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

#571    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:32 PM

View Postjoc, on 15 January 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

  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.  

That's a good summary.

Quote

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.

Religion I think is in a different category. There is a lot of pressure from family, friends, community to believe a certain set or propositions. Hm, maybe it's not so different.

Quote

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. :tu:

Thanks for he dialogue. I have other stuff I should do too; I am not a paid shill or troll. But if anyone wants to make an offer, I'm listening. lol


#572    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:58 PM

After reviewing notes and textbooks, I think I need to change my request for a causal argument. The argument is not really of the form;  smoking causes cancer, or porn causes rape, but rather an abductive argument (inference to the best explanation), of the form;

Shantal saw an unusual light in the sky.
She couldn't explain it.

Thus, it was a UFO.

There are other more plausible alternatives in this example.

"Key criteria we use for assessing such arguments include:

- the truth of the claim
- the plausibility of the explanation
- the simplicity of the explanation
- the completeness of the explanation; and
- whether the explanation better explains or rules out likely alternatives."

Argument and argumentation, Jean Saindon, 2008, Thomson-Nelson p 87

By this criteria, I have not seen a single cogent argument on UM forums for any kind of 911 conspiracy. And I doubt I ever will.


#573    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:48 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 January 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

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.
joc said scramble, and you talk about shootdown. deception noted.


#574    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:58 PM

View Postredhen, on 15 January 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

After reviewing notes and textbooks, I think I need to change my request for a causal argument. The argument is not really of the form;  smoking causes cancer, or porn causes rape, but rather an abductive argument (inference to the best explanation), of the form;

By this criteria, I have not seen a single cogent argument on UM forums for any kind of 911 conspiracy. And I doubt I ever will.
then you are deluding yourself. I have given you a prima facie reasoned argument which you need to refute or accept, it is also an abductive argument since nobody has provided a better more plausible explanation.
http://www.unexplain...55#entry4622036

View Postredhen, on 15 January 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

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.
show me a deer frozen in the headlights for 2 hours. "government bureaucrats" is a mis-description of the presidents secret service security team. the burden of proof is with the one who asserts, which was you. you asserted the reason for not moving the president to a safe location was that the security team froze for 2 hours. you provided no reasoned argument for this assertion. it is also not a plausible argument, so by your above new rules of abductive argument your explanation has to be rejected. A better explanation is that the person who made the decision to stay at the school knew the school was safe, which implies they knew the school was not going to be a target, which implies foreknowledge which implies involvement.

Quote

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.
this does not address the point as to why the president and his security team would decide to stay in an unsafe location for 2 hours, endangering the life of the president and those at the school. if what you say here is meant to be a reasoned argument for staying at the school then you have not taken into account all 8 points in my link above which demanded the president be moved.

Quote

Why not? I submit the deer in the headlight syndrome was greatly responsible for the rapid Nazi conquest of France in 1940.
not even a deer freezes in headlights for 2 hours, nevermind a security team whose prime function is to act quickly to ensure the president is safe at all times. you are appealing to an absurd analogy.

Quote

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.
it describes the destruction of the twin towers in a catastrophic pearl harbour type event as a way that would change american society. it is not a lengthy document, you should look it up for the details. it was written by neocon phillip zelikow who went on to author the 911 commission report which concluded "911 was a failiure of imagination", and yet he had imagined the 911 event exactly in his cia/cfr document "imagining the transforming event". you also know about the pre-911 neocon PNAC document "rebuilding america's defences" which outlines the full neocon agenda, and which stated that a new pearl harbour event would be required to get through the agenda. again this is prima facie.

Quote

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.
I note you deleted part of my reply in your response which addresses the point, subconscious denial perhaps?. I'll repeat it - "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 possibility of them running around like headless chickens.".
the underlined bit is not mutually exclusive to "a brave face".

staying at the school for 2 hours whilst the events were going on is stupid (unless you KNOW the school is not a target)

Quote

You stated this before.
because your response to it was incoherent. I still don't know what point you were making.

