Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[JihadJane]

The fact that you think there is some kind of important distinction between 'actual research' and 'research' is all the clarification I need.

I don't think it's particularly important. I just wanted to clarify it. Unfortunately you already had your gas foot to the floor and your nose on automatic pilot! The tangent is of your own making. I now understand that your "actuals" were just expressions of pre-emptive disdain.

I'll restate the questions that started this ridiculous tangent.

Yes, yes, no, see answers to previous questions.

It's not just about what happened on that day. It's the whole "They caught us by surprise/They hate our freedoms" yarn that I don't believe.

As far as how research is defined, I'll settle for you having read and comprehended information from non-truther sources.

How very convenient for you!

 

[JihadJane]

Thats an admission then?

No, it's a suggestion.

Perhaps it is time to stop reliving your one moment of imagined glory!

What is predictable is you moving the goalposts again JJ.

What happened on 911 as far as what the hijackers did was not standard or predictable.

You think not?

I fear you probably do not want to get into this too deep or face another drubbing.

It is your silly, schoolboy, S&M trolling that inspires me to ignore you. I have told you this before but it seems either you cannot hear me or that you are unable to control yourself.

 

[dtugg]

Jane, I don't know where you got this idea that the United States is omnipotent or whatever. This country is extremely powerful, but there are still weaknesses, especially pre-9/11, that can be and were exploited. The biggest weakness, if you want to call it that, is the openness of our society. You pretty much do as you please, as long as you keep a low profile. This makes it easy to plan a crime and carry it out, as long as those involved know what they are doing and can keep their mouths shut.

I would say that the United States is pretty much invincible to invasion from another country, due to its geography, the shear might of its military, and number of guns in the hands of private citizens. But terrorism is is a different story, it is not always possible to know who the enemy is or what their plan is. It is pretty damn difficult to defend against an enemy you can't see whose plan is unknown.

Now I find it hard to imagine a way for the terrorists to top 9/11 unless they somehow get a hold of a WMD (I find this extremely unlikely because I don't think any nation would supply terrorists with a WMD because if the US found out it was them, there would be hell to pay), but terrorist attacks are always a possibility.

 

[funk de fino]

No, it's a suggestion.

Perhaps it is time to stop reliving your one moment of imagined glory!

More than one false claim you were called on which blew your whole point apart as regards to what made you suspect 911 was not as it seemed.

You think not?

Why dont you provide examples of it happening like this in the past that makes it predictable and standard terrorist MO?

Heres a few things you must take into consideration

1. Radical terrorists hijacking domestic flights instead of international flights and not wanting to leave the country of origin.
2. Killing the flight crew
3. Taking the controls after spending months/years learning to fly the airliners.
4. Not attempting to land somewhere else and negogiate
5. Smuggling on weapons which were not illegal at the time to avoid suspicion
6. Simultaneous hijacking of multiple aircraft
7. Turning off transponders to avoid detection and confuse controllers and the military
8. Deliberately flying the planes into buildings with large amounts of occupants to inflict maximum casualties
9. Attacking great symbols of US power and capitalism inside the US
10. Exploiting weakness in US air defence networks

Now I agree with the point you make about "they hate us for our freedoms". I would never claim that this was the reason for the attacks. It is far more complicated than that and having been to more arab countries than you can shake a stick at I feel I have a better understanding of it than those who would try to claim this was the only reason the US was attacked. I do fail to see anyone claiming this in solitude however. Not a strawman was it?

It is your silly, schoolboy, S&M trolling that inspires me to ignore you. I have told you this before but it seems either you cannot hear me or that you are unable to control yourself.

Run, run, run away. I am not trolling I am calling you on your false claims and lies. If you dont like it, back up your claims and stop making up garbage and then running away when shown the error of your claim.

 

[A W Smith]

Overall, A W Smith's brittle personal attack suggests that my belief that debunking offers refuge to damaged egos is correct

project much "Jane? We debunk because the world at large does not particularly like terrorist loyalists, which is the same view Penn and Teller have of 911 truthers

after viewing this video "Jane" i ask again. are you crazy?

