Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Justin39640]

actually it was January 1 1996, just found an archived site for my old bbs.

My cousin got Prodigy in about 88. I was about 14 then. It totally blew my mind.

By 97, I had home broadband (when Cablevision was still good for something lol).

 

[jaydeehess]

Hey!! I work for a cableco!

 

[A W Smith]

My cousin got Prodigy in about 88. I was about 14 then. It totally blew my mind.

By 97, I had home broadband (when Cablevision was still good for something lol).

wow you got cable early. In 96 i was using windows 3.1 , But when we got cable in 98/99 i think it was ridiculously fast and unthrottled. Comcast@home network

 

[Sabrina]

Correction: they take a small risk of dying while being employed and paid by the army. Of maybe 150,000 service people some 4,000 died so far in Iraq, that is 1:25. Everybody hopes he/she will be not among the dead.

So much for '2 million willing to die'.

Au contraire.

Everyone who takes the oath is well aware that there may come a time when they will be required to give up their life for their country, remote possibility or not. Ergo, you have over 2 million willing to die.

And FYI, the over 2 million figure is the Armed Forces combined, not just the Army.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Hey!! I work for a cableco!

(*Earnest expression*) We are so sorry. We promise, we will not hold that against you here.

 

[jaydeehess]

(*Earnest expression*) We are so sorry. We promise, we will not hold that against you here.

Thank you, and actually I work for a TV station which is owned by a cableco. It does say "Shaw Cablesystems" on my paycheck though.

Well on that paycheck anyway. On my other one it says "NWO-Informationco" and its made out in Ameros.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

When I was on the other camp I was unaware of all the information and evidence completely contradicting all the conspiracy theories.

So, now you can completely contradict ALL of them? OK. Why can't we see the photos of the plane approaching the Pentagon (afterwards photos don't count)? Why were so many put options put on United and AA stocks before 9/11? Can you explain away all 40 reasons to doubt the OCT on 911Truth.org? Can you explain away the 10 qualities of a controlled demolition on AE911Truth.org?

Sometimes I didn't want to listen to reason. Other times I didn't care.

Could this be one of those times? With all due respect, you seem to switch camps back and forth, easily swayed by whichever web site you are reading at the time.

When watching championship college debating teams, one side finished, and I thought "they definitely won." Then the other side spoke, and amazingly overturned all the arguments. A really good debate is tough to judge. Same with an exciting basketball game, when one side is way ahead, then the other side comes from behind to win.

Meditation can help you maintain broad comprehension, while you focus on one point of view, so that we are not unduly swayed one way or the other. We need to keep in mind both arguments simultaneously in order to fairly judge them. Otherwise, whichever argument we are considering now, dominates our awareness and appears to be the winner.

And for the most part I simply refuse to look at anything that may contradict my beleifs.

I assume you mean refuseD (in the past) and that you know how to spell beliefs. No worries. If a view is true, it will withstand examining the opposing views, and even be reinforced by them. I too am grateful to JREF for that. For example, it helped me quickly determine that a plane definitely approached the Pentagon.

I never realized there so much. I knew there was but not as much as I have come across. All the reports on the WTC peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed. All the facts, evidence, sources, infromation, etc...This stuff is overwhelming.

Good news. There is even more on each side of the argument. "We ain't heard nothing yet." This is true of many debateable topics. An ideal truth seeker evaluates all sides of an argument. Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness.

I was in awe of the site 9/11 myths. I'm in awe of Mark Roberts' webiste wtc 7 lies. And the fact is, I never thought I would come across so much information that I can hardly keep up.

Meditation helps you not be overly "awed" by either Mark's site or Richard Gage's. If 9/11 was carefully designed by experienced attack scenario planners to fool over 300 million Americans, then there will be plenty of good sounding reasons to believe the OCT. One thing they didn't plan on in 2001 -- YouTube, which came out in 2005, allows anyone to analyze 9/11 audio and video second by second.

I'm still not finished with all the debunking websites and reading all the reports on the WTC. It's going to be a long time before I'm done. But no matter.

Since you are not finished, do you care to revise your initial statement about "completely contradicting all the conspiracy theories."? By your own admission, you have not read them all.

This thirst for 9/11 knowledge will not go away anytime soon. And so to all the debunkers I owe you guys a big THANK YOU!!! GRACIAS!!! I just wished truthers would see the light but I seriously doubt it will ever happen in this lifetime.

