not your belief construct your thinking.

Quote

among hundreds of other orders, secret and not, if they to was carry out this operation.

typo? your sentence reads as gibberish to me.
rumsfeld took action which would have been necessary to ensure the attack was successful.
he changed the standard procedure for dealing with hijackings a few weeks before 911. the changes put the defence response under his control and that response did not happen during the critical time. before his procedural change, a response would have been "automatic" meaning, it required no top down decision, in the event of a hijack, the faa was required to ask for intercept and norad was required to give it - that worked successfully for 30 years. the new intercept procedure (implemented by rumsfeld just prior to 911) required getting permission from defence secretary rumsfeld before a scramble and intercept could be occur. this change gave control of the air defence response to rumsfeld on 911, and he was not available during the attacks to give the required permission, so norad effectively was awol. if you are planning this event, handicapping the defence response would have been required for certainty.

Quote

Government policy changes all the time

the air defence response did not change in 30 years, so clearly it did not "change all the time". rather than look at the evidence or construct an argument to counter the evidence, you are again looking for reasons to ignore the evidence.

Quote

sometime for the better, sometimes for the worse as in this case, so it was quickly put back. Why? I haven't really looked into this, but cost cutting measures are always popular. An automated system means computer hardware, networking, security, admin, etc etc.

no, the automatic response only required that the FAA told NORAD to provide an intercept in the event of a hijacking, the new procedure required one more step (which turned out to be critical) that the FAA seeks permission from rumsfeld before NORAD could provide the response. apply your own standards which you demand from others - give a reasoned argument.

Quote

Perhaps you mean prima facie  as in the legal sense, where you have enough evidence at first glance, but is subject to further investigation.

prima facie means it is assumed to be true unless disproven. so you now have the burden of proof to disprove. refute it with a reasoned argument or accept the conclusion.

Edited by Little Fish, 15 January 2013 - 11:56 AM.

[joc]

The Silver Thong, on 15 January 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

Tell me how 4 hijacked planes one being the one that hit the pentagon got through the most secure air space on the planet with other planes already being smashed into buildings.

Your an airforce guy that claims the US is hiding aliens should be able to explain that easy right. Or should we go back to it was to cover up the aliens you claim to be here.

Sky you claim the US is hiding the biggest discovery ever aka aliens and you can`t grasp your government to cover up a false war lol

...and...
....Why were no F-16s scrambled...until approx 30 minutes AFTER the second plane hit?  Where was the military?  They sure as hell weren't protecting New York City from a Terrorist Attack.  Where were they?

[redhen]

Little Fish, on 15 January 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

you tell me why he stayed in the classroom whilst the attacks were underway for the length of time he did. under your own standards - give me a reasoned argument, not based on speculation but based on facts.

I already gave you one,  government bureaucrats were temporarily paralyzed like a deer in a headlight. It happens to the best of us. Anyways, you guys are shifting the burden of proof again. That's just not on.

Quote

6. bush stayed at the school until 9:45am (memory?) even doing a tv broadcast from the school.

Right some people interpreted this as a sign of coolness under fire. Others, like OBL saw it as weakness, according to the al Jazeera video tape, he laughed and thought it was weak that he would leave his citizens alone for that amount of time.

Quote

"they all panicked" is not a reasoned argument.

Why not? I submit the deer in the headlight syndrome was greatly responsible for the rapid Nazi conquest of France in 1940.

Quote

not true. studies have been done that conclude 71% of people are unable to reason for themselves.

Source please. Anyways, everyone reasons, it's what we do as humans. Some do it less effectively than others though.

Quote

you won't read the cfr document "imagining the transforming event" which is a critical document to understand 911.

Can't you just summarize the pertinent points from this doc? Anyways, without even reading it, I see that CFR is a "think tank", That means they get paid to think up all kinds of scenarios to defend against. It's the same thing the military does. In this process all kinds of wild eyed scenarios are imagined, that's their job. It's like doing due diligence.

Quote

"didn't want to flee and cause a panic" is a convincing argument?

There are many instances of authority figures purposely putting on a brave front in order to keep people calm, especially the British, they are famous for it.

Quote

The point i'm making with the 1+1 analogy is that it is possible to construct any reality you want if your own views are not absolutely proven and out of the other side of your mind reject a differing view because it isn't absolutely proven. you should let your thinking construct your belief, not your belief construct your thinking.

Agreed. Self delusion, in almost all cases, is ethically wrong.

Quote

rumsfeld took action which would have been necessary to ensure the attack was successful.
he changed the standard procedure for dealing with hijackings a few weeks before 911.

