(UK) The Daily Mail joins the circus!

[mookid]

Still no sign of a response to Stranger than Fiction..

Still no one that's read the book or even the article I posted about Confessions of an Economic Hitman..

And no it's not unthinkable that all those groups are financially connected to the events of 9/11. 9 billion dollars of insurance payout goes a long way

 

[JQH]

Mine didn't either, but then I may have been a bit too snarky. Also I tried to link to NIST and the 9/11 Commission report, and they may not accept any links in comments.

The Daily Hate does have a track record of not posting critical comments. I've tried again on this occasion, have to wait and see if it appears.

 

[Firestone]

Still no sign of a response to Stranger than Fiction..

The lies in this well-known antisemitic text have been debunked a thousand times.
Please start a thread with specific verifiable claims included in this text, and see what happens to them.
If it is political in nature, you should start the thread in the politics-subforum, not here.
Here we are supposed to deal with facts, evidence.

And no it's not unthinkable that all those groups are financially connected to the events of 9/11. 9 billion dollars of insurance payout goes a long way

Now it's 9 billion dollars?

Is there no CTist that understands the most basic principles of insurance?
Jonnyfive, I've got work for you here.

Anyway, nice to see that you accuse thousands of people of lying, without the slightest evidence. But Scott Forbes claims, these you believe without any corrobation.

CT as usual ...

And now, please, stay on-topic ("Daily Mail") and start separate threads for your specific claims.

 

[Big Les]

Evidence, as if it were needed, that the Mail has zero journalistic integrity, impartiality and credibility, and will report anything that furthers its right-wing isolationist agenda (hence the otherwise contradictory anti-Bush anti-war stance):

An article from the (leftist) Guardian pointing out that the Mail's reports of lefties trying to ban Christmas were completely made up.

Seriously mookid; looking to the Mail for evidence or support of any kind is a *really* bad idea. Unless your "movement" will take any publicity it can get, regardless of credentials.

 

[mookid]

I don't read the Mail.. I don't actually care what the Mail says..

With regard to:

"And now, please, stay on-topic ("Daily Mail") and start separate threads for your specific claims."

"JREF Forum > JREF Topics > Conspiracy Theories > (UK) The Daily Mail joins the circus!"

, now.. I'm not sure whether you can read that correctly or not.. but I'm reading conspiracy theory.. so... who's off topic.. me talking about the notion of the article, or you ranting on about how right-wing and 'isolationist' the Daily Mail is?

I could start a thread called "An infinite number of monkies".. That doesn't mean that the thread is actually about an entire universe filled with monkies does it? It's a statement that's an introduction to the notion that if you had an infinite number of monkies that one would instantly write the entire works of shakespeare. That also doesn't mean that I intend to start a discussion about whether monkies can write or not.

The degree of voilent objection to the idea that there is a possibility that all is not what it seems (especially regarding 911) is suspicious to say the least.. I haven't even said where I stand on this matter yet anyway.

Let me do so:

I'm more convinced that it was a terrorist act (most likely by mossad, or maybe by muslim/arabic extremists). That the Bush administration cannot admit to having failed to prevent because:

1. It would cause mass panic that security is nowhere near as tight as it is made out to be.

2. It brings to light the violent reaction to American (combined with Israeli) foreign policy which is keeping the American economy on its wobbly stilts. - (Read the book: "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" or this: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251 )

Hope this helps you to discuss this more rationally from now on

 

[Firestone]

That's the only reason I can find for the recent crop of CTist.

They all want this:

And who can blame them?
Such a fine award!

 

[mookid]

What a sensible and pointful response that was.. :/

 

[Firestone]

What a sensible and pointful response that was.. :/

Given the way you didn't respond to anything anyone told you in this thread that is the only thing you deserve.

If you are not interested in the Daily Mail article, don't post in this thread.
Start a thread with your specific claims. That's how a discussion-forum works.
If you will post nonsense like the WTC 2 power down, don't expect people to accept it just because it fits with your theories.

 

[Big Les]

I don't read the Mail.. I don't actually care what the Mail says..

So you didn't say this then:

There seems to be a fairly broad view here that the Mail is attempting to indoctrinate British society with it's 'outlandish' views. This clearly is complete rubbish and if anyone disagrees I challenge them to find sufficient and consistent evidence of such a claim.

