Prove your claims against me.
Ed Moving On is coming.
- Thread starter mrfreeze
- Start date
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
They've been proved many times. Get over it and move on.
Prove it.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Been done.
Move on.
Move on.
Prove it or welcome to the ignore button.
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
We've been through this before, Killy-poo.
Your racism and bigotry are a matter of record.
"Whats wrong with judicial-inc.biz?"
-Killtown
I've always had a problem with the claimed numbers of Jews that allegedly died there. I keep hearing "6 million" or "1.5 million." That alone is a HUGE discrepency. Some say the number was as low as 280,000. Suspecting what the Israeli/Palistine conflict is really about, the strong evidence Israel was involved with 9/11, and seeing how 9/11 was faked in general, it makes me wonder how much of the Holocaust was true or not."
-Killtown
One of the reasons I think the Holocaust has been totally exaggerated is the sheer hostility that you get if you dare question it. I mean when countries enact laws against questioning it, something's wrong!
-Killtown
Last edited:
LashL,
Great critique, very professional and well documented.
I just woke up for a few from not being able to sleep and am not all linear and logical yet. I will give your post the respect it deserves tomorrow. I have a busy schedule but even if I can post only once I will address it then.
I was just reflecting on some insights philosophically from my first day here and that is why I logged on.
Russell
Great critique, very professional and well documented.
I just woke up for a few from not being able to sleep and am not all linear and logical yet. I will give your post the respect it deserves tomorrow. I have a busy schedule but even if I can post only once I will address it then.
I was just reflecting on some insights philosophically from my first day here and that is why I logged on.
Russell
I was thinking about a couple of the things I observed today. One is that if I am going to post a CT article for reference, in the future I will be more specific about the part I agree with and delineate between that and the parts I disagree with. lol
The main thing I realized today is that whether it is here or at LC, passions run high on this subject. Both places have a bias in their disposition and thus their starting point for the interpretation of data. One is predisposed to a world that clearly includes conspiracy events as a reality and believes that 9/11 is one of those events. The other is predisposed to minimize the occurrence of conspiracy events in general. And in specific clearly believes 9/11 is not included in the events of a conspiracy nature that they may allow for.
I understand the nature of a skeptics forum. There are many topics in life that fall into the mystical or ethereal realms. Evidence for these types of events is generally extremely biased towards subjectivity. Skeptics in this arena can have a field day. Pour in the mysteries of the mind and emotion and nebulous is the order of the day. My personal opinion is that when I am on a ball of dirt in the middle of space and don't really have any solid theory on where the space, ball of dirt or myself came from, I tend to allow for all of the possibilities.
But when it comes to human nature, for the majority of situations it can be studied and observed in repeatable experiments. If it couldn't then there would be no such thing as a psychology test.
Human nature includes conspiracy. By conspiracy I mean two or more people deciding for selfish reasons to manipulate a situation to create an outcome that gratifies their personal desires. It is not ethereal or nebulous by any definition. It happens every day in everything from affairs to fraudulent betting scams or what have you.
The magnitude of conspiracy is on a gradient scale. When you toss in an ideology such as "American leadership is good both for America and for the world..." like the PNAC states http://www.newamericancentury.org/ or that there is "only Allah" then the exponential results make anything possible in terms of magnitude.
Conspiracies of magnitude have occurred in history. That is a fact. It is not like miracles that happened 2000 years ago that can't be repeated today on demand. Conspiracies are in a whole other category. They are happening all over the globe as we speak in one form or another. They will also happen in the future given the tendency and perpetuation of human nature via world events.
Believing in human conspiracy is rational. There is I believe a mental and emotional disposition within certain people to have a propensity for conspiracy no matter what it is. That is true. They look under every rock for one and create them if they can't find them. No doubt. There is also no doubt in my mind that probably every one of those people is in one way or another latched on to 9/11 in one capacity or another. It is payday for them. Most of them are positioned on the front lines in my opinion. This creates a false straw man argument if that makes sense.
On the other hand, there are in regards to 9/11 a large percentage of people who originally believed the official story initially and through one circumstance or another have changed their position. I am one of those. Given that the people in this category tend to fairly observe most events and rarely take a conspiracy position I would suggest that phenomenon is due to a combination of factors.