You stated this before.

Quote

the air defence response did not change in 30 years, so clearly it did not "change all the time". rather than look at the evidence or construct an argument to counter the evidence, you are again looking for reasons to ignore the evidence.

I didn't say that specific policy changed all the time, I said government policy, in general changes all the time.

Quote

no, the automatic response only required that the FAA told NORAD to provide an intercept in the event of a hijacking,

I have not researched this, but you claimed it was an automated system, to me, as systems analyst, means computer infrastructure, salaries, etc.

Quote

the new procedure required one more step (which turned out to be critical) that the FAA seeks permission from rumsfeld before NORAD could provide the response. apply your own standards which you demand from others - give a reasoned argument.

You're shifting the burden of proof. I started this thread to discover the belief system of truthers. I asked for a coherent, reasoned argument that explains who planned and controlled the 911 attacks, and why? Asking me to support my claims (which I have not made mind you) is shifting the burden of proof. It's a violation of the constitutive rules of argumentation. Reluctantly I have offered some counter arguments, after much prodding, but I didn't have to according to the rules of argumentation.

Quote

prima facie means it is assumed to be true unless disproven. so you now have the burden of proof to disprove. refute it with a reasoned argument or accept the conclusion.

Ok so you meant that you had prima facie evidence, in the legal sense, not in the connotation of self-evident. That's good, for you see that it can mean "at first glance" and subject to further investigation .

[Babe Ruth]

skyeagle409, on 14 January 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

Actually, it has already been proven that al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks.

I'm sure that is the "convincing argument" that RedHen is looking for, but that is insufficient for my standards.

[redhen]

Babe Ruth, on 15 January 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

I'm sure that is the "convincing argument" that RedHen is looking for, but that is insufficient for my standards.

Hi Babe, just for the record, who do you think planned and controlled the 911 attacks, and for what purpose. And why do you believe this to be so?

Thanks

[redhen]

Stories like this new one is the reason why I created this thread. A guy who helped some of the Sandy Hook kids moments after the attack has himself come under attack by Sandy Hook truthers. Crank calls, fake websites in his name, a general smear campagin.
http://www.salon.com...arassed_for_it/

This is disgusting, what's wrong with you people? Have no you respect for others?

So, I thought I should go to the source, the original 911 "conspiracy". If I had a loved one whose charred remains were posted all over the usual "ogrish" sites and truther sites, I would be raising hell.

So, back to the thread. Does anyone else have a coherent, reasoned argument? The last, and only one, got shot full of holes, rearranged, and then succumbed to a natural death. Thanks for trying joc.

p.s. this is not an argument. It's just a comment.

Edited by redhen, 15 January 2013 - 03:44 PM.

[lightly]

for war.

[joc]

redhen, on 15 January 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

So, back to the thread. Does anyone else have a coherent, reasoned argument? The last, and only one, got shot full of holes, rearranged, and then succumbed to a natural death. Thanks for trying joc.
p.s. this is not an argument. It's just a comment.

Okay...how about this one:

911 was set up to ultimately accomplish one objective. Rid the US of Debt to China. To accomplish this it is necessary to Declare War on China...and The US has no reason. 911 began the road to war with China. There is no way to wage an effective war with China unless one deals with Iran first. And no sitting US President has done anything about Iran since The Shah was overthrown. To wage war on China, you first have to wage war on Iran, and you cannot wage an effective war against Iran with Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq. So it became necessary to first rid the world of Saddam Hussein. Saddam is long dead. We are no longer in Iraq and we are winding down in Afghanistan. And we are now all hearing about Iran's desire for Nuclear weapons. We have all heard how Iran has threatened Israel with annihilation. Just as 911 was set-up by The Controlling Entity so will the destruction of Israel be.  The Controlling Entity are George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George Soros, and Mayor Bloomberg.

Edited by joc, 15 January 2013 - 04:58 PM.

[redhen]

joc, on 15 January 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Okay...how about this one:

911 was set up to ultimately accomplish one objective. Rid the US of Debt to China.

ok

Quote

To accomplish this it is necessary to Declare War on China

Aren't there other ways? Reduce government spending or minting a Trillion dollar coin?

Quote

...and The US has no reason. 911 began the road to war with China. There is no way to wage an effective war with China unless one deals with Iran first.

If the U.S.A. were ever to wage war against China, intervening in Iran would be a moot point. What do you imagine a Sino-American war would look like? I'm picturing a big nuclear holocaust. One helluva way to get rid of your financial debt.