There is some value to the JREF forum, which is why I come here. There are some nuggets of gold in the sand. But mostly there are weak arguments and childish insults, which only reinforce my conclusion 90% that 9/11 was an inside job. But I will not be satisfied until I am 100% sure one way or the other.

The only thing I am 100% sure of, regarding 9/11, is that we need a New Investigation of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT). No other conspiracy theory in history has caused such a volume of blogs and web sites debating both sides. A Google of "9/11 Conspiracy" shows over 14 million links, beating out "UFO conspiracy" with 5.8 million, and "JFK Conspiracy" with 2.4 million, and "Moon landing" of only .3 million (deservedly low).

Keep up your healthy thirst for knowledge from all sides before we make final conclusions.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh, so now you can contradict ALL of them?

Yes, there is evidence that contradicts all of them. The fact that you have arbitrarily placed conditions on what evidence you will accept is quite irrelevant.

Why can't we see the photos of the plane approaching the Pentagon (afterwards photos don't count)?

Classic truther bias. We can't see photos of the plane approaching the Pentagon because none were taken. This is irrelevant to the fact that all the physical and testimonial evidence agrees that the plane hit the Pentagon.

Why were so many put options put on United and AA stocks before 9/11?

Because there was a major recession in progress, and investors perceived a strong likelihood of a large drop in airline stock prices. And, as truthers so often like to ignore, the institution buying put options in AA was at the same time buying UA stock.

Can you explain away all 40 reasons to doubt the OCT on 911Truth.org?

Yes, every single one, and have repeatedly done so.

Can you explain away the 10 qualities of a controlled demolition on AE911Truth.org?

Yes, and can point out that some of them contradict other qualities of a controlled demolition, some of them are not in fact properties of a controlled demolition, and some of them are not in fact properties of the WTC7 collapse.

Good news. There is even more on each side of the argument.

Sadly, no. There is nothing on the truth movement side that has not been repeatedly shown to be misinformation, misrepresentation or outright lie.

"We ain't heard nothing yet."

Not of value from the truth movement, no.

Since you are not finished, do you care to revise your initial statement about "completely contradicting all the conspiracy theories."? By your own admission, you have not read them all.

Some of us have. None of them hold any water.

There is some value to the JREF forum, which is why I come here. There are some nuggets of gold in the sand. But mostly there are weak arguments and childish insults, which only reinforce my conclusion 90% that 9/11 was an inside job.

And this is an indication of just how intellectually dishonest the average truther can be. He is convinced of his fantasies, not by any evidence one way or the other, but because he preceives the people who disagree with him as weak and childish. And this goes to the heart of the motivation behind the conspiracy theorist's beliefs; the desire to look strong, independent and cool, the rebel with the courage to reject the consensus. Sadly, in this case, it's not courage it takes to reject the consensus, but foolishness; the consensus happens to be correct.

The only thing I am 100% sure of, regarding 9/11, is that we need a New Investigation of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT). No other conspiracy theory in history has caused such a volume of blogs and web sites debating both sides. A Google of "9/11 Conspiracy" shows over 14 million links, beating out "UFO conspiracy" with 5.8 million, and "JFK Conspiracy" with 2.4 million, and "Moon landing" of only .3 million (deservedly low).

There are a lot of web pages claiming that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is wrong, that crystals can heal you, and that UFOs are real. Given the Internet's extraordinary ability to promulgate the views of the loudest moron in the room, appeal to Google is one of the newest and most absurd variants on the classic fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Dave

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Yes, there is evidence that contradicts all of them.

This is what I mean by "weak arguments" - just a general claim, but without any specifics. Each argument should have at least one example to support it, preferably several.

We can't see photos of the plane approaching the Pentagon because none were taken.

You claim to know what you don't know. That is intellectual dishonesty. For example, you claim that there were no photos taken before the plane hit the Pentagon (the topic of another thread), but without any evidence. What proof do you have of that? It doesn't even make sense. Do you seriously claim that all 85 security cameras and Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic videos were not functioning on 9/11?

the average truther

This is another example, implying that you can cite a survey, identifying someone as a "truther", with a rating system which allows you to numerically average the responses, compared to national norms. Please provide a URL to such a study if it really exists. Otherwise it is a bogus statistic, and just your feeling.