The partial disclosure of information by the administration in relation to its subsequent actions is significant. The inferred evidence I have presented here today is another. I realize that each one can be picked apart and given a benevolent interpretation. But if it were entirely as we were told - a surprise attack by 19 Arabs would many of the things I pointed out today even exist?
Really stretch yourself and ask what this should look like.
We have motive in the desire for a new Pearl Harbor to implement a revised Middle East policy. We have a precedent in Operation Northwoods. We have means and opportunity by the PNAC members within our current administration. We have unusual predictive abilities within PNAC members and a whole host of anomalies that I propose wouldn't exist in a pure surprise attack scenario.
I would be really interested to see statistics on the number of people who have gone from believing the official story to responding to a series of events to change their position to at least doubting it. Then I would like to see how many of those people once on the "inside" and after looking into the aforementioned behaviors, evidences and anomalies returned to the official story. 9/11 is sticky for some reason even for those not predisposed towards a conspiracy world view.
When we associate with a social group that shares our beliefs such has LC or here for instance, we tend to commit ourselves to that position for reasons other than evidence alone. That is why my friendships in 9/11 truth are based on common bounds independent of personal interpretations. It is very hard to break away from a social group of shared beliefs. The cult is something I imagine skeptics understand very well. Remove the sinister implication embedded into the word and what we are talking about is not dissimilar to the individual groups I mention.
The point of all this is that we will each interpret the 9/11 story based on many factors irregardless of the specific evidences and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
Back to sleep I go.
Russell
The main thing I realized today is that whether it is here or at LC, passions run high on this subject. Both places have a bias in their disposition and thus their starting point for the interpretation of data. One is predisposed to a world that clearly includes conspiracy events as a reality and believes that 9/11 is one of those events. The other is predisposed to minimize the occurrence of conspiracy events in general. And in specific clearly believes 9/11 is not included in the events of a conspiracy nature that they may allow for.
I understand the nature of a skeptics forum. There are many topics in life that fall into the mystical or ethereal realms. Evidence for these types of events is generally extremely biased towards subjectivity. Skeptics in this arena can have a field day. Pour in the mysteries of the mind and emotion and nebulous is the order of the day. My personal opinion is that when I am on a ball of dirt in the middle of space and don't really have any solid theory on where the space, ball of dirt or myself came from, I tend to allow for all of the possibilities.
But when it comes to human nature, for the majority of situations it can be studied and observed in repeatable experiments. If it couldn't then there would be no such thing as a psychology test.
Human nature includes conspiracy. By conspiracy I mean two or more people deciding for selfish reasons to manipulate a situation to create an outcome that gratifies their personal desires. It is not ethereal or nebulous by any definition. It happens every day in everything from affairs to fraudulent betting scams or what have you.
The magnitude of conspiracy is on a gradient scale. When you toss in an ideology such as "American leadership is good both for America and for the world..." like the PNAC states http://www.newamericancentury.org/ or that there is "only Allah" then the exponential results make anything possible in terms of magnitude.
Conspiracies of magnitude have occurred in history. That is a fact. It is not like miracles that happened 2000 years ago that can't be repeated today on demand. Conspiracies are in a whole other category. They are happening all over the globe as we speak in one form or another. They will also happen in the future given the tendency and perpetuation of human nature via world events.
Believing in human conspiracy is rational. There is I believe a mental and emotional disposition within certain people to have a propensity for conspiracy no matter what it is. That is true. They look under every rock for one and create them if they can't find them. No doubt. There is also no doubt in my mind that probably every one of those people is in one way or another latched on to 9/11 in one capacity or another. It is payday for them. Most of them are positioned on the front lines in my opinion. This creates a false straw man argument if that makes sense.
On the other hand, there are in regards to 9/11 a large percentage of people who originally believed the official story initially and through one circumstance or another have changed their position. I am one of those. Given that the people in this category tend to fairly observe most events and rarely take a conspiracy position I would suggest that phenomenon is due to a combination of factors.
The partial disclosure of information by the administration in relation to its subsequent actions is significant. The inferred evidence I have presented here today is another. I realize that each one can be picked apart and given a benevolent interpretation. But if it were entirely as we were told - a surprise attack by 19 Arabs would many of the things I pointed out today even exist?
Really stretch yourself and ask what this should look like.
