Hello JREF, I bring you "Tin Foil"!

[David Wong]

If SkepticGuy doesn't understand the reception he's gotten here, he needs to understand that he's not the first CTer to try his tactic of "Assertion-Retreat-Retreat-Retreat." He's not the 20th one to try it. It's common.

9/11 deniers show up almost weekly here, either saying, "I'm skeptical, but I don't agree with those other wackjobs!!" or "I haven't made up my mind yet," and so often it turns out to be nothing more than a play for credibility.

Once you start trying to pin them down, asking pointed questions, they either reveal that they believe in the same mass controlled demolition conspiracy as the others, or else they just keep saying "Don't put words in my mouth!" over and over again while saying nothing about what they actually think happened.

They want to have it both ways, to believe in the conspiracy while not actually having to defend even one point (who did it? How? When? Why?) They love innuendo, and coy little drive-by barbs of accusation. And when you call them on it, they can retreat all day. After all, they never said anything specific.

This guy believes the jets of smoke from the sides of the buildings were "squibs." That has to mean explosives inside the building. Nothing else makes sense in context of what he's saying. If it's not natural jets of air from the compressing building, then it has to be explosives (or some other device with the same effect). These devices were either A) planted in the buildings before 9/11 or B) someone was waiting, ready to rush them inside the buildings after the planes hit. In either case, the party who put the device inside the buildings had to have the plan in place prior to 9/11.

Now, these devices, the cause of the "squibs" that SkepticGuy believes in, either the terrorists put them there, or someone on the "inside" put them there to make it appear to be part of the terror attack. If the terrorists put them there, there would have been no reason to cover it up. So no conspiracy.

Therefore, from what SkepticGuy said, he logically HAS to mean someone on the inside put them there. U.S. government operatives? Shadow government operatives? Israeli agents operating under the protection of the US government?

No matter what angle you come at it, if there were explosives inside the building, and helped the building fall down while people were inside, and the government allowed it to happen and is now covering it up, then he's accusing Americans of mass murder. Logically he can't be saying anything else and have it make any sense at all.

And yet, he has given himself deniability, the ability to say, "I said no such thing." Because he didn't. Not in those exact words. He just phrased it in such a way that no other conclusion could possibly be drawn.

So, yes, SkepticGuy. You DID say such a thing. You said a very specific thing. You just covered it in a thick layer of fuzzy words.

 

[gumboot]

Kind of like a game to them, I guess. It would be funny, if it wasn't for all the murderous lies and horrific unfounded accusations.

Like Spinal Tap, only about mass murder.

-Gumboot

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Not quite. He negotiated with Iranian terrorists who were holding American's hostage, and the nature of the negotiations were not focused on their release. Before the confirming data came out, people who chased this story were considered "conspiracy theorists", until the data was confirmed.

Yes, and the same holds true for the Watergate-scandal as well as The Bay of Pigs imho. However if everything that the government or organisation does in covert and after that is exposed, then the whole "CT"-term becomes meaningless. If so, those of us who actually believe that Al Quaida terrorists plotted over several years under the leading of Usama Bin Laden to attack the US with airplanes are CT's as well.

In short if so, we are all CT's and the term is meaningless.

Cheers,
SLOB

 

[NobbyNobbs]

1) The "squibs" at the sky-lobby level preceding the collapse by several floors... there are lots of explanations for these anomalies, but if you've ever been in the sky lobbies, the air-pressure explanation doesn't make sense... especially as the collapse is happening above.

What do you mean, "especially as the collapse is happening above"?? Do you mean to say that the air-pressure explanation would make more sense if the collapse were happening below those floors?!

And a further point... I was in a pool league with several construction workers who were clearing out the debris. Even then, with little or no online "conspiracy theory" madness, these "regular Joes" were amazed at how there was no attempt to preserve that they felt was important evidence... even if it was to simply understand what failed and how. (I didn't pester them with conspiracy theories, after all we were drinking beers and shooting pool).

Um, you do realize that the initial goal, for the first few days if not weeks, was to retrieve survivors and not to investigate the cause, right?

