2463 replies to this topic

[Liquid Gardens]

Nathan DiYorio, on 20 February 2013 - 04:08 AM, said:

I think a lot of people are misconstruing the words "Faith" and "False." Faith is simply the belief in something you've been told without experiencing first hand.

No, I think the issue is instead that you are entirely ignoring the notion of 'evidence'.  It's not by faith I accept a meteor fell, it's by evaluating the evidence and possible explanations.  There are multiple videos, by different people of the event, hundreds of people injured.  Yes it is possible this was all faked, but is that the most likely explanation?  Where is faith coming into play in this rational analysis of the evidence?

The way you are defining it, there's no reason to exclude 'experiencing it first hand' from being faith, there is abundant evidence showing how unreliable eyewitness testimony is.  If you would have witnessed the meteor you'd be taking it on faith that it was a meteor, it could have been multiple objects including manmade ones, you and others could be hallucinating, you may be dreaming, we may all be living in the Matrix, etc.  Yes, ultimately you can't really 'know' anything and everything is taken on some degree of faith, but treating those words that way doesn't really accomplish anything except making the words 'know' and 'faith' useless.

[bee]

shrooma, on 19 February 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

_
now THAT, is the dewdrop on the cherry on the icing on the cake.
i'm glad I wasn't the only one who found it irritating.

welcome to the forum shrooma....it's a pity that booNyzarC has sadly vacated UM...I think you would have got on very well...

lol...


.

[Babe Ruth]

psyche101, on 20 February 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

Can you read? Honest question. Do you have some dodgy software reading this to you, or a relative who does not speak English?


This was the post you quoted which in no way indicates media. Good God man, dod you read another post and accidentally answer mine? You seem to be speaking to yourself here.

I Said:

The truth exists not in stories, but in engineering reports and analyses that confirm that planes hit the towers.

You know, numbers and stuff like tensile strengths, melting points and procedures , is that a bit easier to understand? You will not find those in the headlines.

I do not bother with CT until this thread, actual facts are all that really matter.

CT's come from the media. Someone is making money from this, in fact, many people are, and you are funding their hobby so they do not have to get a real job.

Now, I am finding opinions are mattering because young people are beginning to consider CT's a reason to consider Jihad

I just deleted a large angry paragraph outlining my personal reasons for this. However, they are indeed personal, and that too like that other points above, has nothing to do with media, but the state of the situation and what it is doing to my own country. I have seen personal examples of this CT altering young people. It is disgusting. I think if one could show you the full extent of your "search for the truth" that you just might have another look at yourself as a human being.

So please tell me, how on earth did you pull the media as a reference from that?



I know more about that than you could ever imagine. Clapton Baker Winwood and Grech. I played in a band here in Oz traveling the East coast for s decade a half. Seen EC live, met Baker, I happen to know what goes on backstage, bet you don't. With you being an expert in blind faith, and I do not challenge that!, you seem to be rather awful at a description there. Not really following the second part of your sentence. Or are you trying to be philosophical or some crap?



How about the actual parameters of damage known to have occurred prefer to stick with numbers as opposed to hearsay.

I sure am as uniformed as anyone in the thread who was not personally there, were you? However, you seem to feel you have an advantage over everyone else debating their view of the information available  hell, you do not even read posts as I proved above, what makes you think you are more informed BR? Honestly, that is very far from the impression you give me.



Do not tell me, prove it, what height were the calls made from, and at what speed, and what makes this impossible?

Script like quality? So your a vocal expert too I take it?

How did people on flight 93 call home? And how did they fool relatives into thinking they were taling to loved ones, and why are people crying over dead people who made these calls  - if it is impossible?? I am a great believer in science, when it explain's these questions from flight 93, I will be suitably impressed.



Well, I guess these CT's have to get of the ground somehow don't they. That people eagerly swallow them up is a tad embarrassing quite frankly.