We have motive in the desire for a new Pearl Harbor to implement a revised Middle East policy. We have a precedent in Operation Northwoods. We have means and opportunity by the PNAC members within our current administration. We have unusual predictive abilities within PNAC members and a whole host of anomalies that I propose wouldn't exist in a pure surprise attack scenario.
I would be really interested to see statistics on the number of people who have gone from believing the official story to responding to a series of events to change their position to at least doubting it. Then I would like to see how many of those people once on the "inside" and after looking into the aforementioned behaviors, evidences and anomalies returned to the official story. 9/11 is sticky for some reason even for those not predisposed towards a conspiracy world view.
When we associate with a social group that shares our beliefs such has LC or here for instance, we tend to commit ourselves to that position for reasons other than evidence alone. That is why my friendships in 9/11 truth are based on common bounds independent of personal interpretations. It is very hard to break away from a social group of shared beliefs. The cult is something I imagine skeptics understand very well. Remove the sinister implication embedded into the word and what we are talking about is not dissimilar to the individual groups I mention.
The point of all this is that we will each interpret the 9/11 story based on many factors irregardless of the specific evidences and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
Back to sleep I go.
Russell
Last edited:
Anyone interested in seeing what NORAD were up to on 9/11 could read this post by our old mate Gumboot:
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=61752&highlight=NORAD
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=61752&highlight=NORAD
qarnos
Cold-hearted skeptic
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,084
I haven't been following all of this thread so perhaps I shouldn't be responding, but this one thing jumped out at me.
In my opinion, a large part of the reason we have all these different (and conflicting) conspiracy theories is because people are doing exactly what you have suggested here.
People, who, on the whole, have no expertise in the appropriate fields, are applying "common sense" to a situation which has so, so many variables that even with all the information, which we don't have, it would still be impossible to work out what it "should" look like.
Take, for example, our old friend, Killtown. Here is a classic example of someone who has a limited amount of knowledge making outrageous conclusions based on what he thinks things should look like.
His plume photo "analysis" was based on what he considered would be the right sized explosion/fireball, even though we are lacking the enourmous amount of data we would need and perhaps even the understanding of physics required to arrive at the correct answer. This is just one example. Killtown himself has many more and it only gets worse as you dig deeper into the CT slush.
JDX is another example of someone exercising judgement when you can not afford to do so, especially when it is bad/misinformed judgement.
If you want to suggest what things should look like, then you need to provide your reasons why it should look like that, and then bring the evidence to back those reasons.
For instance, when NASA decided to send men to Moon, they used Netwons equations, even though the superior General Relativity equations were available. They didn't use Newtons equations because of a hunch - they did the calculations and knew that the extra accuracy GR provides was not worth the increased complexity.
That is perhaps a poor analogy, but it is the first which came to mind.
Anyway, Russ. Thanks for all the effort you have but into this debate so far. I can not imagine how much time you have spent typing this stuff up.
Here's something to make you feel at home:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
LashL:
Nice critique, but I'd just like to reply to this quote from the article Russell cited:
Nice critique, but I'd just like to reply to this quote from the article Russell cited:
New Zealand is on the other side of the IDL, but it is not "yesterday" (relative to the US) in NZ but tomorrow. So the story was not several hours before, it was many hours after he was accused by Dallas police.
Right now in Sydney the time is 10:20pm on Wednesday night. In NZ its about two hours later so 12:20am Thursday. If that helps.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
While Russel's sleeping - yes, Auckland is GMT P L U S 12 hours right now. The fact that a died in the wool conspiracist could cite something so absurd is just an indication of the particular filter his article should be viewed through. Auckland time on Nov 22 when Kennedy was shot would have been 17 hours AHEAD of EST, i.e. about six or seven in the a.m. on the 23rd!
Sorry for the derail - I spend many of my "tomorrows" on the phone with conference calls to your "yesterdays". And, as I said, it shows that the author of the article is willing to shoe-horn anything into his pet theories that fits!
Last edited:
Garnos,
Thank you for making me feel at home! Most of this is not addressed at you. Just the part about clearing up the intended meaning of my statement.
I agree with the interpretation you presented on this. I do feel that all Americans have the right to speculate in any manner they wish including Killtown. I also believe that somebody claiming credentials such as JDX on their analysis should present them. Even then credentials don't guarantee accuracy.