Getting this guy to admit he is MIPHOP was like pulling teeth. I've never seen somebody dance so desperately around what they believe.

On the other hand, I must say I am grateful for his writing ability. As I mentioned in another thread, I have a lot of trouble understanding the poor writing ability of CTers when it comes to grammar, spelling, captialization, sentence structure, and the general ability to form a coherent thought. At the very least, this guy seems to have paid attention during his English classes. Thank goodness.

 

[stateofgrace]

Welcome to the forum Skepticguy.

I would like to say that everything David Wong has said to is absolutely correct, you are accusing innocent people of mass murder, whether you like it or not. Which ever way you try to sugar coat your believes whether it be through `I’m just asking questions `or `hey but it’s only the nasty USG I am accusing`, you are not. You and the rest of the cters you stand shoulder to shoulder with do this willingly and through your own choice.

Everything you cannot understand about 911 is a conspiracy to you. You say `hey what about those squibs, I don’t understand, what could possibly have caused them? ´ to normal people the answer is obvious a massive building was falling down. This had never happened before so when strange unexpected things like planes slamming into buildings, that subsequently burn and collapse other strange and unexpected things happen. But to you this is not enough, there has to be another explanation, bombs maybe, explosives, secret death squads that spent countless hours filling buildings with explosives. This was done knowing that planes would slam into them , knowing that the damage was never going to be enough to bring them down and that the fires were never going to finish the job off.

Then you wonder why they fell so fast? How is possible that such massive building could fall so fast? How can that be? It has never happened before. Again the normal rational answer is that planes full of innocent people smashed into them, they burnt and eventually failed. Of course this is not enough, they fell too fast, take for example the last dozen steel framed sky scrapers, that had planes slammed into them, they never fell that fast.

And on and on it goes, any single thing you feel you cannot grasp, you cannot understand is a conspiracy.
`How could NORAD not intercept those planes, I don’t understand`, because like the rest of the planet they were gob smacked at it all and was not sure what was going on.But no, there has to be more, somebody ordered them down, somebody told them to let it all happen, it´s a conspiracy.
´How could WTC 7 collapse like that, it never got hit by a plane, I don’t understand´Becuase another chunking great building fell on it, it burnt and fell down.But no this could never have happened, somebody must have planted bombs, it´s a conspiracy.
`But wait, how did those stupid cavemen carry this out, they are not smart enough, I don’t understand´` Because Al Qeada is not run by cave men but by very smart, ruthless individuals that don’t like you.Surely not, surely the CIA must be pulling the strings, the USG controls everybody including a global terrorist network, it´s a conspiracy.

It just goes on and on Skepticguy. Guys like you just love to play the game, love to think you are super smart and have spotted something the rest of us all missed. The reality is, you are an accuser, and you accuse your fellow countrymen of mass murder. You do this over all the evidence that it was not. But you will never accept this, you will kid yourself that you are really the good guy and you are just asking questions and at the very most you would only point your accusing finger at the USG. Both of these are incorrect.

So what will you do SG? You will walk the line that every single cter before you have walked, you will ask your questions, ignore the answers and disappear back to forums that are more accommodating, more friendly and open to your line of reasoning. There you may even mention your time on JREF and how nasty they were to you.

It’s a shame, I know, but then again the greatest shame of all is accusing innocent people of mass murder. You seem to carry this shame with no problem.

 

[SkepticGuy]

I seems I stepped into a hornet's nest, after someone already came along and gave it a good kick.

Let's rewind and level-set.

In my opening post, I said I'm "your friendly neighborhood skeptically-minded ambassador from the land of conspiracy theory". I made no claims to be associated with the "9/11 Truth Movement", nor did I claim to have a proclivity for 9/11 conspiracy issue. But it seems that many immediately assumed something else.

Your perception of "conspiracy theorists" has been horribly tainted by immature, inexperienced, graceless, and rude individuals who have diverted their attention away from trowing eggs at Starbucks and defacing GAPs to shouting "9/11 was an inside job" on street corners. If anything my involvement hear has taught this quick lesson, and has given me some ideas for dealing with it (for which I'm sure the "Truthers" will label me "CoIntelPro").

