Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[twinstead]

Once again, a Conspiracy Theory requires Schrodinger's Competency. They are simultaneously highly competent, and completely transparent. The only way most Truthers can resolve this dichotomy is by declaring everyone with a different opinion to be some kind of idiot or shill.

Indeed.

 

[Myriad]

Yeah, what exactly were they doing on 9/11, Myriad? Here's Peter Dale Scott on the topic:

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

A 54-minute video? Wow, they must have been extremely active for it to take that long to narrate.

Please relate to me an example from the video, of an action or two that they took that show the nature of their "involvement."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[twinstead]

Sounds like your speculation, which i'm not interested in.

The feeling is quite mutual, CE

 

[dafydd]

Sounds like your speculation, which i'm not interested in.

What is your speculation? I am interested. If you don't believe "the man" who do you believe?

 

[JohnG]

Ladies and gentlemen the above is a prime example of one way that people can sometimes be erroneously convicted in a court of law.

Sounds like some sort of threat.

Please walk me through this. Why was what jaydeehess wrote "some sort of threat"?

So what are the super rich up to these days if they aren't manipulating governments to their advantage and starting wars? Video games?

Sounds like some sort of non sequitur.

If a person could or would commit an immoral act, it then logically follows that they did commit that act? Is that what you are saying? If so, it appears (assuming you are sincere in your assertions) that you have the reasoning abilities of a naive and paranoid adolescent. Don't worry about it, many of us used to be naive and paranoid adolescents. It's part of growing up and nothing to be ashamed of. On the other hand it's nothing to be proud of, either.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The feeling is quite mutual, CE

Tell that to your buddies, twinstead. They disagree.

Myriad, i'm not going to spoon-feed you with anything. It's a very interesting lecture. If you prefer to read, search for Scott's extensive articles on the topic.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Unsupported assertion. Hanlon's Razor says that people are more likely to be stupid than malicious. Looking at my own experiences, I'm inclined to believe it. For example, most Truthers are intellectually dishonest, but they probably aren't even aware they're doing it.

Well enough to fool most of the world's scientists, well enough to remain largely undiscovered against nigh-impossible odds, yet not well enough to fool random people on the Internet looking at YouTube videos.

Once again, a Conspiracy Theory requires Schrodinger's Competency. They are simultaneously highly competent, and completely transparent. The only way most Truthers can resolve this dichotomy is by declaring everyone with a different opinion to be some kind of idiot or shill.

The above is just plain dishonest. Most all the world knows what they've viewed, the "collapses", were caused by explosive actions. Only a jaundiced or intimidated eye would believe otherwise. The suddenness, the swiftness, and the completeness of their destruction render any other cause anal.

 

[sylvan8798]

You believe the buildings destroyed themselves. Gravity collapse = suicide.

I don't.

Gravity is an external force acting on an object. People who commit suicide using gravity typically jump from something. Then gravity does the work of accelerating them to a velocity were their ensuing impact with a solid object proves fatal. It is not the gravity as such that kills them, but the impact at the end. Since the buildings did not jump anywhere, nor were they, as inanimate objects, capable of forming the intent to kill themselves, your metaphor is in(s)ane.

The suddenness, the swiftness, and the completeness of their destruction render any other cause anal.

Yet another ridiculous metaphor. Got anything besides your personal incredulity?

 

[Travis]

Again Occam's razor prevails.

I saw 3 dead buildings, with no dead bodies, and I ruled out suicide.

The rest is legwork.

I see. You apparently were channeling a vision of another September 11th attack that occurred in a parallel dimension. One where cars drive people and red smells like down.

So what are the super rich up to these days if they aren't manipulating governments to their advantage and starting wars? Video games?

These days they are all about Tupperware. They just love the stuff. They host parties about it that just go on for days.

Also gladiatorial combat of homeless people.

But those Tupperware parties! Wow.

The above is just plain dishonest. Most all the world knows what they've viewed, the "collapses", were caused by explosive actions. Only a jaundiced or intimidated eye would believe otherwise. The suddenness, the swiftness, and the completeness of their destruction render any other cause anal.

You underestimate gravity, overestimate explosives and have way too much confidence in your personal credulity. Basic question: what do you think happens to a huge mass that is set into motion? Even if that motion is initially rather small? Now what happens if that huge mass has a constant acceleration?

 

[000063]

So once again, let me help you with a narrative...

At some time between the 1993 Truck bombing of the WTC and Sept. 11, 2001 there were explosives strategically placed on several floors of both WTC 1 and 2 as well as WTC 7 (aka The Solomon Brothers building) in downtown Manhattan - New York City, NY. Two planes were hijacked by remote control in order to make it look like they were hijacked by terrorists and made to look like they crashed into both tower 1 and 2. This caused the explosives that were strategically placed to be set off and cause a huge fireball which spread through the floors and eventually caused a collapse.

How does that sound?

There is a reason Conspiracy Theorists of any stripe, including our own Childlike, often refuse to put their theories in a complete narrative form, and thus give it context.

Because they always sound ridiculous.

 

[Myriad]

Please relate to me an example from the video, of an action or two that they took that show the nature of their "involvement."