Yes.

Thanks for being honest about your damaged ego

As stated above under "Why have you posted 25 times...?"; for a laugh; to subject by beliefs about 911 etc. to informed (?) criticism and to explore "debunker" psychology and politics.

so its not about the deaths of 3000 people "Jane"? You are just here for laughs? Scroll to 5:16 in the above video "Jane". thats what I have to say to you.

Not sure how A W Smith has established this. I certainly seem to have had some sort of an effect on him/her! I don't expect to influence "debunkers'" opinions about 911 any more than I could, for example, influence a committed Christian's beliefs about the Resurrrection.

Which is exactly the point i was making.

My interest is in observing and understanding "debunker" psychology and politics, sometimes by stimulating discussion.

Which is something you will never ever understand obviously

Though many different shades of politico believe their opponents to be mad this handy delusion is taken to tragicomic extremes by the "debunker", 911'sTwoo Moovement . To believe that mental illness is the only possible explanation for political disagreement suggests a startling lack of imagination and/or life experience. Perhaps it is a similarly blinkered tunnel vision that allows 911 "debunkers" to believe that Intelligence-nurtured operations leave trails of evidence pointing at their participation.

If you hand wave off the physical evidence of 9/11, for example, the victim DNA recovered at the pentagon, WTC, and shanksville, The physical forensics (nuts and bolts) of what happened that day, The eye witness testimony of hundreds of those who watched passenger jets fly into buildings that day. And if you believe some shadow government or corporate entity created the tragedy that day. Then there is no other option. You are insane. It has nothing to do with calling people crazy or insane that disagree with a persons politics. It is just an observation of aberrant mental behavior.

No. I'm not really called Jane, either.

shall we call you "Paul" then?

 

[johnny karate]

Thanks for your answer. I don't, however, see how it supports the assertion that the hijackers plan was "ingenious".

Small, sharp, concealed objects have been used a weapons for thousands of years. More recently threatening people with bombs (real and fake) has become common. The use and possibility of using aeroplanes as weapons is also well-established.

Where's the ingenuity? The hijackers used standard and predictable methods.

Hardly ingenious either! No criminal seeks to attract unnecessary attention. The use of small cells is hardly a recent invention. Furthermore, the hijackers actually attracted a lot of attention. Some were under surveillance for at least a year before the attacks. The US received precise warnings about their presence and activities in Homeland.

The hijackers' success doesn't indicate ingenuity but, if its excuses are to be believed, illustrates the pathetic uselessness of the US, multibillion dollar, Intelligence/Military defence machine.

You've got to love how someone capable of sophistry such as this:

I haven't defined "many". Its meaning has been assumed by other posters for partisan purposes. As I have explained repeatedly, "48 out of perhaps 10,000" doesn't strike me as "many" either. I wasn't making a numerical point.

is suddenly a semantic pedant.

How hilariously Truther-esque.

 

[JihadJane]

@funk de fino:

With a bit of lateral thinking, possibly not everyone's strong point here, but standard practice in Intelligence circles, nothing in your list is unpredictable based on past events and other uncovered plots.

Run, run, run away. I am not trolling I am calling you on your false claims and lies. If you dont like it, back up your claims and stop making up garbage and then running away when shown the error of your claim.

You have been consistently rude and abusive towards me for no other reason that I can fathom than that you have a need to be rude and abusive.

 

[JihadJane]

project much "Jane? We debunk because the world at large does not particularly like terrorist loyalists, which is the same view Penn and Teller have of 911 truthers ...

after viewing this video "Jane" i ask again. are you crazy?

There's no Broadband in my part of the universe so am unable to watch your video. I am, however, familair with P & T's work and do not rate their political wisdom highly despite their ability to make cigarettes disappear.

Thanks for being honest about your damaged ego

My pleasure.

so its not about the deaths of 3000 people "Jane"?

It's about the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people and the rape of the planet.

You are just here for laughs?

Most of my posting here is in the Humour sub-forum and I do find some things "debunkers" say funny. It is not my only reason for being here.

Scroll to 5:16 in the above video "Jane". thats what I have to say to you.