Huck Finn was good with lessons. Another he taught was to fool people into doing your work so you can go play. Like the people who create CT's and sell them via media outlets. But at least they do not make Fox News, what with Murdoch in there and all, so they need to rely on companies with less stringent guidelines like Vanity Fair or Pravda. Personally, I think that is pretty telling in itself. And I know the CT's "aint true".

Considering how far you have wavered from my post, might I suggest glasses. I do not mean that offensively, rather the opposite. I myself only found out the year before last I needed them, and it really was quite a shock to me. Many things became easier, and going by your first paragraph  I would prefer to think it is a mechanical problem, not deliberate ignorance of another persons post. The way you seem to be taking your own direction there indicates to me there is a major communications gap here.

No sir, there is no communications gap here, unless you want to consider semantics as such.  If I were speaking to myself, I doubt you would be replying, no?

It was YOU who first used the word "faith", and I merely responded to your use of that word.  Apologies if I missed the precise nuance you intended with your use of the word.  And certainly, "faith" is crucial to believing the official story, because all the "facts" contradict that story.

Are you calling the tapes and their transcripts "hearsay"?

Cell phone calls from aircraft higher than about 1500 feet AGL and speeds greater than about 150 knots are impossible.  I have experienced that phenomenon many many many times flying both helicopters and airplanes.  Others have demonstrated that fact and written papers about it.  That you choose to believe otherwise is another fine demonstration of your Supreme Act Of Faith.

You don't care about facts, or else you would have a different view.  You care about keeping the official story alive.  Neither you nor anybody else can prove that story you believe, for the simple reason that all the facts we have work against it.

[preacherman76]

skyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Osama bin Laden had declared war on the United States and has admitted to his responsibility in the 911 attacks so there is nothing for you to debate upon in that respect.

Since you have yet to answer these questions, I will ask again. Which one of at least 4 different Osama Bin Laden's made this claim, all 4 verified as OBL by our government? Who was the OBL who said he had nothing to do with it?

[Stundie]

Liquid Gardens, on 19 February 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

Nor is carpet-bombing the thread with the same question over and over.  We have a word to describe that kind of behavior:  'trolling'.

Oh but its fine when others such as Skyeagle carpet bomb the thread?? lol

I love how panto debunkers have no shame and do not mind highlighting their double standards for all to see.

Liquid Gardens, on 19 February 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

What exactly would have been accomplished by indicting Osama?

Errr!! How about building a case so that if he was captured alive, the US could then prosecute him with all the evidence they had collected and charge him. Its called the rule of law...like they are currently doing with Khalid Sheik Mohammed.  

I suppose if you are going to take that attitude, then why bother with indictments at all if according to your logic, you can't imagine what they accomplish. What was the point of indicting him for his other crimes if nothing would be accomplished?

It is clear from your response, it upsets you to think that there was no hard evidence to connect OBL to 9/11, hence your nonsensical rhetoric. I know that the law is only afforded to those who you think deserve it but the fact is the law should be afforded to all.

Liquid Gardens, on 19 February 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

For better or worse, this is all happening under the 'war on terror'.  Do you also demand that we prove that every enemy soldier that we've killed actually had shot a soldier on our side, or it's unjust in some way?  

Well if you go around indiscriminately killing people who you think may or may not have killed soldiers, then you are going to kill innocent people and more importantly make people angry at the injustices which will form more insurgents.

Liquid Gardens, on 19 February 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

It is acceptable behavior to ignore questions that you present if you fail to provide any explanation as to what the relevance of the question is.  

I love how these guys come rushing to Skyeages defence, it's very noble.

What questions have I ignored? I think you'll find in Skyeagles spam-a-thon, I accept that OBL admitted his guilt.

And not it's not acceptable to ignore questions just because you do not know or understand the relevance of it. That is why you say something along the lines of "I don't know!" or "Its because of....X" and then you ask the relevance of it if you truly do not understand.

Liquid Gardens, on 19 February 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

And lest I forget since you find it so compelling in its repetition:  "lol".

