445 replies to this topic

[Sky Scanner]

Q24, on 27 January 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

The problem is that some think of their government as an extension of themselves; in the end one and the same.  It is not realised that the individual and the government are operating on completely different levels with different priorities in mind (especially when it comes to the world’s pre-eminent power).

I think that is perfectly well known to most people, that is why all around the world we vote in the best people that we know lie to us best, make us feel like we're on some kind of right track....politicians just do what we ask them to do, unfortunately most people haven't realised yet that what they ask for is unattainable in the real world...security/safety and prosperity at home, money and comfortable living, all the freedoms we want, whilst not interfering with affairs abroad...only the most naive would believe you can sustain one without the other..

If 9/11 is a false flag operation, and as obvious as many claim, then the fact most think the official version holds more credibility is a failure of the CT'ers to find a credible alternative, and make it stick.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 27 January 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

The curious part Sky, is why so many folks believe a government that so consistently commits fraud, and believe a fable that cannot be proven EXCEPT by specious government statements?  

But, American Airlines and United Airlines are not government agencies, and they have confirmed that American 11, and United 175, have crashed in New York City, and  American 77 crashed into the Pentagon, and United 93 crashed at Shanksville and it doesn't take much to confirm the aircraft were two B-767's and two B-757's.

Quote

United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed


UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers on board, two pilots and seven flight attendants.

My link

American Airlines

September 12, 2001, 11:55 a.m. CST

AMERICAN RELEASES PRELIMINARY PASSENGER LISTS FOR FLIGHTS INVOLVED IN YESTERDAY'S TERRORIST ATTACKS

.

FORT WORTH, Texas – American Airlines is releasing a preliminary, partial passenger list and a crew list for its flights involved in yesterday's terrorist attacks.

My link

The 9/11 conspiracy folks have failed to provide evidence of a government 9/11 conspiracy.

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 January 2012 - 07:33 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

You have a certain blind faith in the statements of government and captains of industry.

Do you remember the scandal involving the various telecommunication companies including that giant AT &
T?

They did the government's dirty work out there in your home state by intercepting emails and phone communications of many thousands of private citizens WITHOUT a warrant.  They were working for the NSA violating the letter and spirit of the Fourth Amendment.

Then another giant of american industry, and so-called "liberal rag" the New York Times, after discovering what the telecomms had done, kept it secret for an entire year so that Bush might be re-elected.

So tell me again Sky, why is it that you so quickly and happily believe the statements of known liars?

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 27 January 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

just a quick note here on the survey results posted by CZ. The one which asks the four specific questions, including 'do you think that the planes never hit the WTCs and the images were all fabricated'...this returned a 6% yes/credible response. If we look at the less far fetched questions above it we have a ceiling of 15%, in this instance it is quite safe to assume that the same 6% also voted yes on the above...so my point is-how much credence should we give to the opinion (as a whole) of those that believe the images of the planes hitting could be fabricated?

How much?  None at all.

Excellent observation q.

[Babe Ruth]

I too cannot go with those who say no planes hit at WTC.

I could be persuaded, but so far nobody has offered anything to persuade me with.

Maybe some of the videos were manipulated, maybe they were not.  I have insufficient knowledge of pixels and videos and such to make an informed decision, but there are alot of people making that claim.

However there are pictures and videos and testimony from many different sources, and some physical evidence of aircraft debris found in places consistent with the trajectory shown on various videos.

Anything is possible, but they have not made their case regarding no planes at WTC.  Manipulated videos DO NOT necessarily mean there were no airplanes there.

[Babe Ruth]

I too cannot go with those who say no planes hit at WTC.

I could be persuaded, but so far nobody has offered anything to persuade me with.

Maybe some of the videos were manipulated, maybe they were not.  I have insufficient knowledge of pixels and videos and such to make an informed decision, but there are alot of people making that claim.

However there are pictures and videos and testimony from many different sources, and some physical evidence of aircraft debris found in places consistent with the trajectory shown on various videos.

Anything is possible, but they have not made their case regarding no planes at WTC.  Manipulated videos DO NOT necessarily mean there were no airplanes there.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 27 January 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

Sky

You have a certain blind faith in the statements of government and captains of industry.

It has nothing to do with blind faith, and it doesn't take much to track the aircraft involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Quote

Do you remember the scandal involving the various telecommunication companies including that giant AT &
T?

But, that has nothing to do with American 11, American 77, United 175, and United 93.

Quote

So tell me again Sky, why is it that you so quickly and happily believe the statements of known liars?

Because I have enough experience in the world of aviation to know that the aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks were operated by American Airlines and United Airlines and that the aircraft were not switched nor modified in the way that 9/11 conspiracy folks have claimed.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 27 January 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

So tell me again Sky, why is it that you so quickly and happily believe the statements of known liars?

Because the facts and evidence speak for themselves, and to underline that point, the 9/11 conspiracy folks have yet to provide evidence of a government 9/11 conspiracy.