The real solution to this is of course full disclosure from the government. Even now they have 82 unreleased videos from the Pentagon and all of the physical wreckage of Flight 77 in their possession as well as five unidentified bodies. They are in a position to demolish the no plane theory there and prove who the hijackers were but despite many requests and the benefit it could bring to the families and victims they REFUSE to.
But yet they post warnings about disinformation on one page of their site and link to rense.com as evidence on another. THEY have the wreckage. THEY have the video. THEY have the five unidentified bodies. Why are they then taking these indirect routes? They should produce a page of the evidence THEY are in possession of instead of the following example.
On this page they warn people about rense.com under the section:
There are many conspiracy theory websites, which contain a great deal of unreliable information. Examples include:
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jul/27-595713.html
Then on the following page they use rense.com as evidence for their case.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html
Please go down to the section Plane Debris Found at Pentagon Crash Site. The word "photographs" is a link. When you click on it, it takes you to this page http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm to prove the existence of aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon.
THEY are linking to a conspiracy site that THEY just warned us about??? That is completely wrong. And this is 5 years after the event with no trials pending as a reason not to release evidence. I ask you why?
Since the NTSB was overridden by the FBI in a jurisdictional ruling known as PDD-39 http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm there are no official crash investigations on any of the four aircraft.
The NTSB said:
""Please note: information regarding the investigation into the events of September 11, 2001 will be released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is the lead investigative agency. The Safety Board is providing technical assistance to the FBI, as described in the September 13 Press Advisory." http://www.ntsb.gov/events/major.htm
If you want to see the ultimate joke just look here at the Pentagon report yourself http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa77/77.htm . 11 words, two numerical identifiers, 2 times, 6 pictures and 5 names. That's it. I have talked extensively with the NTSB and more than once have been through the phone banks at the FBI. I was refused in person meetings by both while in DC.
I even made an offer to them that if they provided me with the data I would use it as broadly as possible to dispel the conspiracy theories surrounding the Pentagon. Dylan was willing to put it in LCFC in the interest of truth. You claim the movie doesn't provide truthful evidence? Don't blame Dylan on this one.
They said what we have is what we get. I am not paranoid. I am suspicious with a solid foundation for being so. This and my offer to Rumsfeld's personal historian for one damn uncompressed original analogue video frame of the aircraft were categorically denied. I offered to support the official story if it was the truth by providing video and photos they haven't even given to their own damn historian and putting any evidence they gave me into a film.
You can be mad at Killtown for insulting the family members and witnesses but that is misdirected blame. It is the government that some here voraciously defend that is to blame. These are all attempts I have made professionally in my own name in numerous forms including face to face.
(sorry for the soap box - I woke up grouchy)
That brings me full circle. I probably placed the sentence that started this all poorly. What I meant that to mean was "What should this look like if it was a bona fide surprise terrorist attack on America conducted by 19 Arabs?"
I don't think it would look like the above examples for sure. Combine that with the growing list here and to me the government response does not look like I would imagine if everything was legitimate. And we are just barely getting started.
Here is my page on more of the evidence handling: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/evidence.html
Russell
Thank you for making me feel at home! Most of this is not addressed at you. Just the part about clearing up the intended meaning of my statement.
I agree with the interpretation you presented on this. I do feel that all Americans have the right to speculate in any manner they wish including Killtown. I also believe that somebody claiming credentials such as JDX on their analysis should present them. Even then credentials don't guarantee accuracy.
The real solution to this is of course full disclosure from the government. Even now they have 82 unreleased videos from the Pentagon and all of the physical wreckage of Flight 77 in their possession as well as five unidentified bodies. They are in a position to demolish the no plane theory there and prove who the hijackers were but despite many requests and the benefit it could bring to the families and victims they REFUSE to.
But yet they post warnings about disinformation on one page of their site and link to rense.com as evidence on another. THEY have the wreckage. THEY have the video. THEY have the five unidentified bodies. Why are they then taking these indirect routes? They should produce a page of the evidence THEY are in possession of instead of the following example.
On this page they warn people about rense.com under the section:
There are many conspiracy theory websites, which contain a great deal of unreliable information. Examples include:
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jul/27-595713.html
Then on the following page they use rense.com as evidence for their case.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html
Please go down to the section Plane Debris Found at Pentagon Crash Site. The word "photographs" is a link. When you click on it, it takes you to this page http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm to prove the existence of aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon.