Quote

And no sitting US President has done anything about Iran since The Shah was overthrown.

Ok

Quote

To wage war on China, you first have to wage war on Iran,

Because .... ?

Quote

and you cannot wage an effective war against Iran with Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq.

But Saddam fought a long drawn out war with Iran for years. In fact, the U.S. gave Saddam billions in aid and technology.to fight Iran.

Quote

So it became necessary to first rid the world of Saddam Hussein. Saddam is long dead. We are no longer in Iraq and we are winding down in Afghanistan. And we are now all hearing about Iran's desire for Nuclear weapons. We have all heard how Iran has threatened Israel with annihilation.

True

Quote

Just as 911 was set-up by The Controlling Entity so will the destruction of Israel be.  The Controlling Entity are George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George Soros, and Mayor Bloomberg.

So now the "powers that be" are going to destroy Israel, for the purpose of ... ?

Thanks again joc, but I see you are just having problems believing all of the facts presented by the mainstream media and government. That's fine, but what I was really looking for was a reasoned argument by a truther. One of those growing number of people who claim they know that 911 was an inside job.

[joc]

redhen, on 15 January 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

ok



Aren't there other ways? Reduce government spending or minting a Trillion dollar coin?



If the U.S.A. were ever to wage war against China, intervening in Iran would be a moot point. What do you imagine a Sino-American war would look like? I'm picturing a big nuclear holocaust. One helluva way to get rid of your financial debt.



Ok



Because .... ?



But Saddam fought a long drawn out war with Iran for years. In fact, the U.S. gave Saddam billions in aid and technology.to fight Iran.



True



So now the "powers that be" are going to destroy Israel, for the purpose of ... ?

Thanks again joc, but I see you are just having problems believing all of the facts presented by the mainstream media and government. That's fine, but what I was really looking for was a reasoned argument by a truther. One of those growing number of people who claim they know that 911 was an inside job.

Fine...go play by yourself then!   *kidding*    In reality, I am not a truther.  I do not know that 911 was an inside job.  And...I must admit...after reading many of the debunks of my own thinking...I am not even as 'sure' of what I thought I did know.  The truth is that there really isn't one thing you can point to and say SEE  there it is...that proves it...a lot of innuendo, speculation, bits of this, bits of that...but still...it doesn't make sense.  

I will just say one thing about belief:  Christians believe Jesus is God.   Islamic Radical Jihadists believe that Christians should be killed for believing that.  Whatever the Truth is...it is what it is.  The truth just is.  Belief cannot and will not change the TRUTH from being what it is.  So, believing strongly one way or the other does not create truth.  Truth...just is.
This has all been fun...but...I really do have other things that I seriously need to attend to.  It took a while but I finally realized what you were trying to do with the thread.

Edited by joc, 15 January 2013 - 05:44 PM.

[skyeagle409]

joc, on 15 January 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

...and...
....Why were no F-16s scrambled...until approx 30 minutes AFTER the second plane hit?

First of all, there was a lot of confusion and ATC failed to notify the military in a timely manner, not to mention confusion everywhere because the United States has never experienced such an attack before. The pilots of the F-16s and F-15s were not authorized to shoot down airliners during the time of the attacks and no commander nor pilot wants to be responsible for shooting down the wrong airliner. There was no order issued to shoot down airliners during the attacks, which didn't come until after United 93 crashed near Shanksville.

If an airliner is shot down over a city, what kind of damage can be expected? What would be the consequences should the wrong airliner be shot down? You can't just turn the whole sky into the OK Corral and shoot down just any airliner, and remember, shooting down a bomber is one thing, but shooting down an airliner is another.

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 January 2013 - 06:03 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 15 January 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

I'm sure that is the "convincing argument" that RedHen is looking for, but that is insufficient for my standards.

Insufficient by your standards? Remember, you were the person who'd claimed that no Boeing crashed near Shanksville nor at the Pentagon despite the overwhelming evidence, and then turn around and said that the aircraft passed north of the gas station before it struck the Pentagon, but the damage leading up to the Pentagon proved otherwide. Then, you said that an P700 anti-ship missile could have been the object that struck the Pentagon, not to mention that you said that explosives could have knocked down the light poles when it was clear the light poles suffered impact damage and nothing to do with explosives.

You mentioned that nukes brought down the WTC buildings yet no bomb explosions were detected by seismic monitors nor seen in the videos. Your standards are seriously flawed.

Actually, there is more than enough evidence and no evidence of a 911 government  conspiracy.

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 January 2013 - 06:12 PM.