You're going to have to say it yourself. I can't watch online videos.

Which is exactly the point i was making.Which is something you will never ever understand obviously If you hand wave off the physical evidence of 9/11, for example, the victim DNA recovered at the pentagon, WTC, and shanksville, The physical forensics (nuts and bolts) of what happened that day, The eye witness testimony of hundreds of those who watched passenger jets fly into buildings that day.

This is an example of the kind of stuff that gives me a laugh on JREF. It is not based on anything I have ever writen but apparently emerged, ready made, when A.W. pushed the button marked "truther". How sane is that?

And if you believe some shadow government or corporate entity created the tragedy that day. Then there is no other option. You are insane. It has nothing to do with calling people crazy or insane that disagree with a persons politics. It is just an observation of aberrant mental behavior.

shall we call you "Paul" then?

Paul's fine. Do you mind if I call you Jane?

Whether or not the "Deep State" is capable of orchestrating an event like 911 is a political issue not a mental health issue.

-----------------------

Jane, I don't know where you got this idea that the United States is omnipotent or whatever. This country is extremely powerful, but there are still weaknesses, especially pre-9/11, that can be and were exploited. The biggest weakness, if you want to call it that, is the openness of our society. You pretty much do as you please, as long as you keep a low profile. This makes it easy to plan a crime and carry it out, as long as those involved know what they are doing and can keep their mouths shut.

I would say that the United States is pretty much invincible to invasion from another country, due to its geography, the shear might of its military, and number of guns in the hands of private citizens. But terrorism is is a different story, it is not always possible to know who the enemy is or what their plan is. It is pretty damn difficult to defend against an enemy you can't see whose plan is unknown.

Now I find it hard to imagine a way for the terrorists to top 9/11 unless they somehow get a hold of a WMD (I find this extremely unlikely because I don't think any nation would supply terrorists with a WMD because if the US found out it was them, there would be hell to pay), but terrorist attacks are always a possibility.

Thanks for your post. I understand what you are saying. The "incompetence" card, however, has been played too often, by too many Intelligence agencies and their military tools, for it to be credible.


---------------------

You've got to love...

Thanks for your love.

 

[funk de fino]

@funk de fino:

With a bit of lateral thinking, possibly not everyone's strong point here, but standard practice in Intelligence circles, nothing in your list is unpredictable based on past events and other uncovered plots.

You should have no problem showing me previous examples of this MO then?

If something is predictable and standard then you do not need to use any lateral thinking.

You have been consistently rude and abusive towards me for no other reason that I can fathom than that you have a need to be rude and abusive.

Then you should have no trouble showing me examples of rude and abusive behaviour I have presented towards you that would make you unable or unwilling to counter my points?

The only rudeness I can see is when someone fails to answer questions or continue in debate just because they are proved wrong yet using piffle excuses to avoid having to admit it.

 

[240-185]

There's no Broadband in my part of the universe so am unable to watch your video.

There's no video at all, "no longer available"

It's about the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people and the rape of the planet.

We won't make any progress if you still think that 9/11 events and George W. Bush's bellicose behaviour are tied together. You can't make the difference between "cause" and "consequence".

Most of my posting here is in the Humour sub-forum and I do find some things "debunkers" say funny. It is not my only reason for being here.

What is "funny" for you?
What are your other reasons for being here? All I saw from your posts were childish naggings.

Whether or not the "Deep State" is capable of orchestrating an event like 911 is a political issue not a mental health issue.

No.
Because you can't *think* about the HUGE number of persons who would be involved if 9/11 were an inside job.
However, why blaming *innocent* people for working for their administration?

No. I'm not really called Jane, either.

Damn, I can't make some misogynic remarks

 

[JihadJane]

Then you should have no trouble showing me examples of rude and abusive behaviour I have presented towards you that would make you unable or unwilling to counter my points?

It doesn't surprise me that you are unaware of your rude and abusive behaviour. Here is one example:

Dead end job? No prospects? No-one notices you?