You got the evidence, then moved the goalposts. And you wonder why you're starting to attract the comedy pic posts?

now.. I'm not sure whether you can read that correctly or not.. but I'm reading conspiracy theory.. so... who's off topic.. me talking about the notion of the article, or you ranting on about how right-wing and 'isolationist' the Daily Mail is?[/SIZE]

I can see that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. This subforum is about Conspiracy Theories. With me so far? This threeeead is about The Daily Mail and the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Therefore responses along the lines of "the Mail has no journalistic integrity and a strongly biased editorial" are entirely valid and to the point. Unlike your random CT nitpicks about 9/11 that you introduce in an attempt to change the subject.

I could start a thread called "An infinite number of monkies".. That doesn't mean that the thread is actually about an entire universe filled with monkies does it? It's a statement that's an introduction to the notion that if you had an infinite number of monkies that one would instantly write the entire works of shakespeare. That also doesn't mean that I intend to start a discussion about whether monkies can write or not.

I starting to wish you would. By the way, what the buggery is a "monkie"? And for that matter, what does "pointful" mean? Your credibility rating plummets still further.

The degree of voilent objection to the idea that there is a possibility that all is not what it seems (especially regarding 911) is suspicious to say the least.. I haven't even said where I stand on this matter yet anyway.

I love this pleading approach some of you guys use. It's just like all the other belief-oriented twaddle that we see in the other parts of the forum about "keeping an open mind". There's a saying about not keeping your mind so open as to let your brain fall out that applies here. It's reasonable to keep an open mind about a subject when the evidence is inconclusive, or if there is more than one possibility suggested. Well, guess what? None of the CTs that have been posted here merit being termed "possibilities" any more than any other unsupportable, unfalsifiable scenario one could propose. For example, I might think the plane hit the Pentagon because the pilot was distracted by the Elvis and Buddy Holly gig that was going on on the roof. That would be harder to believe than some of the CTs, but no less unsupported by evidence.

I'm more convinced that it was a terrorist act (most likely by mossad, or maybe by muslim/arabic extremists). That the Bush administration cannot admit to having failed to prevent because:
1. It would cause mass panic that security is nowhere near as tight as it is made out to be.
2. It brings to light the violent reaction to American (combined with Israeli) foreign policy which is keeping the American economy on its wobbly stilts. - (Read the book: "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" or this: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251 )

So why are you bleating on about "power downs", economic and political motive, and general NWO behind-the-scenes Dr Evil goings-on?

Hope this helps you to discuss this more rationally from now on

Sigh.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I'm more convinced that it was a terrorist act (most likely by mossad, or maybe by muslim/arabic extremists). That the Bush administration cannot admit to having failed to prevent because:

1. It would cause mass panic that security is nowhere near as tight as it is made out to be.

2. It brings to light the violent reaction to American (combined with Israeli) foreign policy which is keeping the American economy on its wobbly stilts. - (Read the book: "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" or this: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251 )

Hope this helps you to discuss this more rationally from now on

Erm... I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that the country did fail to prevent the attack. I'm not aware that the Bush administration has ever denied this. I don't see how they could. Remember the big fracking planes colliding into the big fracking buildings? The only people who cannot admit that the country failed to prevent it are those who claim that the Bush administration intentionally L.I.H.O.P. or M.I.H.O.P.

Where have you been the past five and a half years, as the country has been debating security issues, and the country and the world has been debating America's foreign policy?

Your notion is completely without merit.

As is your implication of mossad.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I'm a computer science student and my interests actually include AI, A-life, and I have a very basic understanding of nanotech stuff (at least from the computational perspective).
An extremely interesting and informative website about new developments in the aforementioned areas (and others) is:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1

Home to Ray Kurzweil ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil ) and several other highly respected researchers in the field. It is his (and many others') view that the capabilities of these new technologies have far reaching implications for the world as we know it.

If you'd like to know more just ask or read up on the site, he's written a few books as well which are all very interesting indeed.

They're based in almost pure fantasy. He speculates liberally on the capabilities of future technologies and extrapolates a vision of society from that. Look at past futurists' predictions for what society would be like today for a good measure of his probable accuracy.

AI is indeed an interesting field. If you're well-read on it, you should know that current research is finding that there may be a fixed barrier to creating a truly intelligent automaton based on a computational model.

If you're well-read on nanotech, you should know that it currently has very limited usefulness, it has a long way to go before it has widespread usefulness, and its potential is probably way over-hyped.

And you realize that the claim made in the video about all street cameras being linked to a central AI computer is utter bunk, right?

edit: This was my 3333rd post. It must be important!

 

[JQH]

The Daily Hate does have a track record of not posting critical comments. I've tried again on this occasion, have to wait and see if it appears.

