Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[JihadJane]

I think if there were any significant evidence that the USG under BUSH/CHENEY helped orchestrate, or even intentionally allowed 9/11, Obama would pounce on it. What better way to show he is truly about change, then to have a president and his VP impeached and charged with war crimes.

Obama, part of the US governing elite, is backing the biggest looting operation of our age. What makes you think he'd be interested in bringing rich and powerful criminals and friends to justice and possibly getting them executed?

'US Taxpayers Violated
The Looting Operation Continues'

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/martenson/2008/1111.html

When the game itself is threatened the teams close ranks.

 

[RedIbis]

I think if there were any significant evidence that the USG under BUSH/CHENEY helped orchestrate, or even intentionally allowed 9/11, Obama would pounce on it. What better way to show he is truly about change, then to have a president and his VP impeached and charged with war crimes.

I am confident (as you likely deep down know yourself Red) that the USG did not intentionally allow 9/11 to happen, nor did they help orchestrate it.

Incompetence, I can see a strong argument for some, negligence, possibly, but a harder argument to make.

LIHOP/MIHOP....nope, not a chance.

TAM

TAM,
This is one of your worst posts. If I knew "deep down" that members of the US gov't were not complicit, why would even entertain the thought? It's outrageously presumptuous of you to suggest that I would flippantly make any such assertion purely out of hate for Bush or anyone else. I've recounted my initial reactions to the attacks and they have nothing to do with drawing unsubstantiated conclusions of Bush administration involvement.

It was after tremendous research that I've proposed such a thesis that would call members of the US gov't complicit. It's becoming obvious that I've given you too much credit.

 

[dtugg]

It was after tremendous research that I've proposed such a thesis that would call members of the US gov't complicit. It's becoming obvious that I've given you too much credit.

If you've done tremendous research into the subject, and you are able to propose a thesis calling members of the USG complicit in the attacks, you must have some evidence. What is your evidence? Are you going to be the twoofer that finally proves 9/11 was an inside job?

 

[twinstead]

Redibis what do you have to say to those who also claim to have done a tremendous amount of research and found the USG NOT complicit? Is your research better than theirs?

 

[beachnut]

TAM,
This is one of your worst posts. If I knew "deep down" that members of the US gov't were not complicit, why would even entertain the thought? It's outrageously presumptuous of you to suggest that I would flippantly make any such assertion purely out of hate for Bush or anyone else. I've recounted my initial reactions to the attacks and they have nothing to do with drawing unsubstantiated conclusions of Bush administration involvement.

It was after tremendous research that I've proposed such a thesis that would call members of the US gov't complicit. It's becoming obvious that I've given you too much credit.

... deep down you are still pure talk, no substance on 9/11. Nice try talking up your opinions into a massive research effort yielding zero results.

... the product of your massive years of research; pure talk! Just opinions based on zero evidence.

Failure to produce is the plight of the entire truth movement. 7 years of massive failure prove by the dearth of 9/11 truth's evidence.

Find another CT if you want success.

 

[DavidJames]

Redibis what do you have to say to those who also claim to have done a tremendous amount of research and found the USG NOT complicit? Is your research better than theirs?

Red has done neither honest research nor produced a thesis.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Here are the reasons they do not approach it in the meticulous, sane, and logical way you suggest...

1. They do not have the intelligence
2. They do not have the knowledge
3. They do not have the fortitude (most are pretty lazy)
4. They are afraid of what such an approach would reveal.

TAM

Now if only I could persuade one to try providing one....

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM,
This is one of your worst posts. If I knew "deep down" that members of the US gov't were not complicit, why would even entertain the thought? It's outrageously presumptuous of you to suggest that I would flippantly make any such assertion purely out of hate for Bush or anyone else. I've recounted my initial reactions to the attacks and they have nothing to do with drawing unsubstantiated conclusions of Bush administration involvement.

It was after tremendous research that I've proposed such a thesis that would call members of the US gov't complicit. It's becoming obvious that I've given you too much credit.

Well you don't have to be insulting about it.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Red:

My understanding of your stance on the issue of 9/11, is that you feel many within the USG were negligent in their duties, and this lead to the attacks.

Am I incorrect? Have you since changed to believing either (A) that they INTENTIONALLY allowed 9/11 to happen, or (B) helped to ORCHESTRATE the attacks?

Perhaps my post, to you was poor, because I have misunderstood your stance on the matter. Perhaps some clarification from you on the matter...and a little less insult.

TAM

 

[johnny karate]

If I knew "deep down" that members of the US gov't were not complicit, why would even entertain the thought?

Because you hate George Bush and his administration, and will use whatever is at your disposal to denigrate him. Including the tragic death of 3,000 people.

It's outrageously presumptuous of you to suggest that I would flippantly make any such assertion purely out of hate for Bush or anyone else.

No one is making presumptions. Your words speak for themselves. You are on record many times since Obama won the election expressing your rather flippant attitude regarding possible further investigation in the events of 9/11 once he takes office. A decidedly odd point of view for one who believes a horrific crime has been committed and never properly investigated.