Well as I always say, life is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.

If you do not like my lols, then all you have to do is ask Skyeagle to stop ignoring my simple question by answering it instead of repeatedly dodging it and repeating himself.

I know you are here to defend Skyeagle and it is very sweet of you but I think he is big enough to fight his own battles.

[Stundie]

psyche101, on 20 February 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

With regards to my perspective yes you are.

Oh right. Glad to hear it.

psyche101, on 20 February 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

You do not think funding would leave a paper trail, or that this role somehow absolves him of responsibility as the instigator who made the operation possible?

Regardless of his level of planning, do you feel he was completely ignorant to the entire plot?

I think there would be paper trails. I do not know what level of responsibility OBL had in the attack if any at all. Maybe he funded them, trained them, gave them his blessing or may have had knowledge of the plot. I do not think a lack of a paper trail absolves him of responsibility when there is no hard evidence of his responsibility in the first place.

Now just because there is no hard evidence, that doesn't mean I think he is entirely innocent either, it just means that I do not know and neither claim to know where as others such as Skyeagle, will claim to know based on what the media/government have told us.

psyche101, on 20 February 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

I also believe he had much help, but that is where we part ways. Any information from within the US was no doubt from their own people, not Intelligence. It is hardly a mastermind plot, it is barbaric, simple but so insane that nobody would expect for another human to delve this low. Just like how the US was caught of guard with Kamikaze pilots. Nobody ever imagined some insane pilot willing to fly his plane into a target. By the same token, nobody expected these fundies to be so bloodthirsty. The celebrations over the slaughter are enough to consider the entire movement a hate faction. I think 911 should be used to declare the Sunni and Shari'ah faiths a threat to society and outlawed.

I think this is where we do part ways, I'm no fan of religion full stop but I do not think faiths should be outlawed.

I think intelligence agencies were aware something was brewing, this is evident by things like Able Danger, John O'Neil who died at the WTC and the PDB from 6th Aug entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike US"

psyche101, on 20 February 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

Anything from an attempt to plea bargain like they did with Weinstein, or corruption anything to outright jailbreak. As long as he exists, the possibility that he may walk the streets again some day exists. Al Qaeda has offered such bargains before, and 63 Al Qaeda escaped a Yemen correctional facility.

Sorry but I do not see how that is possible, a plea bargain or corruption or even a jail break is possible but highly unlikely, if he escaped I think most Americans would take up arms in the hunt for him.

Regardless of what happened Yemen, I see none of these things happening for KSM and therefore believe that it would be the same for OBL.

psyche101, on 20 February 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

As an example, bargaining for peace with the Taliban includes releasing high level prisoners, and all the U.S. wants in return is a pledge that these detainees will not fight again. That is simply “peace at any cost”.

There is a huge difference, the Taliban never killed a US citizen or solider (as far as I'm aware!) before the invasion of Afghanistan.

psyche101, on 20 February 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

*sigh*



Sky's answer?



There you go. It is not the answer you want, it does not go into detail, but it says the indictment is not necessary because he is dead. He did not have one at the time of his death, and all the CIA said was that they had no hard evidence, that does not amount to no evidence. It also does not mean one would never surface based on new evidence as Al Qaeda are captured and tried.

Its has nothing to do with the answer I want, it is to do with addressing the question.

How is it a moot point that even after OBL confession, the FBI still had not indicted him for his biggest crime, yet manage to do this for his other less significant crimes?

It is not a moot point, because I accept the fact that he apparently confessed. It would be a moot point if the FBI had indicted him because it would irrelevant to his confession.

psyche101, on 20 February 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

Which was pretty much my answer too, the path was too shaky, so they took the quicker route and decided on a military commission. It's not the why, I agree, but it is the how. In that way (OBL dead point moot) the question has indeed been answered. Just not how you want it phrased. The FBI website says specifically no hard evidence exists, that is how things are, and that is not up to Sky to confirm nor deny.

