• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Osama bin Laden dead,

WTC wreckage was "vague" ?
The wreckage would have been evidence to document the actual mechanism of the collapse in detail, but what happened to this evidence is "vague", it was thrown away undocumented, and the actual mechanism of collapse was explained years later, with neither the physical evidence nor much documentation thereof at hand. So the evidence is vague, and the given explanation forever remains as a theory only, not a proven fact.

That's not skepticism, it's denialism.
Pointing out the fact that evidence is insufficient is skepticism.

But wouldn't they also be able to falsify any other potential evidence they might show? (...)
Is there any evidence the government could produce that would convince you that the recent story of Bin Laden's death is true?
Everyone must believe in some source for telling the truth. I would trust a randomly picked group of scientists. Something of international interest happens (it could be anything, for example a closed court case to give death penalty to someone). Send one UN monitor there, hand-picked by a western government: I won´t necessarily trust that his report is the unbiased and honest truth. Make a pool of thousands of scientists from all countries, and randomly pick 10 of them to each independently study the case and report their findings, then I would choose to believe in factual correctness of their findings.

In this case, if these random 10 scientists had done the DNA test, I would choose to believe their report about the identity of the corpse that was thrown to sea. One unnamed person reportedly "making the test and getting such-and-such results" is equal to anecdotal evidence. What is the statistical probability of a US army officer telling what he is told to tell the media, rather than telling the full truth about a combat mission? Quite high.
 
I'm just glad they all made it back. OBL was not worth one more drop of American blood.

I agree. There was so much that could have gone wrong, {or did, eg. one failed chopper} that for these guys to go in and get the job done with no losses was a great achievement. No matter how much training went on beforehand, I doubt anyone really knew what they would face.

The term 'hero' is bandied about so much nowadays that it seems to have lost it's meaning. This team is certainly worthy of that designation. I think it is a pity that we will likely never know who they are.

V.
 
Destructive entities can get such fate. Nuclear preferances, more damaging arms & tools, intiating & manipulating fights for vesting interests, egoistic superiority complexes, creating destructive tools, creating disharmony & imbalances(nature imbalance etc.)or otherse odd, can also be considered as destructing entities & tools, unless "nature balances itself" is on way due to previous excesses/odds.

English to Hindi translation, for clarity:

विनाशकारी संस्थाओं जैसे भाग्य मिल सकती है. परमाणु preferances, और अधिक हानिकारक हथियार और उपकरण, intiating और हितों, घमंडी श्रेष्ठता परिसरों निहित, विनाशकारी उपकरण बनाने, असाम्यता और असंतुलन बनाने के लिए संघर्ष करता है जोड़ तोड़ (प्रकृति असंतुलन आदि) या विषम otherse भी destructing संस्थाओं एवं उपकरण के रूप में माना जा सकता, जब तक "प्रकृति ही शेष 'के कारण पिछले ज्यादतियों / बाधाओं के लिए अपने रास्ते पर है.

Just in case anyone was wondering what his post was alluding to.

Hope that helps.

V.
 
English to Hindi translation, for clarity:

विनाशकारी संस्थाओं जैसे भाग्य मिल सकती है. परमाणु preferances, और अधिक हानिकारक हथियार और उपकरण, intiating और हितों, घमंडी श्रेष्ठता परिसरों निहित, विनाशकारी उपकरण बनाने, असाम्यता और असंतुलन बनाने के लिए संघर्ष करता है जोड़ तोड़ (प्रकृति असंतुलन आदि) या विषम otherse भी destructing संस्थाओं एवं उपकरण के रूप में माना जा सकता, जब तक "प्रकृति ही शेष 'के कारण पिछले ज्यादतियों / बाधाओं के लिए अपने रास्ते पर है.

Just in case anyone was wondering what his post was alluding to.

Hope that helps.

V.

It is not correct.
 
Given who he was, I personally wouldn't be surprised if the other people there threw themselves in front of him to protect him. If someone tried to assassinate Obama, but took out a USSS agent instead, would that mean Obama was using human shields?
 
Sorry Kumar. But that is the closest that one can get to what you are trying to say. You translated from Hindi to English for your post and a re-translation of that is bound to be a little bit "off" from the original that you intended.
Anyhoo, we have a rough idea of what you are trying to say, now tell us how this is related to the death of Osama. You are touting the back to nature ideal that the elite in India love and strangely enough is fuelled by new age followers in the west. Technology like everything else can be used for good and bad, commercial enterprises too have both sides. The thing is we have a choice.
Now, how is this related to the topic at hand?
 
And yet you don't trust the thousands of scientists who support the official story of 9/11.
Would you trust a thousand American scientists telling what my shoe size probably is, who have not actually seen and measured my shoes?

If evidence does not exist, then scientific truths don´t exist either, just a neutral list of possibilities and probabilities. The problem is that some refuse to acknowledge this, and insist that the truth is known, and some of the possible alternatives are certainly true and some of the possible alternatives are certainly not true, even in the absence of evidence that would prove these assertions. That is not a skeptical standpoint.
 
Last edited:
Would you trust a thousand American scientists telling what my shoe size probably is, who have not actually seen and measured my shoes?

If evidence does not exist, then scientific truths don´t exist either, just a neutral list of possibilities and probabilities. The problem is that some refuse to acknowledge this, and insist that the truth is known, and some of the possible alternatives are certainly true and some of the possible alternatives are certainly not true, even in the absence of evidence that would prove these assertions. That is not a skeptical standpoint.

Bolding mine.