There are a lot of web pages claiming that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is wrong

So? There are many ways we can measure the number of web sites on various conspiracy topics. But Google is a good one, as judged by its status as the top search engine. Google of 'Darwin theory evolution" gives 828000. "Crystals heal" has 3.6 million. Still, not even close to "9/11 Conspiracy" with over 14 million links. What way do you propose is better for judging the number of web pages?

 

[Justin39640]

This is what I mean by "weak arguments" - just a general claim, but without any specifics. Each argument should have at least one example to support it.

You're using a forum chock full of them. It isn't our fault you choose not to read them.

You claim to know what you don't know. That is intellectual dishonesty. For example, you claim that there were no photos taken before the plane hit the Pentagon (the topic of another thread), but without any evidence. What proof do you have of that? It doesn't even make sense. Do you seriously claim that all 85 security cameras and Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic videos were not functioning on 9/11?

Security and traffic cameras point at the ground, doors, and roads. Usually from a high vantage point for a good field of view. They don't point at the sky. Hence why almost none were in a position to capture anything useful.

So? There are many ways we can measure the number of web sites on various conspiracy topics. But Google is a good one, as judged by its status as the top search engine. Google of 'Darwin theory evolution" gives 828000. "Crystals heal" has 3.6 million. Still, not even close to "9/11 Conspiracy" with over 14 million links. What way do you propose is better for judging the number of web pages?

12 million of those hits are "9/11 conspiracies are retarded" or something to that effect.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is what I mean by "weak arguments" - just a general claim, but without any specifics. Each argument should have at least one example to support it.

Frankly, I'm sick of repeating them for conspiracy theorists who are too lazy to look them up and sufficiently dishonest to claim repeatedly that they don't exist even after having been shown them.

And what's particularly telling is that the examples you're giving are just isolated examples of perceived anomalies that go nowhere. If there aren't any photos of the plane hitting the Pentagon, all this proves is that no photos were taken of the plane hitting the Pentagon. The put options would make no sense in any conspiracy theory, even if they hadn't already been investigated. And the garbage on the AE911T website is laughable; they can't even make their minds up whether their arguments are conclusive, irrefutable proof that only explosives could have brought down the towers, or conclusive, irrefutable proof that only thermite could have brought down the towers.

You claim to know what you don't know. For example, you claim that there were no photos taken before the plane hit the Pentagon (the topic of another thread), but without any evidence. What proof do you have of that? It doesn't even make sense. Do you seriously claim that all 85 security cameras and Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic videos were not functioning?

And here's another example of what truthers do: when their claims are challenged, distort and misrepresent the truth to try to bolster them. Please show me your source for the claim that 85 security cameras and Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic video cameras were positioned to capture photos of flight 77. Quick hint: you can't, because there isn't one. You've taken the number 85 for the entire number of videos of any kind, in any location, examined by the FBI in their investigation into the Flight 77 crash, and pretended that all of them should have shown the flight 77 crash. That's tantamount to lying.

We know that only one camera was positioned to take a photograph showing AA77. We know that it was recording pictures at one-second intervals. We know that, by chance, it barely caught the nose of AA77 in one picture, very indistinctly, and that by the next picture the plane had hit. That, in a nutshell, is the answer to your question. But you're not interested in answers that don't support your agenda, so you'll try and distort it into a different question. That's what dishonest idealogues do, not people who genuinely want to know the truth.

So? There are many ways we can measure the number of web sites on various conspiracy topics. But Google is a good one, as judged by its status as the top search engine. Google of 'Darwin theory evolution" gives 828000. "Crystals heal" has 3.6 million. Still, not even close to "9/11 Conspiracy" with over 14 million links. What way do you propose is better for judging the number of web pages?

And finally, we have "missing the point". A few morons with a computer can generate as many websites as they like. What do you imagine the number of websites implies about the veracity of their claims? Answer: Nothing.

Dave

 

[Quad4_72]

So, now you can completely contradict ALL of them? Why were so many put options put on United and AA stocks before 9/11?

You realize what this implies correct? It implies that anyone who put put options on United and AA stocks before 9/11 was part of the conspiracy and implicit in mass murder. Do you realize how many more people are implicated in the conspiracy by this claim? How does that all add up to you? Do you think some secret CIA agent went up to every single one of the investors and informed them of what was about to happen just so they could profit from it?

And another thing, if you really do think these investors are part of the largest, most intricate conspiracy known to man, what have you and your twoofy buddies done to investigate them?

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

You're using a forum chock full of them.