I agree that now he is dead, it is a moot point because the case has is closed. What is not moot is that even after his confession, before his death there was no indictment of him.

I like how you at least address the points raised psyche, Sky just repeated himself.  

psyche101, on 20 February 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

I find it more bizarre that you feel such a need to defend your behaviour and leave the title wanting. I know Sky, you know Sky, what is napalming him with the same question going to result in? Either a closed thread or pages of the same question. I simply propose we accept the situation for what it is and move on. His answer is that the FBI did not indict because there is no need to indict a corpse. As a member of Al Qaeda, he was a target anyway. Why bother with legal hassels when he can simply be removed as collateral damage? Did not happen soon enough, so the seals sorted the problem.

Because the point is that when he was alive. there was no indictment.

This means that if he was captured, as it stood, he would have been charged for all his crimes with the exception of 9/11. Yes I am sure that they would have found the evidence to indict him.

The result of repeating the same question is that at some point, he will have to answer it. No doubt the mods will come to his rescue and close the thread or remove my posts, like others are now before any of that actually happens.

So what do you suggest I do? Shall I just let him carry on lying while ignore things which prove him wrong so he can carry on lying like he does on most other threads?

The thing is that I notice is that no one is challenging Skyeagle on his behaviour, mine is seen as unacceptable, yet he is beyond reproach and that we should accept it, just because it's Skyeagle, that is the way he is! Sorry but that is absolute nonsense. lol

If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got. I have ignored him in the past but I'm afraid that is not happening any more because it doesn't work!

psyche101, on 20 February 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

An honorable position, and I applaud your attention to detail, and in fact, I find you a polite and well spoken chap. I think it is just a lack of communication and differing views. I know Sky can be stubborn, so can I ,and look at how many times you have repeated the question, so can you. I do not blame you for your actions, I have just been there and done that, and would rather we focus on the subject at hand if that is OK, you and I have spent far too much effort on Sky when there is a more relevant item to discuss is all. I have asked him questions many times too, seeking the very answer I desire, it did not happen, and in retrospect, it was probably a bit arrogant of me to expect him to think like me. I am not disappointed, this is not unusual, I would just rather we move on, and I can stop scrolling through pages of the same question that you and I know is answered as far as Sky is concerned.

Thanks pysche.

You see I prefer honest debate with people and would rather have points of agreement and focus on the other issues because there is plenty of them to discuss.

His debating style is to obfuscate and repeat things idiomatically. I do not expect him to agree with me which is obvious from our differences of opinion and although I still not feel he has addressed the question honestly, I'm quite happy to move on cause we all know why the FBI never indicted OBL.

Cause as we know....

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Cheers

Stundie

Edited by Stundie, 20 February 2013 - 05:55 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

Errr!! How about building a case so that if he was captured alive, the US could then prosecute him with all the evidence they had collected and charge him.

Taking Osama bin Laden alive would present its own risk. What would happen if terrorist commandeered a cruise ship and held its passengers hostage as they issue their demand for the release of OBL and threaten to execute 10 passengers each hour until he is released?

That scene could play out time and again until he is released.

[skyeagle409]

preacherman76, on 20 February 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Since you have yet to answer these questions, I will ask again. Which one of at least 4 different Osama Bin Laden's made this claim, all 4 verified as OBL by our government? Who was the OBL who said he had nothing to do with it?

They look like him except for the last photo, but the photos are moot considering that al-Qaeda, and family members of Osama bin Laden have confirmed that OBL was killed by US. special forces. In addition, DNA samples have confirmed that Osama bin Laden is dead.

[Nathan DiYorio]

Liquid Gardens, on 20 February 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

No, I think the issue is instead that you are entirely ignoring the notion of 'evidence'.  It's not by faith I accept a meteor fell, it's by evaluating the evidence and possible explanations.  There are multiple videos, by different people of the event, hundreds of people injured.  Yes it is possible this was all faked, but is that the most likely explanation?  Where is faith coming into play in this rational analysis of the evidence?