Quote

I didn't say that specific policy changed all the time, I said government policy, in general changes all the time.
you were trying to imply it is normal for rumsfeld to have changed the defence response procedure, but it wasn't since it had not changed in 30 years and there was no reason to have changed it unless he wanted to have the power to stand down a defence response.


Quote

I have not researched this
the documents and analysis are online so there is no reason you can't. as I said your views are a composite of what information you are willing to expose yourself to. closing your eyes doesn't make it go away. you asked why truth seekers believe what they believe and i'm telling you why. consider yourself enlightened.

Quote

you claimed it was an automated system, to me, as systems analyst, means computer infrastructure, salaries, etc
you also asked for a "casual" argument when you probably meant "'causal" argument. I didn't jump on your head over words because i take time to understand the meaning of what someone says, not interpret what they say with a predefined prejudice. I clearly explained what was meant by "automatic" - the FAA was required to instruct NORAD to intercept the jets immediately, and NORAD was required to follow that instruction, that was the procedure, in other words a defence response was to have occurred automatically and quickly and independent of anyone outside of those needed to respond. rumsfeld changed all that just prior to 911. all he had to do was be awol and norad would stand down.

Quote

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.
no i'm not reversing the burden, you are offering an alternative explanation for changing the procedure "cost of admin etc" so its your burden of proof. you did not provide a reasoned argument as you demand your responders do. I'm showing you a belief that is based on evidence, logic and facts. I've given you three prima facie points of evidence, and you've responded with implausible speculations. I'll give you a fourth - rumsfeld was on the lawn of the pentagon helping an injured person on a stretcher. he was helping carry that stretcher with several burly military guys, the footage was broadcast on cnn. rumsfeld is an 80 year old man, if anything his actions were hindering those stretcher bearers, so there was no reason to do that. but here's another thing - he was the defence secretary! yet his actions of impromptu stretcher bearer effectively compromised the defence response - he had more important things to be doing than wasting his time with ambulances and stretchers. the only possible legitimate reason i can see why rumsfeld was helping the injured at the pentagon was if he knew the attacks were over. now how did he know the attacks were over ? so again this is prima facie.

Quote

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 .
do you have any evidence to disprove this prima facie evidence? or a reasoned argument? or a better abductive argument? what you've come up with is nothing of the sort.
if a man's gun is found at the scene of a murder and he had prior written about his wishes for the victim to be dead, and his prints were on the gun, that's prima facie - he has to now prove his innocence to the court or he will be convicted - prima facie reverses the burden of proof.

Edited by Little Fish, 16 January 2013 - 01:15 PM.


#575    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:00 PM

[quote name='Little Fish' timestamp='1358341122' post='4623855']
then you are deluding yourself. I have given you a prima facie reasoned argument which you need to refute or accept, it is also an abductive argument since nobody has provided a better more plausible explanation.
[url="http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=240942&st=555#entry4622036"]http://www.unexplain...5#entry4622036[/url][/quote]

I did offer alternatives, all of which are simpler and less controversial.

[quote]show me a deer frozen in the headlights for 2 hours. "government bureaucrats" is a mis-description of the presidents secret service security team.[/quote]

Technically, it's an accurate description.

[quote]the burden of proof is with the one who asserts, which was you. you asserted the reason for not moving the president to a safe location was that the security team froze for 2 hours. [/quote]

No, once again I solicited an argument, you gave one. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.


[quote]you provided no reasoned argument for this assertion.[/quote]

I think I gave an example of government paralysis during a crisis; the French government that failed to respond to the Nazi invasion in 1940. A classic example. Anyways, that's a moot point. I only offered that alternative because you get hounding me for one, ignoring the burden of proof principle.

[quote]it is also not a plausible argument,[/quote]

Which is more plausible; 1) the government was temporarily frozen from shock, 2) the "world banking system/Zionists/China/Russia, someone, we're not sure who, orchestrated the 911 attacks in order to "rule the world" ?

