Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

He must have been the tool of a country other than the United States because he declared war on the United States.

No he did not. He declared war on much much more than the US or are you to self absorbed in your own nation to know that the event changed the world.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

What do you mean by the most secure air space on the planet? The F-16s from Andrews AFB were not even armed, and the unit's pilots were not trained to shoot down airliners nor familiar with NORAD's air defense protocol.

Or should we go back to it was to cover up the aliens you claim to be here.

What does that have to do with 911? Nothing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Shooting down civilian planes would have been unheard of that day let alone unthinkable in US airspace. Today not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was behind al-Qaeda...

Don't you mean, who led al-Qaeda? In that regards, it was Osama bin Laden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :yes:

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

... I will continue to believe in aliens :alien:

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.

598px-Apollo_15_Lunar_Rover_final_resting_place.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay...how about this one:

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

ok

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?

...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.

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

Ok

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

Because .... ?

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.

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :tu:

Edited by joc
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...5#entry4622036

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

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

Technically, it's an accurate description.

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.

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

you provided no reasoned argument for this assertion.

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.

it is also not a plausible argument,

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" ?

so by your above new rules of abductive argument your explanation has to be rejected.

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

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.

Ok, let's see.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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".

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

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

Stupid? More ethical judgements. I think maybe this is your problem. You see the school event the same way

did in his video, laughing that the Americans were weak and Bush should have been out amongst the people.
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

You can keep repeating yourself all day, that doesn't make your claims any more credible. Damm, this is starting to sound like a

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.