Again, just a pie in the sky "chock full of them" number. No specific examples.

Security and traffic cameras point at the ground, doors, and roads...Hence why almost none were in a position to capture anything useful.

Not only pointing at the ground, doors, and roads. You can drive by the Pentagon and see the cameras point out. Also there are Virginia DOT cameras. The Pentagon was quite visible from the DoubleTree Hotel. Hence your argument fails.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a030702pentagonphotos

12 million of those hits are "9/11 conspiracies are retarded"

With "9/11 Conspiracy", 5 of the top 10 are Truther sites, including Jesse Ventura, YouTube about Controlled Demolition, and 911Truth.org and when you add the words "are retarded" Jesse Ventura's TruTV is on top. NewsOne's article lists 10 of the common arguments.
http://newsone.com/newsone-original/samalesh/the-11-most-compelling-911-conspiracy-theories/

THANK YOU to Debunkers, with your easily rebutted arguments, for helping me conclude we need a new official investigation of 9/11.

 

[DGM]

Not only at them. The Pentagon was quite visible from the DoubleTree Hotel. .

Why would the hotel point their security cameras at the Pentagon? My shop is next to a bank but, my cameras wouldn't catch a plane hitting it (maybe someone walking in the back).

 

[Craig4]

This is what I mean by "weak arguments" - just a general claim, but without any specifics. Each argument should have at least one example to support it, preferably several.



You claim to know what you don't know. That is intellectual dishonesty. For example, you claim that there were no photos taken before the plane hit the Pentagon (the topic of another thread), but without any evidence. What proof do you have of that? It doesn't even make sense. Do you seriously claim that all 85 security cameras and Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic videos were not functioning on 9/11?


This is another example, implying that you can cite a survey, identifying someone as a "truther", with a rating system which allows you to numerically average the responses, compared to national norms. Please provide a URL to such a study if it really exists. Otherwise it is a bogus statistic, and just your feeling.



So? There are many ways we can measure the number of web sites on various conspiracy topics. But Google is a good one, as judged by its status as the top search engine. Google of 'Darwin theory evolution" gives 828000. "Crystals heal" has 3.6 million. Still, not even close to "9/11 Conspiracy" with over 14 million links. What way do you propose is better for judging the number of web pages?

That's nice. Now why don't you run along and find some explosive residue from Ground Zero. Wake me when you do.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Why would the hotel point their security cameras at the Pentagon?

The Pentagon is beyond their parking lot. Duh. Fail.

Hand over the evidence

Good thing to tell the Pentagon. Plus some childish remark about doggie doo. Grow up. Fail.

find some explosive residue from Ground Zero

Dr. Harrit, Jones and Farrer's study of the WTC dust has been independently replicated in the major aspects by Mark Basile. Fail.

Three weak arguments, batted out of the ball park easily within minutes. 3 Outs. My inning. You wonder why people question 9/11?

 

[DGM]

The Pentagon is beyond the parking lot. Duh. Fail.

The direction the cameras are pointed is only one small aspect (yes I forgot that view, my bad). What was the record rate on that video? My cameras record one frame every 1.8 seconds (fairly typical). How far will an object at 500MPH travel in that amount of time? Do you think it is likely that the Doubleday cameras could have videoed more than one frame of the plane (if any)?

 

[Craig4]

Harrit found no such thing and his results were never duplicated. Not so much with your inning or the fail. Now run along and find some residue.

 

[The Platypus]

The Pentagon is beyond their parking lot. Duh. Fail.


Good thing to tell the Pentagon. Plus some childish remark about doggie doo. Grow up. Fail.


Dr. Harrit, Jones and Farrer's study of the WTC dust has been independently replicated in the major aspects by Mark Basile. Fail.

Three weak arguments, batted out of the ball park easily within minutes. 3 Outs. My inning. You wonder why people question 9/11?

A guy that is uses "Duh" and "Fail" while running around playing Mr know-it-all on the internet; in the very next sentence is telling someone else to grow up due to using chidish remarks and then uses "Fail" again That's comical...

 

[ElMondoHummus]

1. Any arguments about video need to go into the proper threads. Don't allow the truthers to derail this one!
2. Do the truthers not realize that the Doubletree videos were released? John at this very forum linked some of them at the beginning of the month, and there were previous links to them a much longer time ago.

This digression really needs to be split off into another thread. It's as off-topic from the OP as things can get.