Rail at those better off than yourself, it will make you feel better, however silly you come across to readers.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[JihadJane]

We won't make any progress if you still think that 9/11 events and George W. Bush's bellicose behaviour are tied together. You can't make the difference between "cause" and "consequence".

Barack Obama has pledged to continue and escalate the fraudulent "War on Terror" that 911 launched.

 

[adversity1]

Truther meltdown post-election IN PROGRESS

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-pau...nt-under-obama.html/comment-page-11/#comments

 

[240-185]

Barack Obama has pledged to continue and escalate the fraudulent "War on Terror" that 911 launched.

Nice moving goalpost...

 

[T.A.M.]

The War on Terror, IMO, is a nebulous term, for which Obama will likely have his own interpretation of. I know he will not continue the Bush Doctrine which was such a large part of Bushes War on Terror. If by continue it, you mean he will continue to hunt down Al Qaeda and OBL, and continue to protect the USA, well all I have to say is...Good for him.

TAM

 

[GStan]

I don't think it's particularly important. I just wanted to clarify it. Unfortunately you already had your gas foot to the floor and your nose on automatic pilot! The tangent is of your own making. I now understand that your "actuals" were just expressions of pre-emptive disdain.

Yes, yes, no, see answers to previous questions.

It's not just about what happened on that day. It's the whole "They caught us by surprise/They hate our freedoms" yarn that I don't believe.

How very convenient for you!

So 'Yes' you have researched air defense protocols that existed at the time, 'Yes' you have researched what air defense actually did that day, and 'No', you do not have a detailed theory as to what our air defense personel should have done that day. Fair enough.

What evidence have you found in your research to suggest that the prevailing accepted explanation for what happened that day is not true?

You must present some evidence that supports your argument. You can choose not to believe that we were caught by surprise or that they hate us for our freedoms. I respect your beliefs. People should be skeptical of their government. But unless you show some evidence to support those beliefs, they are completely meaningless and irrelevent in this forum, or any other context in which 9/11 is investigated or discussed.

Please share what you have.

 

[funk de fino]

It doesn't surprise me that you are unaware of your rude and abusive behaviour. Here is one example:

Oh, so you managed to find the one time I had a personal go at you rather than your claims. (PS - Tongue in cheek) Not what I would call abusive and perhaps could be seen as being rude although I would not have thrown my teddies out of the cot if you had posted this to me.

How does that equate to "consistently rude and abusive"

Its by the by though, because you started ignoring my questions and countering of your claims prior to this because I showed you to be wrong and ignorant about what you were posting. This is the real reason you do not like to continue our discussions. At least be man or woman enough to admit it.

What's the matter? Have you lost your twooferometer?

The rest of your comments probably belong in the paranormal sub-forum where claims of remote viewing and mind-reading are discussed.

Ooh! You've gone all judgey now. What happened to the mind reader?

Did you find your twooferometer. Is he one of them

Get off your woo hobby horse for a while.

Stop remote viewing. It looks obsessive and a bit mad

It seems that your somewhat paranoid definition of a lie is anything that differs from your beliefs.

Another example, IMO, of a silly post.

Just a few from that one thread where I tried to engage you in debate about your claims regarding 7/7 and you played games, ran away and tried to be a smartmouth. Then you come crying in here saying I am rude to you?

Hypocrite much?

 

[A W Smith]

Barack Obama has pledged to continue and escalate the fraudulent "War on Terror" that 911 launched.

Source?

There's no video at all, "no longer available"

direct linking of the video was disabled,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

 

[TexasJack]

It's unfortunate, but I'm of the opinion that there isn't any evidence that would falsify truthers' beliefs. And if I'm not mistaken, some have stated as such. On the other hand, I feel a high percentage of debunkers would change their mind if presented proper evidence. None has been brought forward, just silly minutiae.

Then other truthers accuse debunkers of being Bush huggers, which is laughable, especially with a President with a 30% approval rating. The irony is that many of these truthers who make this claim are so biased, that they are blinded by their extremist political beliefs.

So in reality, the only people with any kind of objectivity, are the debunkers.

 

[1337m4n]

Obama!

Does not believe the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.