Hasn't appeared yet. What a surprise.

 

[jon]

Pearl Harbour?

As far as I know there's still controversy about what the US knew prior to Pearl Harbour, and some materials relating to it remain classified. I haven't looked into US government investigation(s) of this, though - could you provide some details of why these are better than the 9/11 Commission/NIST?

Bit late in the day though.. I think if they wanted to fiddle with the evidence they could probably have done that by the time those had started..

I'm a bit confused here. First you say only one investigation was 'allowed' - do you now acknowledge that that's incorrect?

Now you say that non-official investigations were started too late - you do know that Graham's investigations began prior to the 9/11 Commission's, right? Der Spiegal and Ridgeway were definitely looking into the attacks at the same time as the 9/11 Commission; I *think* they both started investigating a bit before.

Have you actually read the official and other investigations of the attacks? You wouldn't criticise the work that's already been done without having read it, would you

 

[uruk]

You mean in the US you don't have newspapers with nekkid women on page 3?

Naw!!! We're hypocritcaly prudish over here. (Despite the fact that we have the largest pron industry in the solar system.)
We don't mind showing mindless carnage on TV, but god forbid a woman's breast should pop out on national TV.

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[WildCat]

So, does anyone else get the impression that mookid came here thinking he knew a lot more than he did, and that we hadn't heard all this before?

 

[mookid]

Erm... I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that the country did fail to prevent the attack. I'm not aware that the Bush administration has ever denied this. I don't see how they could. Remember the big fracking planes colliding into the big fracking buildings? The only people who cannot admit that the country failed to prevent it are those who claim that the Bush administration intentionally L.I.H.O.P. or M.I.H.O.P.

Where have you been the past five and a half years, as the country has been debating security issues, and the country and the world has been debating America's foreign policy?

Well if you had a choice of your negligence causing planes to be hijacked and the WTC to be rigged with explosives, or just planes being hijacked - which would you chose?

 

[negativ]

I'm more convinced that it was a terrorist act (most likely by mossad, or maybe by muslim/arabic extremists).

What makes you think that "mossad" had anything whatever to do with it?

That the Bush administration cannot admit to having failed to prevent because:

1. It would cause mass panic that security is nowhere near as tight as it is made out to be.

I have never heard anyone at any level of government deny having failed to prevent the attacks.

King Arthur: "You failed to prevent this attack!"
The Black Knight: (looks around at the smoking ruins of Ground Zero) "... no I didn't!"

Pretty much every person in the entire country learned that security is nowhere near as tight as it was made out to be, by no later than noon Eastern time on 11 Sept 01.

There was immediately after the attack, and continues to be, much public discussion about the inadequacy of and ineptitude of the entire domestic security apparatus.

2. It brings to light the violent reaction to American (combined with Israeli) foreign policy which is keeping the American economy on its wobbly stilts.

This is neither a new concept nor an especially shocking one. American foreign policy has been reacted to with varying degrees of violence since the first draft of the Declaration of Independence.

 

[mookid]

Now you say that non-official investigations were started too late - you do know that Graham's investigations began prior to the 9/11 Commission's, right? Der Spiegal and Ridgeway were definitely looking into the attacks at the same time as the 9/11 Commission; I *think* they both started investigating a bit before.

Information and evidence was not made available to third parties, there was no transparency - e.g. alot of the steel (the key to the buildings' collapses) was shipped off and recycled.. why would you do that when you know that you ened to investigate such an important event?

Have you actually read the official and other investigations of the attacks? You wouldn't criticise the work that's already been done without having read it, would you

A more pertinent question that you should be asked should be "You wouldn't believe that explanation purely because you were told? Surely you've done a degree in structural engineering and conducted your own investigation before you've accepted it as the truth?" - Oh wait no you haven't.. and I haven't read the entire report because I have assumed that all the important and interesting parts have allready been communicated to me.

 

[mookid]

Pretty much every person in the entire country learned that security is nowhere near as tight as it was made out to be, by no later than noon Eastern time on 11 Sept 01.

There was immediately after the attack, and continues to be, much public discussion about the inadequacy of and ineptitude of the entire domestic security apparatus.

I think you missed my point read the post above yours

 

[mookid]

So, does anyone else get the impression that mookid came here thinking he knew a lot more than he did, and that we hadn't heard all this before?

No - because I don't believe I "know" anything, the same way as I don't believe you do "know" anything either.

Think about that for a second.. for your own sake.