[quote]so by your above new rules of abductive argument your explanation has to be rejected.[/quote]

No, mine is a simpler explanation that adds less outlandish claims than yours.

[quote]A better explanation is that the person who made the decision to stay at the school knew the school was safe, which implies they knew the school was not going to be a target, which implies foreknowledge which implies involvement.[/quote]

Ok, let's see.

[quote]this does not address the point as to why the president and his security team would decide to stay in an unsafe location for 2 hours, endangering the life of the president and those at the school. if what you say here is meant to be a reasoned argument for staying at the school then you have not taken into account all 8 points in my link above which demanded the president be moved.[/quote]

"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."

A lot of your 8 points simply list the timeline of events, there's not arguments. I didn't say "they all panicked". So, they whisked Cheney away? Ok, that shows an appropriate response. Make sure continuity of the government is intact, while the president puts on a brave Texan face so the country doesn't panic.

cont.

[quote] you also know about the pre-911 neocon PNAC document "rebuilding america's defences" which outlines the full neocon agenda, and which stated that a new pearl harbour event would be required to get through the agenda. again this is prima facie.[/quote]

Right, and I answered this one too. I explained that thinktanks and security organizations are paid to imagine every possible, conceivable threat. That's their job. That's why the U.S. still had Plan Red (the invasion of Canada) still on the books until 1939.

[quote]I note you deleted part of my reply in your response which addresses the point, subconscious denial perhaps?. I'll repeat it - "[u]simply stating "apologies, but the president has important business to attend to and has to leave"[/u] would have been the correct thing to do, but you only see the possibility of them running around like headless chickens.".
the underlined bit is not mutually exclusive to "a brave face".[/quote]

Now your making an ethical argument, the correct thing to do. That's a different debate for another thread.

[quote]staying at the school for 2 hours whilst the events were going on is stupid (unless you KNOW the school is not a target)[/quote]

Stupid? More ethical judgements. I think maybe this is your problem. You see the school event the same way [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0FVeqCX6z8"]Osama bin Laden[/url]did in his video, laughing that the Americans were weak and Bush should have been out amongst the people.

[quote]you were trying to imply it is normal for rumsfeld to have changed the defence response procedure, but it wasn't since it had not changed in 30 years and there was no reason to have changed it unless he wanted to have the power to stand down a defence response.[/quote]

So every time some government policy changes after 30 years, it's because of an evil conspiracy?

[quote]the documents and analysis are online so there is no reason you can't. as I said your views are a composite of what information you are willing to expose yourself to. [/quote]

Not so, I have seen alleged evidence of anomolies in the official story, but no coherent, reasoned argument as to who planned and controlled the attacks and why.

[quote]closing your eyes doesn't make it go away. you asked why truth seekers believe what they believe and i'm telling you why. consider yourself enlightened.[/quote]

So, who, specifically controlled the attacks and why? Enough isolated bits of innuendo, implications and insinuations. Give me a cogent argument.

[quote] I clearly explained what was meant by "automatic" - the FAA was required to instruct NORAD to intercept the jets immediately, and NORAD was required to follow that instruction, that was the procedure, in other words a defence response was to have occurred automatically and quickly and independent of anyone outside of those needed to respond. rumsfeld changed all that just prior to 911. all he had to do was be awol and norad would stand down.[/quote]

And I answered, offering the explanation that the government is always looking for cost cutting measures, and something like this automatice response mechanism entails compuer hardware, networks, security, admin people, etc.

[quote]no i'm not reversing the burden, you are offering an alternative explanation for changing the procedure "cost of admin etc" so its your burden of proof. you did not provide a reasoned argument as you demand your responders do.[/quote]

Right. We are not debating my beliefs. We are going through your argument and seeing if the conclusion (whatever it is) is warranted. That's how argumentation works. Look, I have given you a credible defintion of the burden of proof principle, did you miss something there?