I've recounted my initial reactions to the attacks and they have nothing to do with drawing unsubstantiated conclusions of Bush administration involvement. It was after tremendous research that I've proposed such a thesis that would call members of the US gov't complicit.

And now that someone you approve of will be president, you seem content to throw your "tremendous research" out the window and let those complicit members of the U.S. government walk way unpunished.

Would you have the same casual attitude towards the greatest crime in U.S. history going unsolved had McCain won the election?

Of course you wouldn't.

You would continue to use 9/11 as a bludgeon against him just as you have been doing against Bush.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It was after tremendous research that I've proposed such a thesis that would call members of the US gov't complicit.

I'm curious... which definition of the word "thesis" are you using here, RedIbis?

thesis (thē'sĭs)

n., pl. -ses (-sēz).

1. A proposition that is maintained by argument.
2. A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a result of research, especially as a requirement for an academic degree.
3. A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof.

I would assume the second definition, but your point of view is hardly original, you're certainly not shooting for an academic degree, and you most definitely have not presented a thorough and lengthy exposition on the topic, so...

 

[RedIbis]

I'm curious... which definition of the word "thesis" are you using here, RedIbis?




I would assume the second definition, but your point of view is hardly original and you're certainly not shooting for an academic degree here, so...

How about #1?

 

[dtugg]

How about #1?

Please fully provide the arguments that maintain your supposed thesis.

 

[T.A.M.]

Ah, I see. So Red's opinion is now more towards LIHOP.

RED:

That you consider members of the USG complicit, and it is based on research, can you at least point out which members of the USG you consider complicit.

I know you hate to answer with specifics, implicating certain individuals, but given you stated you have reached the conclusion based on so much research, I thought such research would have brought a few names forward...perhaps these people will be gone now, with an Obama admin.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Ah, I see. So Red's opinion is now more towards LIHOP.

TAM

How'd you get that?

 

[GStan]

How'd you get that?

Its not that much of a stretch. Not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced by you or anyone else that would support a MIHOP, yet you maintain that the USG was complicit; therefore, you're either LIHOP or willfully ignorant. I think people here, despite vehemently disagreeing with you, would prefer to believe you are not willfully ignorant, me included.

 

[RedIbis]

Its not that much of a stretch. Not a single shred of evidence has ever been produced by you or anyone else that would support a MIHOP, yet you maintain that the USG was complicit; therefore, you're either LIHOP or willfully ignorant. I think people here, despite vehemently disagreeing with you, would prefer to believe you are not willfully ignorant, me included.

I find LIHOP to be a difficult proposition. If it were the case than WTC 7 collapses due to NIST's single column/global collapse theory. The terrorists thinking they were flying two planes into two buildings, instead manage to destroy all 7 buildings.

MIHOP allows for far more options for the perpetrators, including using patsies, deception, and cover up.

It's the OT that requires the greatest stretch.

 

[GStan]

I find LIHOP to be a difficult proposition.

Why? Basically, it would only have taken only a few fortunately placed unscrupulous malcontents in the intelligence chain of command who could have stopped the attack but didn't. And the result would look the same as it does now to everyone except the few people who ignored the warnings. The problem with LIHOP is the damn near impossible task of proving the negligible difference between letting it happen on purpose and letting it happen by accident/incompetence/etc, (i.e. reality).

If it were the case than WTC 7 collapses due to NIST's single column/global collapse theory. The terrorists thinking they were flying two planes into two buildings, instead manage to destroy all 7 buildings.

Sharpshooter fallacy? Why do you presume that destroying WTC7 or the entire complex was an objective of the terrorists' plot, or a MIHOP plot for that matter?

MIHOP allows for far more options for the perpetrators, including using patsies, deception, and cover up.

It's the OT that requires the greatest stretch.

I'm sure your beliefs are correct. I just hope someday someone produces some sort of evidence to validate them.

I think people here, despite vehemently disagreeing with you, would prefer to believe you are not willfully ignorant, me included.

 

[twinstead]

MIHOP allows for far more options for the perpetrators, including using patsies, deception, and cover up.

What 'Far more options' really means that all sorts of made-up stuff can be brought to the equation in order to fill logical holes in your story. You HAVE to claim patsies, deception, and cover up even if you have little or no evidence to support them. That's not a sign of a good narrative.

The 'OT' is less flexible because it's based on reality.

 

[RedIbis]

Why?

I explained why.

(i.e. reality).

Bias.

Sharpshooter fallacy? Why do you presume that destroying WTC7 or the entire complex was an objective of the terrorists' plot, or a MIHOP plot for that matter?

I was suggesting the exact opposite. From the AQ perspective, destroying all seven buildings by using two planes must have seemed a miracle of Allah.

I'm sure your beliefs are correct. I just hope someday someone produces some sort of evidence to validate them.

Now you know how I feel.