Regarding the 9/11 conspiracy speculation... There's a lot of insistence on evidence or proof, to the point where you come across as the shouting, yelling, angry polar opposites of the people hold the "9/11 was an inside job" signs on the street. Trust me, no one would like to see a solid list of good evidence more than conspiracy theorists. However, there is an increasing amount of interesting data, and I'm working on collecting for presentation here (remember that "Ambassador" thing?).

But as we've seen with previous conspiracies in history, especially Watergate, the story is laughed at and the story-tellers passed off as conspiracy theorists until strong evidence is presented... then it evolves from "conspiracy theory" to scandal. If anything can be proven at all... we're obviously still firmly in the research phase of the conspiracy life cycle.

or else they just keep saying "Don't put words in my mouth!" over and over again

Well... many here have done just that.

This guy believes the jets of smoke from the sides of the buildings were "squibs." That has to mean explosives inside the building. Nothing else makes sense in context of what he's saying.

I used a popularized term as a short-cut to get to the point and called them anomalies that stand out in my mind. You extend that to mean I think there was a controlled demolition... but I do not. At best, I think the only "demolition" theories that have a chance are specific to a limited number of "charges" that assisted collapse. There is enough information in the public domain about the cancelation of bomb sniffing dogs and building-wide shut-downs soon before the attacks to support this type of theory.

Therefore, from what SkepticGuy said, he logically HAS to mean someone on the inside put them there. U.S. government operatives?

Certainly you're aware there have been, and will continue to be, large-scale covert operations that result in widespread loss of life? It's not a significant stretch to postulate that a similar operation was unfortunately involved here. Let me be clear -- no serious conspiracy theorist I know wants such an idea to be true -- but in the history of "what is known" about such things, it remains a possibility.

No matter what angle you come at it, if there were explosives inside the building, and helped the building fall down while people were inside, and the government allowed it to happen and is now covering it up, then he's accusing Americans of mass murder. Logically he can't be saying anything else and have it make any sense at all.

Someone said I was accusing hundreds of innocent people of mass murder, that's certainly not correct. Your assessment is, unfortunately, closer to reality in that I find validity in some of the assertions related to 9/11 conspiracies.

those of us who actually believe that Al Quaida terrorists plotted over several years under the leading of Usama Bin Laden to attack the US with airplanes are CT's as well.

No, and no need to be obtusely facetious. On the other hand, there is a great deal of info that connects the early Osama to regional CIA operations and support... and well-founded conjecture that shows relatively recent aid. A "conspiracy theory" exists that describes Osama as continuing to play his role in a larger-scale game. While this may not be true, his history with the CIA enables such speculation.

Everything you cannot understand about 911 is a conspiracy to you.

You're wrong. You're confusing me with someone else. You haven't been reading what I'm writing.

How could NORAD not intercept those planes, I don’t understand

I never mentioned NORAD and I'm fully aware of the impossible scenario related to interception.

How could WTC 7 collapse like that, it never got hit by a plane, I don’t understand

I never mentioned building 7. I continually tell people that I saw the massive hole on local NY1 coverage. Why are you continuing to assume I attribute credence to such ideas?

But wait, how did those stupid cavemen carry this out, they are not smart enough, I don’t understand

I never said that either. What's your point here?

I think I've shown how you got me wrong. "Guys like me" love to support a free and open environment where provocative speculation within the confines of polite decorum is encouraged and supported. Posts related to 9/11 conspiracies comprise 2% of that... granted, it's often a noisy 2%

So what will you do SG? You will walk the line that every single cter before you have walked, you will ask your questions, ignore the answers and disappear back to forums that are more accommodating, more friendly and open to your line of reasoning. There you may even mention your time on JREF and how nasty they were to you.

I'm still here. After 15+ years of being in online communities, I've got much thicker skin than that.