[quote]I'm showing you a belief that is based on evidence, logic and facts. I've given you three prima facie points of evidence, and you've responded with implausible speculations.[/quote]

You can keep repeating yourself all day, that doesn't make your claims any more credible. Damm, this is starting to sound like a [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA"]Mont Python sketch.[/url]


[quote]I'll ive you a fourth - rumsfeld was on the lawn of the pentagon helping an injured person on a stretcher. he was helping carry that stretcher with several burly military guys, the footage was broadcast on cnn. rumsfeld is an 80 year old man, if anything his actions were hindering those stretcher bearers, so there was no reason to do that. [/quote]

You can't think of any other reasons? This is the problem with truthers.

[quote]but here's another thing - he was the defence secretary! yet his actions of impromptu stretcher bearer effectively compromised the defence response - he had more important things to be doing than wasting his time with ambulances and stretchers. the only possible legitimate reason i can see why rumsfeld was helping the injured at the pentagon was if he knew the attacks were over. now how did he know the attacks were over ? so again this is prima facie.[/quote]

Let's see. Rumsfeld helped a guy on a stretcher, so 911 was an inside job where high ranking, U.S. government officals planned and controlled an attack that killed 3,000 U.S. citizens, using Muslim fanatics? Hmm?

[quote]do you have any evidence ti disprove this prima facie evidence? or a reasoned argument? or a better abductive argument?[/quote]

Empathy is hardwired into humans (and other animals). It's not unusal for people to extaned compassion to stangers.

[quote]if a man's gun is found at the scene of a murder and he had prior written about his wishes for the victim to be dead, and his prints were on the gun, that's prima facie - he has to now prove his innocence to the court or he will be convicted - prima facie reverses the burden of proof.
[/quote]

So using your ananlogy,  show me the prints on the gun.


#576    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:02 PM

View Postredhen, on 15 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

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

I guess I should be honored that you have made a specific response to a post!

Having just finished Christopher Bollyn's 2 books on the subject, "Solving 911", it seems most likely that the impetus for the operation began in Israel, or at least within the minds of Israeli agents.  There are so many of them working within the Pentagon and many other places, it's impossible to say exactly where it began.

The purpose was to advance Israeli interests by provoking the US as the proverbial Big Dog into military intervention in the mideast so that Israel's various enemies would be crushed.

But certainly there were many many overlapping interests not necessarily related to Israeli interests.  That is, there were many NON Israeli interests advanced I'm sure, though it is interesting how the Israeli theme always runs just under the surface.


#577    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:06 PM

View Postredhen, on 15 January 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

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.

Damn those troofers, eh RH?  People interested in what really happened are 2 b condemned at every turn, eh RH?

Maybe I've watched too many episodes of Dragnet or Columbo, but if either of those two investigators encountered the contradictions in testimony and statements that the public has encountered in both Newtown and the events of 11 September, they both would be extremely suspicious that they were being lied to.

I can relate. :yes:


#578    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:04 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 January 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

Having just finished Christopher Bollyn's 2 books on the subject, "Solving 911",

and before reading this book, what did you think?

Quote

it seems most likely that the impetus for the operation began in Israel, or at least within the minds of Israeli agents.  

So the Israeli government as a whole, or some rogue agents. Big difference.

Quote

There are so many of them working within the Pentagon and many other places, it's impossible to say exactly where it began.

Many Israeli agents working in the U.S. gov't?  Well, I'll accept a handful, just like there's most likely a handful or Chinese and Russian agents. Why do the Jews always get the credit?

Quote

The purpose was to advance Israeli interests by provoking the US as the proverbial Big Dog into military intervention in the mideast so that Israel's various enemies would be crushed.

Well, at least it's possible. Not sure about how probable it is. It is pretty out there ...

Quote

But certainly there were many many overlapping interests not necessarily related to Israeli interests.  That is, there were many NON Israeli interests advanced I'm sure, though it is interesting how the Israeli theme always runs just under the surface.

Other interests advanced? Absolutely. That doesn't necessarily mean they had a hand in it.


#579    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:12 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 January 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

Damn those troofers, eh RH?  People interested in what really happened are 2 b condemned at every turn, eh RH?