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 January 2012 - 09:43 PM.

[Q24]

The Sky Scanner, on 27 January 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

If 9/11 is a false flag operation, and as obvious as many claim, then the fact most think the official version holds more credibility is a failure of the CT'ers to find a credible alternative, and make it stick.

We are talking about a leaderless collection of supposed conspiracy loons who can’t even agree a set theory and use the internet as their main communicator vs. the mainstream media and government juggernauts.  With that in mind, I’d say us so called “CT’ers” are doing a fine job of getting the message out.  The whole set-up is against us, yet apparently around 60 million adults in the U.S. alone heed the message.  Heck, give us a 24hr TV channel and it’d be game over.

[Sky Scanner]

Q24, on 28 January 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

We are talking about a leaderless collection of supposed conspiracy loons who can’t even agree a set theory and use the internet as their main communicator vs. the mainstream media and government juggernauts.  With that in mind, I’d say us so called “CT’ers” are doing a fine job of getting the message out.  The whole set-up is against us, yet apparently around 60 million adults in the U.S. alone heed the message.  Heck, give us a 24hr TV channel and it’d be game over.

Sure, I don't doubt that...anyone with a 24hr TV channel and some slick editing and production can make a case for anyone who wants to follow it... you can just follow the main stream media model and reverse the trend of belief from one angle to another, doesn't mean you'll be getting any nearer to the truth though, but you would certainly even those figures out to a more even playing field.

Edited by The Sky Scanner, 28 January 2012 - 01:01 AM.

[RaptorBites]

Q24, on 28 January 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

We are talking about a leaderless collection of supposed conspiracy loons who can’t even agree a set theory and use the internet as their main communicator vs. the mainstream media and government juggernauts.  With that in mind, I’d say us so called “CT’ers” are doing a fine job of getting the message out.  The whole set-up is against us, yet apparently around 60 million adults in the U.S. alone heed the message.  Heck, give us a 24hr TV channel and it’d be game over.

I totally agree with you there Q.

The problem is, there is so much garbage on the media and on the internet that many people are confused on what to believe.  This causes a lot of confusion on what is right and what is wrong.  

I'd love to call it the Dan Brown effect.  (im sure that name has been beaten enough to cause the horse to decay)

I am not saying the CT theories are right however.  I believe people are entitled to their opinion regarding what happened on 9/11.  

I have yet to see a slice of credible evidence that 9/11 is a-kin to Op Northwood, so I beleive the official story as there is more evidence to support the official story.  Again my opinion whether people like it or not.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 22 January 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

The WTC demolitions could be falsified, it's just that the evidence to do so does not exist.

Of course it exists, it's just that you interpret it as evidence in favour of your "covert demolition".

No explosions, no demolition debris, none of the demolition people who helped with the clean-up noticing anything familiar, it all proves to you just how clever the conspirators were at covering it up.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 28 January 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

Of course it exists, it's just that you interpret it as evidence in favour of your "covert demolition".

No explosions, no demolition debris, none of the demolition people who helped with the clean-up noticing anything familiar, it all proves to you just how clever the conspirators were at covering it up.

Is this really coming from someone who claims an observation matching all characteristics of thermite must be anything but thermite?
Surely not from someone who knows the damage/fire collapses were against the odds but claims they are the most likely theory?
From someone who accepts the complete collapse of WTC7 looked like a demolition but claims it was a natural collapse?

I could go on, suffice to say you may want to consider how unfalsifiable your own mindset is.

And of course evidence that can be interpreted in favour of a covert demolition cannot falsify the theory.  As all of the evidence supports or fits the theory, without going against the odds or disbelieving one’s own eyes as noted above… that should be telling us something.  As you admittedly cannot falsify the demolition, what would go a long way to countering it is a damage/fire collapse theory actually based in reality.  Kind of, getting your own house in order to begin with.

Also, no explosions?  You are getting rusty.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 28 January 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

Is this really coming from someone who claims an observation matching all characteristics of thermite must be anything but thermite?

You may think it matches, but you want it to.  I can't see anything that looks the least like thermite.  The molten flow isn't hot enough, the fires in the debris are too long-lasting, the iron microspheres are sparks from metal working, etc.

The same holds for all your other "evidence".  You interpret it the way you want.  I remind you that AE911T still can't answer Ulrich's letter showing that none of the demolition claims is unambiguous evidence.  Unless you can actually find some evidence that clearly says "demolition", you are left with "it must be a covert demolition because it doesn't look like a demolition".

Quote

Also, no explosions?  You are getting rusty.

What explosions?  You yourself admit that there are no explosions at the right time for an HE demolition, that's why you want thermite.

Edited by flyingswan, 28 January 2012 - 02:40 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

This is coming from someone displaying all the signs of cognitive dissonance.  It is not a matter of intelligence IMO, but a matter of just how one's brain is wired.