Myriad, i'm not going to spoon-feed you with anything. It's a very interesting lecture. If you prefer to read, search for Scott's extensive articles on the topic.

There are no such examples, then. I thought as much, but wanted to check.

So, as I was saying... historical narrative without verbs is an interesting Truther-related (or perhaps more generally PoMo) cultural phenomenon. No one actually did anything (or needed to), but everyone was involved.

I see an interesting parallel with things like AE911T. A lot of engineering professionals who don't do anything at all, but their very existence or presence on a list of names "supports" the cause. They're all "involved." Which some claim makes them influential, a veritable juggernaut, despite attempting (and thereby successfully accomplishing) nothing.

And it works both ways for them. Consider the PNAC argument condemning the neocons for mentioning the possibility of a "new Pearl Harbor." Not doing it, not planning to do it, not even suggesting that any specific entity should or might do it, but merely suggesting that it might conceivably happen, is enough. That makes them "involved."

Where does this come from? Does it have its roots in vague butt-covering political speech? ("We will take action. Firm decisive action." "Good, what action will you be taking?" "Like I said, firm decisive action.") Or the pendulum swing of historical scholarship in the late 20th century, toward interpreting all events as the results of large vague inevitable forces that everyone is helplessly caught up in, disregarding individual agency? Or the "Concern = involvement = as good as action" aspect of Internet spectatorship? (How many anonymous interchangeable tweens think they're "involved" in Justin Bieber's life?) Could there be some connection with the (mostly fake) interactivity in interactive media?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[NoahFence]

Yeah, what exactly were they doing on 9/11, Myriad? Here's Peter Dale Scott on the topic:

Probably ducking like everybody else in the country.

 

[NoahFence]

Sounds like your speculation, which i'm not interested in.

Irony at its best.

 

[NoahFence]

The above is just plain dishonest. Most all the world knows what they've viewed, the "collapses", were caused by explosive actions. Only a jaundiced or intimidated eye would believe otherwise. The suddenness, the swiftness, and the completeness of their destruction render any other cause anal.

They were on fire for an hour. WTC 7 for like 7 hours, with fires that went on without one lick of water being put on them. Not exactly sudden.

Clayton - I know how difficult it is for you people to answer a direct question, but I figure if I try hard enough one of you will mistakenly provide an answer:

How exactly do you imagine explosives survived for an hour inside a building burning out of control, that was impacted by a 757 at 500 miles per hour?

 

[Childlike Empress]

There are no such examples, then. I thought as much, but wanted to check.

Exactly. When i don't present them on a silver plate to you, they don't exist.

Oh well, PNAC. Cheney and Rumsfeld were part of that, weren't they? Just a coincidence, of course. Nothing to see here. No dots. There are no dots, Myriad.

 

[Childlike Empress]

PNAC. The "Project for a New American Century". Suggests that there was an old american century, doesn't it? With all international institutions in effect still based on the outcome of WWII, the Empire which was saved for another decade (not a century) by the false-flag event of 9/11 is now coming to an end.

And you better help dismantling it in an orderly fashion so that a functioning republic and not only chaos remains.

 

[Myriad]

Exactly. When i don't present them on a silver plate to you, they don't exist.

That is essentially correct. That you are not willing to relate or point out even a single example, when doing so would be easy and highly supportive of your claims if any existed, is excellent evidence that no such examples exist.

Oh well, PNAC. Cheney and Rumsfeld were part of that, weren't they? Just a coincidence, of course. Nothing to see here. No dots. There are no dots, Myriad.

There are dots everywhere. And they're all "involved."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Myriad]

PNAC. The "Project for a New American Century". Suggests that there was an old american century, doesn't it? With all international institutions in effect still based on the outcome of WWII, the Empire which was saved for another decade (not a century) by the false-flag event of 9/11 is now coming to an end.

And you better help dismantling it in an orderly fashion so that a functioning republic and not only chaos remains.

I am helping. That is, I'm conversing on a message board with someone who's mentioning the possibility of it happening. So I'm definitely "involved" which is the same as helping, right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Clayton Moore]

I see. You apparently were channeling a vision of another September 11th attack that occurred in a parallel dimension. One where cars drive people and red smells like down.



These days they are all about Tupperware. They just love the stuff. They host parties about it that just go on for days.

Also gladiatorial combat of homeless people.

But those Tupperware parties! Wow.



You underestimate gravity, overestimate explosives and have way too much confidence in your personal credulity. Basic question: what do you think happens to a huge mass that is set into motion? Even if that motion is initially rather small? Now what happens if that huge mass has a constant acceleration?

Yeah sure gravity. First three times for everything. Duuuuuuuuuuuh.

 

[Childlike Empress]

That is essentially correct. That you are not willing to relate or point out even a single example, when doing so would be easy and highly supportive of your claims if any existed, is excellent evidence that no such examples exist.

That i'm not willing is caused by my knowledge that you are not genuinely interested, proven again by your reaction to the video. It's all there, I delivered you maybe the most detailed account of what Cheney did on 9/11. It's directed at people like you (see foreword). You simply dismiss it. And that's where it ends. Again.