That's not what I said. I have a problem with people harassing and tormenting victims of these attacks.

Quote

Maybe I've watched too many episodes of Dragnet or Columbo, but if either of those two investigators encountered the contradictions in testimony and statements that the public has encountered in both Newtown and the events of 11 September, they both would be extremely suspicious that they were being lied to.

Contradictory statements? Again, there are other alternatives instead of latching on to the idea of a world wide conspiracy by shadowy elite figures. People make honest mistakes, people have only second hand knowledge, people are not in a right frame of mind, people interpreted an event wrong, people are biased ....

And as Columbo would say ... ah, just one more thing...


#580    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:02 PM

View Postredhen, on 16 January 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

That's not what I said. I have a problem with people harassing and tormenting victims of these attacks.



Contradictory statements? Again, there are other alternatives instead of latching on to the idea of a world wide conspiracy by shadowy elite figures. People make honest mistakes, people have only second hand knowledge, people are not in a right frame of mind, people interpreted an event wrong, people are biased ....

And as Columbo would say ... ah, just one more thing...

Yes, just one more thing.  I have never said the Newtown thing was "a world wide conspiracy by shadowy elite figures", but you simply must inject that.  I get it.  I recognize your style.  No problem.

What I said, is that the story doesn't add up.  It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.  Is that simple statement really so difficult to comprehend?


#581    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,287 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:04 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 January 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

What I said, is that the story doesn't add up.  It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.  Is that simple statement really so difficult to comprehend?

What is difficult to comprehend, is why you continue to make up stories as you go? Where's your evidence that nuclear bombs demolished the WTC buildings?

Edited by skyeagle409, 16 January 2013 - 09:05 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#582    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:07 PM

View Postredhen, on 16 January 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

and before reading this book, what did you think?

I suspected Mossad involvement, but had no idea it was so consistent and thorough.  I already knew Dov Zakheim was closely involved in the Pentagon since the days of the Reagan administration, and I knew Zakheim was not Chinese or Russian.  I don't think Bollyn ever mentioned his name.



So the Israeli government as a whole, or some rogue agents. Big difference.  Yeah, no doubt.



Many Israeli agents working in the U.S. gov't?  Well, I'll accept a handful, just like there's most likely a handful or Chinese and Russian agents. Why do the Jews always get the credit?



Well, at least it's possible. Not sure about how probable it is. It is pretty out there ...



Other interests advanced? Absolutely. That doesn't necessarily mean they had a hand in it.

No, it is not conclusive proof because agencies such as CIA and Mossad do not leave conclusive proof.  They are masters of deception.

But it certainly makes a very very very strong circumstantial case.


#583    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,287 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:13 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 January 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

No, it is not conclusive proof because agencies such as CIA and Mossad do not leave conclusive proof.  They are masters of deception.

Are you implying that American Airlines and United Airlines lied when they reported the loss of their aircraft, which were; American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#584    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:13 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 January 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

Yes, just one more thing.  I have never said the Newtown thing was "a world wide conspiracy by shadowy elite figures", but you simply must inject that.  I get it.  I recognize your style.  No problem.

Well, it's not really my style. But given the lack of satisfactory answers to "who", I am forced to make up a Straw man argument. I know, that's wrong, but you tell me "who" they are?

Quote

What I said, is that the story doesn't add up.  It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.  Is that simple statement really so difficult to comprehend?

It's a valid statement, and is comprehensible. But taken together as a syllogism, it's nonsensical;

It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. p1
the story doesn't add up (intermediate conclusion)

Thus, 911 was an inside job (main conclusion)


“Fallacious and misleading arguments are most easily detected if set out in correct syllogistic form”


  - Immanuel Kant


#585    pallidin

pallidin

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,480 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:15 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 16 January 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

No, it is not conclusive proof because agencies such as CIA and Mossad do not leave conclusive proof.  They are masters of deception.

But it certainly makes a very very very strong circumstantial case.

So you are just speculating.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users