Garb
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,005
His logic is that because he is from another country, and is independant, his opinion must be true.
The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts
- Thread starter mjd1982
- Start date
His logic is that because he is from another country, and is independant, his opinion must be true.
it is sad, but funny. About 7 months ago, on the smasher blog I posed a question to a truther, it went like this...
"If there were warnings, which we are in agreement there were, what specifically should the govt had done, in order to PREVENT 9/11, given that the legitimate threats that led to legitimate warnings were in amongst a plethora of false ones?
You know what his insane reply was...
SHUT DOWN THE AIRLINES/AIRPORTS!!
I asked, for how long?
He said, FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES!
Well I almost wrote out my laughter at the insanity of this reply.
TAM
"If there were warnings, which we are in agreement there were, what specifically should the govt had done, in order to PREVENT 9/11, given that the legitimate threats that led to legitimate warnings were in amongst a plethora of false ones?
You know what his insane reply was...
SHUT DOWN THE AIRLINES/AIRPORTS!!
I asked, for how long?
He said, FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES!
Well I almost wrote out my laughter at the insanity of this reply.
TAM
and in so doing he is calling into question the integrity and honesty of NIST/FEMA/ASCE, which in total has members numbering in the thousands...but as they are american and govt affiliated, they are all accomplices in the murder of 3000 people, according to the truthers...right?
TAM
Hi mjd1982, welcome to the forum.
I'm with Dr Adequate, it seems like you're arguing both MIHOP and LIHOP theories. You talk about the ignored warnings(Lihop) and then jump into controlled demolition of WTC7 and the BBC being "in on it"(Mihop). That's a fairly unique stance..
So, is it safe to say that your stance is the 4 flights were hijacked, with 3 of them hitting their targets, 2 of which were the Twin Towers, which collapsed because of damage/fire ....?
If that's the case, what possible motive is there to destroy WTC7 ? For the fun of it? Hubris?
I'm with Dr Adequate, it seems like you're arguing both MIHOP and LIHOP theories. You talk about the ignored warnings(Lihop) and then jump into controlled demolition of WTC7 and the BBC being "in on it"(Mihop). That's a fairly unique stance..
So, is it safe to say that your stance is the 4 flights were hijacked, with 3 of them hitting their targets, 2 of which were the Twin Towers, which collapsed because of damage/fire ....?
If that's the case, what possible motive is there to destroy WTC7 ? For the fun of it? Hubris?
juryjone
Refusing to be confused by facts
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2002
- Messages
- 879
I certainly wouldn't want to take on trying to refute all the points in the OP, because:
1) I'm not qualified;
2) They have all been answered a number of times on this forum.
This follows the pattern of troofers who join.
1) They come in and don't bother reading threads or doing basic research as to whether their points have been refuted.
2) In their opening posts they vomit out EVERYTHING that they find even remotely relevant to the conclusion they've come to.
3) They call everyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion stupid or deluded.
mjd1982, please, in the interests of clarity and furthering the discussion, pick one of the points you made in your OP and let us discuss that. Please state clearly and succinctly what that point is, and detail the evidence for that point. If you need to use urls, post them with spaces in place of the periods and someone will repost them correctly.
What you have done is the equivalent of coming in here, throwing a Bible on the table and saying "Refute that, you imbeciles." Your OP was counterproductive in the extreme.
1) I'm not qualified;
2) They have all been answered a number of times on this forum.
This follows the pattern of troofers who join.
1) They come in and don't bother reading threads or doing basic research as to whether their points have been refuted.
2) In their opening posts they vomit out EVERYTHING that they find even remotely relevant to the conclusion they've come to.
3) They call everyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion stupid or deluded.
mjd1982, please, in the interests of clarity and furthering the discussion, pick one of the points you made in your OP and let us discuss that. Please state clearly and succinctly what that point is, and detail the evidence for that point. If you need to use urls, post them with spaces in place of the periods and someone will repost them correctly.
What you have done is the equivalent of coming in here, throwing a Bible on the table and saying "Refute that, you imbeciles." Your OP was counterproductive in the extreme.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
QFE
Big posters always have to go out! Bye
Because it is true. on the debunk stuff, so true.
Garb
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,005
To get rid of evidence pinning the blame on them.
I personally would prefer a paper shredder
I agree, demolishing the evidence itself would be exponentially safer, cheaper, and easier than destroying the entire building. But, in any case, how does demolishing a building make the evidence disappear? If anything the evidence would rain down onto the streets below.....
ETA: But, what evidence are we talking about? The evidence of all the warnings, which were ignored(they must not have done a very good job).....or the evidence of WTC7s demolition to get rid of the evidence of WTC7s demolition..
Last edited:
I'm all for it, as long as "independent" means "paid for from sources of revenue other than my (U.S.) taxes." (Because, if its funding comes from the U.S. government, it's not independent.) Do you agree?
Let's cut to the chase. Please answer the following questions about the investigation you're calling for.
1. Under what jurisdiction should the investigation derive the legal powers (such as subpoenaing witnesses and obtaining access to highly classified information) it would need for conducting an effective investigation? A Federal special prosecutor? A Federal Grand Jury? The Office of the U.S. Attorney General? U.S. Military police? An international war crimes tribunal?
2. Who should lead the investigation? A Federal judge? A Special Prosecutor? The U.N. Secretary General? You?
3. Who should participate in, and provide manpower and technical consultation for, the investigation? The FBI? The CIA? Universities? Local police forces? Private investigators? Investigative news reporters?
4. If the investigation reveals evidence of crimes, who should have responsibility for charging and prosecuting the accused? Under what court system?
5. If the evidence against an accused person derives from classified sources as it likely would, or is itself classified, how do you guarantee the accused the right to a fair trial without compromising national security?
6. Who should decide the answers to the above questions, under what authority?
Unless you can answer all of these questions, or at least 1, 2, 3, and 6, I put it to you that your calls for an investigation are useless and irrelevant, and would be so even if you were right about your accusations.
All of the organizations in the U.S. with the authority and capability to carry out an investigation have already done so, the largest one in history. For that very reason, they're the ones you now think must be in on the conspiracy.
The idea of a foreign or international investigation -- of the detailed inner workings of the U.S. intelligence services, is absurd. Exposing a LIHOP conspiracy of the type you're accusing would require establishing exactly who knew exactly what, when, and from what sources. Revealing that information to international investigators would be essentially dismantling the entire U.S. intelligence network at a time when it's needed more than ever.
You have two other options. One is to rely on partisanship within U.S. government offices, to have another party (perhaps a new "third" party, if you can get one voted into office) supervise the investigation of the previous officeholders. The question is, would that satisfy you? If such an investigation resulted in no criminal charges (or only the usual secondary ones, obstruction of justice and so forth resulting from issues arising from the process of the investigation itself) would that satisfy you? Or would you then claim that the latest investigators have been co-opted or deceived by the same nefarious forces that the original investigation failed to expose?
The other is to violently overthrow the U.S. Government, either by conquest or internal revolution, and set up your own guillotine and your own Revolutionary Court to feed it. That way you can guarantee that someone will be found guilty, whether anyone is actually guilty or not. Do you think you've provided sufficient cause for such an action? I don't think so, not even anywhere remotely close. Consequently, if you tried it, I (among many many others) would take up arms to defend my country against you.
Respectfully,
Myriad
nicepants
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,723
Excellent points, Myriad. I've not met a single truther yet who can tell me who should be paying for or conducting this new investigation that they all seem to want so badly.
CurtC
Illuminator
It's too broad for one thread. You're not going to get a satisfactory dive into the evidence on four topics like that in one thread. Trust us, it just doesn't work.
How about this - we'll forget about your clumsy first entrance to the forum, and you can just start a new thread for each topic. That way, we can stay focused. Would you like me to start those threads and simply invite you in? I'd be happy to.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
When did the "Truth Movement" come to a conclusion? How did I miss that?
Last I heard they were just asking questions.
CurtC
Illuminator
Got any evidence, besides "common knowledge"? I dislike the man's legacy intensely, but I've looked and have seen nothing reliable about cross-dressing. The fact that Oliver Stone put it in JFK also makes me think it isn't true.
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
Yes but it was also in the movie The Naked Gun. That iced it for me...
These aren't really very specific "warnings." In fact, if you consider the level of noise in intelligence analysis, it isn't very surprising that such information was not put together into predicting the 9/11 attacks.
It is tempting to attribute a nearly magical level of ability to US intelligence services because one does not understand their precise workings, but that doesn't reflect reality very well. There's some very bright men and women working for the US intelligence agencies, but they are not super humans. The analysts there are limited by their ability to interpret vague information, and they cannot conjure good intel up out of nothing.
There's a big difference between "Al Qaeda is still threatening to kill us all sometime somewhere somehow" and "Al Qaeda operatives named (names) are going to (plan) on (date) at (time) in (locations)."
You're also applying a lot of post hoc analysis. Just because a series of events look significant once an event has already happened does not mean they conveyed the same meaning at the time.