 

[beachnut]

Regarding the 9/11 conspiracy speculation... There's a lot of insistence on evidence or proof, to the point where you come across as the shouting, yelling, angry polar opposites of the people hold the "9/11 was an inside job" signs on the street. Trust me, no one would like to see a solid list of good evidence more than conspiracy theorists. However, there is an increasing amount of interesting data, and I'm working on collecting for presentation here (remember that "Ambassador" thing?).

But as we've seen with previous conspiracies in history, especially Watergate, the story is laughed at and the story-tellers passed off as conspiracy theorists until strong evidence is presented... then it evolves from "conspiracy theory" to scandal. If anything can be proven at all... we're obviously still firmly in the research phase of the conspiracy life cycle.

I do not remember anyone laughing about Watergate as a looney CT. Sorry Watergate was solved in 2 years.

There is only misleading information from the truth movement on 9/11. If you have failed to realize that, your 15+ years have been wasted.

Increasing amount of data? I doubt it. The only thing increasing data on the truth movement are the lies and pure fraud. Try exposing that evidence of lies and fraud it will be easier.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

If anything can be proven at all... we're obviously still firmly in the research phase of the conspiracy life cycle.

What basis do you have to make that assumption? When, in your opinion, will 911 leave the "research phase"?

Cheers,
SLOB

 

[SkepticGuy]

What basis do you have to make that assumption?

Which assumption do you mean? I'm sorry, but I don't see one in what you quoted.

When, in your opinion, will 911 leave the "research phase"?

I think the only chance of this happening is if some "insider" steps forward and communicates with journalists. I think that the online "conspiracy community" is far too damaged by madness for any revelation to emerge. (and of course... there are conspiracy theories with this as well)

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Which assumption do you mean? I'm sorry, but I don't see one in what you quoted.

The assumption that "911" is still in its research phase and thus hasn't, like Watergate, traversed the line between "CT" and "Scandal" -as you put it.

I think most here would argue that 911 has already more or less left the "research phase", eg proven not to be a conspiracy - as the term is used here at least.

Cheers,
SLOB

 

[beachnut]

If anything can be proven at all... we're obviously still firmly in the research phase of the conspiracy life cycle.



I'm still here. After 15+ years of being in online communities, I've got much thicker skin than that.

No we are not in the research phase, you must of missed that 5 years ago. We are in the middle of a constant barrage of nut cases thinking up dumb and dumber theories.

Could it be you have something else thicker than your skin?

 

[SkepticGuy]

I think most here would argue that 911 has already more or less left the "research phase", eg proven not to be a conspiracy - as the term is used here at least.

I would agree that it looks like the case, given the exposure you've had here to a high degree of the madness that has infected this topic.

However, (putting on that "ambassador" hat) there are those that don't believe much if anything of what is spewed by "truthers", yet still feel there are important conspiratorial issues related to the event. In this definition, there is still a "research phase".

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

I would agree that it looks like the case, given the exposure you've had here to a high degree of the madness that has infected this topic.

However, (putting on that "ambassador" hat) there are those that don't believe much if anything of what is spewed by "truthers", yet still feel there are important conspiratorial issues related to the event. In this definition, there is still a "research phase".

But you are basically saying that nothing less than a "deep throat" would suffice to satisfy your definition of, for lack of better words, a "closed case":

I think the only chance of this happening is if some "insider" steps forward and communicates with journalists.

That seem to me like you've pretty much made your mind up. So, what do you think such an "insider" would tell us?

SLOB

 

[Stellafane]

Never mind -- will PM

 

[hellaeon]

Goodaye Mate,

What seems to you not properly investigated or causes you sufficient concern to seem worthy of scruitny?

Perhaps if you could list say one thing specifically for now to keep it simple perhaps a discussion can ensue from there?

Cheers

 

[SkepticGuy]

What seems to you not properly investigated or causes you sufficient concern to seem worthy of scruitny?

While not as exciting as many 9/11-specific issues, I always believe in looking at history, and the resulting cause-and-effect.

I find it odd that our covert foreign services created and funded Osama, then, shifted focus from capturing him to invading Iraq. I believe in this mystery lies the roots of whatever 9/11 conspiracies exist.