THEY are linking to a conspiracy site that THEY just warned us about??? That is completely wrong. And this is 5 years after the event with no trials pending as a reason not to release evidence. I ask you why?
Since the NTSB was overridden by the FBI in a jurisdictional ruling known as PDD-39 http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd39.htm there are no official crash investigations on any of the four aircraft.
The NTSB said:
""Please note: information regarding the investigation into the events of September 11, 2001 will be released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is the lead investigative agency. The Safety Board is providing technical assistance to the FBI, as described in the September 13 Press Advisory." http://www.ntsb.gov/events/major.htm
If you want to see the ultimate joke just look here at the Pentagon report yourself http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa77/77.htm . 11 words, two numerical identifiers, 2 times, 6 pictures and 5 names. That's it. I have talked extensively with the NTSB and more than once have been through the phone banks at the FBI. I was refused in person meetings by both while in DC.
I even made an offer to them that if they provided me with the data I would use it as broadly as possible to dispel the conspiracy theories surrounding the Pentagon. Dylan was willing to put it in LCFC in the interest of truth. You claim the movie doesn't provide truthful evidence? Don't blame Dylan on this one.
They said what we have is what we get. I am not paranoid. I am suspicious with a solid foundation for being so. This and my offer to Rumsfeld's personal historian for one damn uncompressed original analogue video frame of the aircraft were categorically denied. I offered to support the official story if it was the truth by providing video and photos they haven't even given to their own damn historian and putting any evidence they gave me into a film.
You can be mad at Killtown for insulting the family members and witnesses but that is misdirected blame. It is the government that some here voraciously defend that is to blame. These are all attempts I have made professionally in my own name in numerous forms including face to face.
(sorry for the soap box - I woke up grouchy)
That brings me full circle. I probably placed the sentence that started this all poorly. What I meant that to mean was "What should this look like if it was a bona fide surprise terrorist attack on America conducted by 19 Arabs?"
I don't think it would look like the above examples for sure. Combine that with the growing list here and to me the government response does not look like I would imagine if everything was legitimate. And we are just barely getting started.
Here is my page on more of the evidence handling: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/evidence.html
Russell
Last edited:
I must agree with Qarnos. Looking at the situation I don't see so many anomolies that my instincts point to conspiracy. I see what I would expect, by and large, and when I don't I find I am satisfied with the explanations given by those with more knowledege than myself. Anomolies ARE the expected result of vastly complex and unusual events BTW.
I hope you are not just doing what I see so many CTs do; they defend a point for a while, until it seems to dissolve, and then they jump to another, until it dissolves, finally they say 'well, it doesn't matter if that point is correct but surely all of these issues together point to something fishy going on.' But no, if an individual claim is wrong it ceases to be part of the pattern they think they see and if enough claims dissolve then there is no pattern. So I do hope you distill that article about Olsen and come back with something we can work with. (ETA Although, since your time and patience may be limited, I suppose one could argue we should jump right to your specialty areas and look at your strongest evidence first.
Having said that I must say I am impressed by you and your approach and I will be keeping an open mind. So by all means continue please.
BTW my instincts tell me that the administration might well be hiding something, but I'd wager its just the usual incompetence. Hindsight is 20/20. Even if they had warnings there must have been a tremendous inertia to overcome. A VERY high percentage of the time you get away with being incautious (seat belts) and then when disaster strikes it seems obvious what you should have done.
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
I apologize, as I have not yet caught up on this thread in its entirety. However, I must point out that the section in question says
I believe the links they are providing are replicated verbatim from the email referenced above (my bolding). Frankly, it looks like the info on the page was put together either by someone that also does online debunking (say for 911myths.com) or was at least familiar with those resources and utilitized them rather than reinventing the wheel.
So they found a website that had a nice selection of photographs and text proving that a commercial airliner hit the pentagon. Agreed it's sloppy, but hardly the stuff to hang a conspiracy on!
Just imagine when that particular assignment was handed out....
"Bob! Bob! Come in here a moment, I got a job for you...."
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I guess, based on what others said, I expected something more than parrotting absurdities like this, Russell. Oh, well.