The way you are defining it, there's no reason to exclude 'experiencing it first hand' from being faith, there is abundant evidence showing how unreliable eyewitness testimony is.  If you would have witnessed the meteor you'd be taking it on faith that it was a meteor, it could have been multiple objects including manmade ones, you and others could be hallucinating, you may be dreaming, we may all be living in the Matrix, etc.  Yes, ultimately you can't really 'know' anything and everything is taken on some degree of faith, but treating those words that way doesn't really accomplish anything except making the words 'know' and 'faith' useless.

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying there's no concrete way for anybody who didn't get hit in the head with a chunk of space rock to know.

Thousands of people are saying it happened? There's physical proof you can hold showing you it happened?

Kind of like the millions of people saying everything in the Bible happened down to the word?

There's literally no difference. Although my point was never about the meteor to begin with, you people all just stuck to that like glue. My point was more about being fed supposed transcripts of phone conversations between people involved in a World Trade Center conspiracy.

Oh, and yes: the current concepts of knowledge and faith are useless, wrong, and dangerous. They teach people to stop thinking because others "Know better" and they take it on faith that "Yes, this is exactly how the universe works, they know so" as opposed to going out and figuring it all out themselves.

Faith is not bad, though. That's one of the problems with the attitudes around here, this belief in faith being negative. I think we'd all be better off once we realize that we're all just consuming information, mostly written, and taken it on faith that the information is true, regardless of what it's about. Believing a scientific study you did not conduct and did not witness being conducted involves just as much faith as believing in any other tome.

[Nathan DiYorio]

psyche101, on 20 February 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

It's not faith because it is demonstrable. Money is a hurdle only i that example.

Faith is belief in something no matter what the conditions demand. If a thing is demonstrable it is not faith. I would call religion faith, but evolution demonstrable fact. A theory can confirm a thing without experiencing something, math can confirm some things without witnessing it first hand.

Until it has been demonstrated, it is certainly faith. Whether or not the odds are in your mathematically deduced favor.
Faith is also not believing in things regardless of conditions, that's stubbornness. Faith is simply the belief in something which you have been told.

"Complete trust or confidence in something."

I don't see anything in that definition (which is available via Google) about being unwavering.

[acute]

I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job — but if I did, I would say........

Every economy in the western world relies upon oil, and the US is the largest. The oil is running out, so they have to find an excuse to go into any/every country with oil reserves. The alternative is to sit back, watch the oil dry up, and see the country disintegrate.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 20 February 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

Taking Osama bin Laden alive would present its own risk. What would happen if terrorist commandeered a cruise ship and held its passengers hostage as they issue their demand for the release of OBL and threaten to execute 10 passengers each hour until he is released?

That scene could play out time and again until he is released.

So why hasn't the same risk been imagined or played out in regards to the capture and imprisonment of KSM??

What would happen if terrorists commandeered a cruise ship and held its passengers hostage as they issue their demand for the release of KSM and threaten to execute 10 passengers each hour until he is released?

That scene could play out time and time again in your head until he is released.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

So why hasn't the same risk been imagined or played out in regards to the capture and imprisonment of KSM??

I don't think you understood what I have said, so let me put it in another way; holding OBL would have presented a risk to innocent people.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 20 February 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

I don't think you understood what I have said, so let me put it in another way; holding OBL would have presented a risk to innocent people.

No I understand your 48/Homeland induced scenario perfectly, why would holding OBL present a risk, yet holding KSM (AQ No2 and mastermind behind 9/11 apparently!) doesn't present a risk to innocent people?

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 20 February 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

No I understand your 48/Homeland induced scenario perfectly, why would holding OBL present a risk, yet holding KSM (AQ No2 and mastermind behind 9/11 apparently!) doesn't present a risk to innocent people?

KSM, is not a leader on the level of OSL. BTW, who is KSM and what is he guilty of?

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 February 2013 - 09:57 PM.