(some reference material provided to me)
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=9672
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...lete_911_timeline&before_9/11=sovietAfghanWar

 

[gumboot]

Certainly you're aware there have been, and will continue to be, large-scale covert operations that result in widespread loss of life? It's not a significant stretch to postulate that a similar operation was unfortunately involved here.

I've said it once, I'll say it again. Secret Operations only remain secret BEFORE they are carried out. The bigger the operation, the faster it is uncovered post-event.

Operation Overlord, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Operation Eagle Claw, the Manhattan Project... these sorts of things were large scale, and kept secret. But only until the operations were actually executed. Once the mission was complete, you couldn't hide it any more.

With 9/11 you're expecting people to believe something that simply doesn't happen - a large scale covert military operation remaining secret AFTER the event.

And don't forget what this operation was. It was not a raid in the middle of a warzone. It was not a hostage rescue in a far away country. It was an attack in broad daylight, in one of the largest most modern cities on the planet. The eye witnesses number in the millions, let alone the number of people who saw it live in the media. 9/11 is the most documented, scrutanised, and studied event in the history of the human race.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

I find it odd that our covert foreign services created and funded Osama, then, shifted focus from capturing him to invading Iraq. I believe in this mystery lies the roots of whatever 9/11 conspiracies exist.

I wouldn't call it "odd". In fact I wouldn't even call it surprising. The administration clearly had an agenda with Iraq, and were not overly interested in Afghanistan.

I would call it stupid, foolish, a mistake, possibly even criminally negligent, and a failure of foreign policy, not to mention a failure of national security.

However, I'm curious what you mean by "covert foreign services"? There's a fabricated term if ever I read one. How do you define "created and funded Osama"?

(Are you aware that Osama Bin Laden never received funding from the US Government while in Afghanistan?)

-Gumboot

 

[SkepticGuy]

The administration clearly had an agenda with Iraq, and were not overly interested in Afghanistan.

No interest in the person blamed for planning 9/11? Really? How odd.

However, I'm curious what you mean by "covert foreign services"? There's a fabricated term if ever I read one. How do you define "created and funded Osama"?

It's what the CIA is calling themselves in their recruitment radio commercials (at least... from what I remember).

(Are you aware that Osama Bin Laden never received funding from the US Government while in Afghanistan?)

I had thought Osama's Mudjahadeen involvement was widely understood.
http://www.rwor.org/a/v23/1120-29/1120/afghanistan.htm

When the CIA and Pakistan's ISI decided to train tens of thousands of Muslims from around the world to fight in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden was one of the key organizers of the effort.
...
Through the 1980s, a war-hardened army, with a quarter million fighters, took shape in Afghanistan under CIA guidance.

That's one example... there is a great deal of data on this.

 

[The Doc]

SkepticGuy,

There is enough information in the public domain about the cancelation of bomb sniffing dogs and building-wide shut-downs soon before the attacks to support this type of theory.

There were no "building wide" shut downs at all as far as I know. If you can show me some evidence to support your claim, I'm open to change my mind. The information that has been presented to indicate anything similar to a shut-down was a report by a man named Scott Forbes. He claims that a maximum of 50 floors of WTC2 suffered a "power down" for a 26 hour period. The problem with that is, no one has verified his claims. Even if he were telling the truth, 26 hours is no where near long enough to set any kind of demolition up.SkepticGuy, do you think that all sniffer dogs were removed from the towers? I am interested in your answer.

No, and no need to be obtusely facetious. On the other hand, there is a great deal of info that connects the early Osama to regional CIA operations and support... and well-founded conjecture that shows relatively recent aid. A "conspiracy theory" exists that describes Osama as continuing to play his role in a larger-scale game. While this may not be true, his history with the CIA enables such speculation.

Again, I haven't seen any evidence of "recent aid" at all. This is what a man who interviewed had to say about the CIA-Bin Laden connection:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.htmlPeter Bergen, a CNN journalist and adjunct professor who is known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, refuted Cook's notion, stating on August 15, 2006, the following:“ The story about bin Laden and the CIA—that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.