Even if there is zero scientific evidence, that does not mean that all possibilities are neutral; if by neutral you mean the same, or average.

For instance, I know your shoe size could be around 10 or so, but it could not be around 100.
 
Would you trust a thousand American scientists telling what my shoe size probably is, who have not actually seen and measured my shoes?

*ahem*

Tower Wreckage Reveals Clues


JERSEY CITY, New Jersey -- In a scrap yard across the Hudson River from the fallen twin towers, engineering professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl pores over the 1,500 tons of twisted, charred steel arriving here each day from the remains of the World Trade Center like an archaeologist, like a coroner.

The University of California at Berkeley professor unveiled new details about the skyscrapers' cause of death Friday, displaying for the first time beams hit by one of the jets that ultimately brought down the towers, as well as scraps from the plane itself.

Astaneh-Asl -- who has had access to 40,000 tons of scrap -- said his findings confirm the widely held theory about the buildings' demise: that the impact of the planes did relatively little damage to the Towers. Rather, it was 1,000-plus-degree heat from the burning jet fuel that caused key outer beams to buckle, and floor after floor to fall.

If structural engineering professor opened your closet, found 40,000 tons of shoes and told us you're a size five and a half, yes we would believe him. But to claim or imply that the WTC wreckage was not examined is simply not true.

There's a whole forum full of information on 9/11 here. If you have questions, there's nothing stopping you from asking.
 
Last edited:
His parents.

Got anymore of those?

thaiboxerken

The Republicans.

I don't know for sure but following quote tell otherwise:-

After leaving college in 1979, bin Laden arrived to Pakistan and joined Abdullah Azzam to take part in the Soviet war in Afghanistan.[60][61] From 1979 through 1989 under U.S. Presidents Carter and Reagan, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) provided financial aid and weapons to Osama's Islamic Jihad Mujahideen through Operation Cyclone[62] and the Reagan Doctrine. Bin Laden met and built relations with Hamid Gul, who was a three star general in the Pakistani army and head of its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. Although the United States provided the money and weapons, the training of militant groups was entirely done by the Pakistani Armed Forces and the ISI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
 
Sorry Kumar. But that is the closest that one can get to what you are trying to say. You translated from Hindi to English for your post and a re-translation of that is bound to be a little bit "off" from the original that you intended.
Anyhoo, we have a rough idea of what you are trying to say, now tell us how this is related to the death of Osama. You are touting the back to nature ideal that the elite in India love and strangely enough is fuelled by new age followers in the west. Technology like everything else can be used for good and bad, commercial enterprises too have both sides. The thing is we have a choice.
Now, how is this related to the topic at hand?

It can be better to be bit unclear & indirect enabling people to use more brain & remember.

I was just trying to understand, on first hand:-

Why crimanals, terrorists, devils etc. take birth & exist? Is it manmade or natural?
 
I'm not aware NASA has been exposed lying to the American public. They may have been ordered to stop talking about global warming and the Big Bang, but they never resorted to lying when that happened.

You really need to find a palate with narrower brushes. If our government were that cohesive we be in big trouble.

What's NASA got to do with killing bin Laden?

Are you even familiar with the discussion you're commenting on? Nobody is denying that some of the details surrounding the event are probably not 100% accurate, and I'm sure most would agree that there are many more details to come. But there's a world of difference between inaccuracies in the details, and the entirety of the story being a hoax.

You appear to be engaging in the false dichotomy very common among conspiracy theorists: You either believe that it's all a cover-up, a hoax, false flag, etc., or you believe everything the government tells you.


Where did I say the story was a hoax?

Check your facts before blindly sucking on the “conspiracy theorist” soother.

What false claims, the part where they admitted some early accounts were wrong?

HOW DARE THEY ADMIT THE TRUTH!

Oh and you left out some good parts. Well I think they are good. It's not them admitting they made a mistake and correcting it but it's significant.



So they admitted they released incorrect info, then cleared it up. Regretible but not really unusual. Even Liberals get things wrong and then issue corrections.

You mention the fact that OBL was uinarmed when shot, why not also mention that they safely secured and protected non combatants during the raid. Something that would be extremely dangerous to the operators in the middle of a firefight.

You are assuming the latest, corrected narrative is true. Why?

In propaganda craft, the first narrative is the one that sticks in the public mind, regardless of later "corrections". Remember what happened to Jessica Lynch (another "heroic" propaganda operation in which Seal Team six were also involved)?

Is Al Queda part of the hoax? Did they issue proclamations of revenge to just go with it? How about the entire armed forces squadron that had to be part of the conspiracy? Do you think a conspiracy this big could be hoaxed? That is about as absurd as saying the moon landing was faked.

Where did I say anythig about a hoax? All I did was suggest that a default position of believing a governing structure that has repeatedly lied is irrational.

Thus people unquestionably and enthusiastically reguritated the reassuring Hollywood-style fantasy of an armed bin Laden using his wife as a human shield.

Babbling about the Moon Landing is as relevant to the topic under discussion as Elvis Presley.


Current news brief: Woman killed in crossfire, not as a shield. Second woman shot in leg, not killed, had "rushed" the Seals and was in the same room as Bin Laden. Sounds like they could have taken Bin Laden alive and either didn't intend to or were acting too quickly and assumed Bin Laden was going for, or had a weapon. I think the latter is a reasonable scenario.

Just like your average, grubby, homeland police execution, then.



'Judge Napolitano Asks 'Who Will Obama Illegally Kill Next?'':

 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom