Chinahand Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 It wasn't Muslims who trained their cameras on the World Trade Center Towers prior to the first aircraft impact, who danced and celebrated with high fives prior to the second impact as most onlookers still believed it had been a terrible accident rather than terrorism, and who were caught with foreign passports, $4,700 in cash hidden in a sock, maps highlighting certain places in the city, and a van that tested positive for traces of explosives; it was ...................... http://www.takeourworldback.com/itwasntmuslims.htm Erm totally unconvinced. The claim the cameras were prepared prior is very very dubious and contradicts the testimony of the lady who called the police who says she saw the van park after the attacks. No traces of explosives were found. For more on short selling look at this and especially this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Surely you don't want to prove that it isn't a conspiracy, you want to prove that it is? Yes, it is often impossible to prove a negative, e.g. prove that God doesn't exist, prove that there are no Bigfoots (bigfeet?) living the forests of North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Conspiracy theories appeal to those whose characteristics include credulity, paranoia, and low intelligence... You simply cannot generalise like that...ask Woodward and Bernstein, who uncovered Watergate which led to the downfall of a president and the jailing of many. Do you really not understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy? S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Conspiracy theories appeal to those whose characteristics include credulity, paranoia, and low intelligence. That can't be right, otherwise we'd have witnessed you stomping around yelling '911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB' through a megaphone in Strand Street by now. Thank you for your contribution, Ringwraith. Now, concentrate on your homework, there's a good lad. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Conspiracy theories appeal to those whose characteristics include credulity, paranoia, and low intelligence... You simply cannot generalise like that...ask Woodward and Bernstein, who uncovered Watergate which led to the downfall of a president and the jailing of many. Do you really not understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy? S He's had this problem before: link I'm not sure what to make of this. It seems to be mixing conspiracies up with conspiracy theories. All of your list outlines conspiracies - but only one or two of them involve conspiracy theories uncovering the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Rather than recognising that governments lie, create spin, or cover-up stuff, I think the fact that government's benefit from occurrences like 9/11 makes people too quick to think they orchestrate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theman Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 "DUDE'S" IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL. what does oil do to a Country's economy? there's been loads of bullshit stired up 2 starts war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 i see plenty of facts jim..facts like the unusual amount of financial activity in associated shares etc. Even if there was a significant amount of unusual trading, which there wasn't, none of that has been linked with the Government. Some who knew about the attacks may have dabbled, the attacks were planned for some time. Why does that suggest government involvement? engineering evidence which is without doubt given by experts in their field.the laws of physics being broken. video footage that clearly disputes official versions etc.. and a whole plethora of circumstancial evidence .. None of this is cut and dry, none of this suggests government involvement. You've got discrepencies in a very chaotic event, you've got unknowns, you've not got evidence. fuck off slim .. taring me in with the i believe camp. i said we have not heard the whole truth about the day as a whole .. and we havent. i am not going back thru all those links in the first 5 pages for all the names and companies involved in the extrordinarily large transactions that took place just because you cannot be arsed to do it yourself or the world reknowed engineers names either but i googled them whilst reading their statements and they are there to be counted .. your there wasnt comment just doesnt convince me sorry back it up or i will believe the reports i saw with my own eyes from i believe uninpeachable sources .. and i especially do not think a plane went down in that field.. .. theres a miriad of reason the americans would cover up some proceedings of that day.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 i see plenty of facts jim.. They aren't 'facts' though. They are inferences, non-sequiturs, suppositions, rumours, things which are just plain wrong and downright lies. Woodward and Bernstein had cast iron proof. Do you really think that an enterprising journalist who wanted to make a name for themselves nowadays wouldn't be able to get the same sort of incontrovertible proof for this massive conspiracy? i am not trying to convince you or anyone else about a government conspiracy to down the towers .. what i am saying is for other events that day there has been coverups .. many reasons are possible why .. but the full truth of the day and all associated events is still to come .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 i see plenty of facts jim.. facts like the unusual amount of financial activity in associated shares etc. engineering evidence which is without doubt given by experts in their field. the laws of physics being broken. video footage that clearly disputes official versions etc.. Chinahand sighs - The trouble is Manxman2 alot of what you are saying is very disputed. Shortly after 911 newspapers reported that the amount of short selling in Sept 01 vrs Sept 00 was different - they speculated that terrorists had manipulated the stock exchange to profit from the market drops the attacks would create. These old stories are still going around the internet feeding the conspiracy theorists. But these reports ignored that 00 was at the top of the tech boom - when many investors thought the sky was the limit; and hence few investers were betting it would fall and so were selling short - while in 01 the tech boom had turned to bust and lots of people were betting on further falls - hence lots of people were selling short. The disadvantage for terrorists is that selling sort requires a paper trail - you have to borrow the shares from someone else. Now the Feds went away and examined the short selling records - various insurance companies (some of the biggest short sellers if I remember correctly were German comanies) had taken up short positions in early September and made a huge profit from doing this, but they were legitimate businesses. As far as I'm aware there is no reliable evidence that there were any unusual stock trades connected with 911 - oh and 911 truth isn't reliable evidence, and alot of evidence that this has been investigated and found baseless. I was studying an MBA over the period of 911 and followed the financial side of the story reasonably extensively - its a myth that has been well and trully busted - but the conspiracists aren't interested in the reports that it was busted and still peddle the old stories which weren't fully fact checked or investigated - and of course they answer that the Fed is part of the conspiracy, as are the German traders who's accounts have been published etc. The same is very very much the case in your comments about engineering experts and laws of physics being broken - videos of collapses don't cover the full period of collapse etc etc. The main "expert" spouting about thermite is very much discredited: his analysis isn't much different from saying dynamite contains carbon, I've found carbon in the samples therefore its dynamite - lots of other things contain carbon. The department he worked for disassociated itself from his work, he then took early retirement and is now on the speech circuit. The trouble with all this sort of thing is that it makes the conspiracy ever larger - the journalists who initially published the erroneous stories: heros. Those who fact check and do the clarifications - part of the conspiracy (even when they are the same journalist!). The scientists who discredit sloppy science - conspirators attacking the "good" work trying to get the "truth" told. I find the whole thing totally unconvincing. What is amazing is that the conspiracy theorists now say that the debunking of the conpiracy is part of the conspiracy, and the more stupid claims of the conpiracy theory are also part of the conspiracy - ie the conspiracists deliberately spread stupid stories like the pentagon being attacked by a missile to distract people from the real conpiracy. People obbsess about WTC7 - now try and fit in WTC7 to a meaningful explanation of what the conspiracy was trying to achieve - I've challenged people repeatedly to do this, but I just get bollox back. i will be clear i have no reservations about 911 being a terrorist attack i saw it with my own eyes .. those people jumping from the 100th floor .. your other post as i have only read to page 5 about the insurance claims put it to bed for me .. if they couldnt wriggle out of paying no-one will ever prove the government were complicite in the days proceedings .. what i maintain is the big picture of the day is tainted .. too many thinfgs about other events need clarification for me .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I totally agree with you Manxman2 there are lots of things we'll never know about that day. In the time immediately after the attacks there was just such a huge demand for information, plus a febrile atmosphere - alot of speculation, heresay and rumour was printed or put out. Many of these stories haven't been adequately followed up. Some have - the links I found above about the Israeli's dancing on the van where the eyewitness who called the police debunks some of the more sensationalist parts of earlier reports - but many remain loose ends - plus there is now an active industry re:loose change and the talk show pundits obscuring facts to keep them employed. But that lack of information and the confusing information about the day doesn't in my mind make for anything much, certainly not a conspiracy. I'm not particularly convinced that any great experts have said anything to make me think their experience deserves special weight that there was a conspiracy - I've read quite alot and for every so called conspiracy theorist there's an equally qualified debunker. And I am convinced that the debunker's use of sources and evidence is on the main far far better than the conspiracy theorist's. I have great (some would say over trustful) respect of academic discourse - researchers with their interviews and questionaires and surveys have found out about all sorts of confidential information as time has gone on - nuclear secrets, spy rings, corporate scandals, genocides. People want to explain their point of view, justify. Heck even Bin Laden and Dick Cheney give interviews! I expect time will continue to shed light on 911 - academics rely on evidence and fact checking - the standard of press reporting was poor on the day - rushing to get information out, and now many people have lots invested in believing the half truths and exagerations which have grown up. The trouble is no matter what the evidence shows many people will see it as just more evidence of the power of the conspiracy. I'm fascinated by that mind set - creationists are similar - I can't believe the conspiracy is that powerful and find stories of Masons and Cabals laughable - but its all in this thread if you can be bothered to wade through it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Regerdless of whether the towers were rigged with explosives, or whether a plane actually hit the towers, or whatever else you want to believe..... have a look at the events leading up to 9/11. Here, Mike Ruppert puts forward his evidence about pre 9/11 just as a courtroom would expect. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Conspiracy theories appeal to those whose characteristics include credulity, paranoia, and low intelligence... You simply cannot generalise like that...ask Woodward and Bernstein, who uncovered Watergate which led to the downfall of a president and the jailing of many. Do you really not understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy? S He's had this problem before: link Semantics. With regard to this thread, 'conspiracy theory' is your phrase, not mine. This thread is actually entitled 'The Truth Behind 9/11' and not 'conspiracy theories'. It is only people like you that have changed the argument in this thread to one of conspiracy vs non conspiracy i.e. 'tin hatters' vs 'normal people'...because it suits you to link other wild theories in other events, to back up your unevidenced claim (based on your analysis for what that is worth in the real scale and scheme of things) that there was no US involvement in this particular event. The only differences between a conspiracy and non conspiracy theory in many cases has often been time and evidence. With not everything having being investigated properly (in the opinion of many), there are far too many unanswered questions for you to take such a stringent hard line on whether there was any degree of US involvement in 911. Unevidenced - you simply cannot know, because not all the available evidence is there and been looked into for you to see. I seem to remember a similar level of argument from you Chinahand regarding my claims of imaginary money in the financial system and the economies of the world. You argued just as convincingly against that too - and - we are where we are. My argument is that in the case of 911 - no one knows everything - so keep to the known facts, but remember there are also unknowns, and please steer clear of trying to make everyone who still has an open mind over 911 and potential US involvement look like some sort of nut case - by repeatedly associating their beliefs and understandings over 911 with other unrelated events/conspiracies etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 My argument is that in the case of 911 - no one knows everything - so keep to the known facts, but remember there are also unknowns, and please steer clear of trying to make everyone who still has an open mind over 911 and potential US involvement look like some sort of nut case - by repeatedly associating their beliefs and understandings over 911 with other unrelated events/conspiracies etc. That's a fair point, but the people who've come under fire here as proper tin hatters don't have open minds at all, they just come along and post links to THEWHOLEWHATREALLYAPPENEDTRUTHHONESTLYITIS.COM and believe every word they find. Personally I think there's a big difference between spinning a catastrophic event for a political advantage and actually conspiring to kill thousands of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 My argument is that in the case of 911 - no one knows everything - so keep to the known facts, but remember there are also unknowns, and please steer clear of trying to make everyone who still has an open mind over 911 and potential US involvement look like some sort of nut case - by repeatedly associating their beliefs and understandings over 911 with other unrelated events/conspiracies etc. That's a fair point, but the people who've come under fire here as proper tin hatters don't have open minds at all, they just come along and post links to THEWHOLEWHATREALLYAPPENEDTRUTHHONESTLYITIS.COM and believe every word they find. Personally I think there's a big difference between spinning a catastrophic event for a political advantage and actually conspiring to kill thousands of people. we saw the blair government conspire too kill thousands of people in iraq .. weapons of mass destruction was the lie .. remember governments openly lie to their populaces then conspire to cover it up .. even to the point of murdering people as in dr kelly. .. people like you slim who attack the poster as your main avenue of arguement are just cunts .. look now you have me doing it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.