Pictures from the 9/11 Truth March & Conference

[hotweiss]

Well I spent the last weekend in Chicago at the 9/11 Truth conference. It was a great success with a lot of great new info that tried to expose the crimes of the "elite" - particularly 9/11. I got to meet Alex Jones, Steven Jones and the Loose Change guys. Great people fighting for a great cause. The conference was an eye opener for me, as I still think that the CIA used Bin Laden to recruit the terrorists. If you have the time you should go to the LA conference which will be premiering Alex's new movie this June:

http://69.93.122.250/%7Eamerican/

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/2386/pict41686eo.jpg

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1439/pict41937uj.jpg

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/2460/img19526du.jpg
Alex Jones

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3862/img1956small4aq.jpg
Professor Jones

[xKagex]

Cool.

Is that Tim Robbins in the second pic? Looks a lot like him if it isn't.

[Emancipated]

Cool.

Is that Tim Robbins in the second pic? Looks a lot like him if it isn't.


Tim Robbins is 6'5. I think that guy's height is just about that.

[poedua]

Well I spent the last weekend in Chicago at the 9/11 Truth conference. It was a great success with a lot of great new info that tried to expose the crimes of the "elite" - particularly 9/11. I got to meet Alex Jones, Steven Jones and the Loose Change guys. Great people fighting for a great cause. The conference was an eye opener for me, as I still think that the CIA used Bin Laden to recruit the terrorists. If you have the time you should go to the LA conference which will be premiering Alex's new movie this June:

http://69.93.122.250/%7Eamerican/

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/2386/pict41686eo.jpg

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1439/pict41937uj.jpg

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/2460/img19526du.jpg
Alex Jones

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3862/img1956small4aq.jpg
Professor Jones

They're charging $75 US for ticket just to get in...I think that speaks for itself.

Does the term " snake oil " ring a bell ?

[ephemera]

Are these the same people that WHERE into UFO's and Bigfoot?

[FastFokker]

They're charging $75 US for ticket just to get in...I think that speaks for itself.Could do a RFD group buy, and get them for $34.50 each (if 5 or more people buy in). :cheesygri

Seems everything costs money these days.. I wanted to go to the NDP Convention that was held just recently in Nova Scotia, until I found out it was going to cost me something like $150 just to get in the door. What a crock!

[hotweiss]

Could do a RFD group buy, and get them for $34.50 each (if 5 or more people buy in). :cheesygri

Seems everything costs money these days.. I wanted to go to the NDP Convention that was held just recently in Nova Scotia, until I found out it was going to cost me something like $150 just to get in the door. What a crock!

The LA conference is well worth the $75. From 8 am to like 12 midnight you'll have access to tons of seminars and workshops. Plus, you'll acquire great insight from people like this:

http://69.93.122.250/%7Eamerican/info/presenters.htm

Plus, Charlie Sheen and Keanu Reeves will be there also.

[poedua]

The LA conference is well worth the $75. From 8 am to like 12 midnight you'll have access to tons of seminars and workshops.

Why waste one's time getting the same info from the internet for " free " - when someone can fly down from Canada to LA, book a 2 night stay at a hotel and get in for $75 to get the exact same info.

It seems like quite the bargain - at twice the price. !

Plus, Charlie Sheen and Keanu Reeves will be there also.

Charlie Sheen and Keanu Reeves - that pretty much speaks for itself IMO.

[Cough]

Wow this is so sad. >:( I guess you can get people to protest anything these days. Pity the immigration people didnt know what you were going into the US for :twisted: And $75 for the privilege of going to b/s seminars and conferences. I guess an education is worth any price!. And what a list of alumni - I cant wait to do some star fVcking.

[poedua]

Wow this is so sad. >:( I guess you can get people to protest anything these days. Pity the immigration people didnt know what you were going into the US for :twisted: And $75 for the privilege of going to b/s seminars and conferences. I guess an education is worth any price!. And what a list of alumni - I cant wait to do some star fVcking.

I wonder how much admission they charge for UFO and Star Trek conventions ? :)

[trolldealhunter]

Artist: Immortal Technique f/ Mos Def
Album: Bin Laden 12"
Song: Bin Laden

Lyrics :

[Mos Def - talking]
Man, you hear this ******** they be talkin'
Every day, man
It's like these mother****ers is just like professional liars
YouknowwhatI'msayin? It's wild
Listen

[Hook - Mos Def]
Bin Laden didn't blow up the projects
It was you, nigga
Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)--[Jadakiss]
Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)--[Jadakiss]
Tell the truth, nigga

Bin Laden didn't blow up the projects
It was you, nigga
Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)--[Jadakiss]
Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)--[Jadakiss]

[Verse 1 - Immortal Technique]
I pledge no allegiance, nigga **** the president's speeches
I'm baptized by America and covered in leeches
The dirty water that bleaches your soul and your facial features
Drownin' you in propaganda that they spit through the speakers
And if you speak about the evil that the government does
The Patriot Act'll track you to the type of your blood
They try to frame you, and say you was tryna sell drugs
And throw a federal indictment on niggaz to show you love
This **** is run by fake Christians, fake politicians
Look at they mansions, then look at the conditions you live in
All they talk about is terrorism on television
They tell you to listen, but they don't really tell you they mission
They funded Al-Qaeda, and now they blame the Muslim religion
Even though Bin Laden, was a CIA tactician
They gave him billions of dollars, and they funded his purpose
Fahrenheit 9/11, that's just scratchin' the surface

[Hook - Mos Def]
Bin Laden didn't blow up the projects
It was you, nigga
Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)--[Jadakiss]
Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)--[Jadakiss]
Tell the truth, nigga

Bin Laden didn't blow up the projects
It was you, nigga
Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)--[Jadakiss]
Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)--[Jadakiss]

[Verse 2 - Immortal Technique]
They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's ********, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my nigga
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my nigga
You ever clock someone who talk ****, or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms
And of course Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons
We sold him that ****, after Ronald Reagan's election
Mercenary contractors fightin' a new era
Corporate military bankin' off the war on terror
They controllin' the ghetto, with the failed attack
Tryna distract the fact that they engineerin' the crack
So I'm strapped like Lee Malvo holdin' a sniper rifle
These bullets'll touch your kids, and I don't mean like Michael
Your body be sent to the morgue, stripped down and recycled
I fire on house niggaz that support you and like you
Cuz innocent people get murdered in the struggle daily
And poor people never get **** and struggle daily
This ain't no alien conspiracy theory, this **** is real
Written on the dollar underneath the Masonic seal

(I don't rap for dead presidents
I'd rather see the president dead
It's never been said but I set precedents)--[Eminem]

[Hook - Mos Def]
Bin Laden didn't blow up the projects
It was you, nigga
Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)--[Jadakiss]
Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)--[Jadakiss]
Tell the truth, nigga

Bin Laden didn't blow up the projects
It was you, nigga
Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)--[Jadakiss]
Tell the truth, nigga
(Bush knocked down the towers)--[Jadakiss]

(Shady Records was 80 seconds away from the towers
Some cowards ****ed with the wrong building, they meant to hit ours)-- [Eminem]

[Emancipated]

Charlie Sheen and Keanu Reeves - that pretty much speaks for itself IMO.

Ahahaha. :D

That didn't do well for credibility. I guess if you're bored, you can stare at Keanu's good looks (for those inclined) :-0

[puff_daddy_58_99]

What a bunch of communists. Look, take your head out of your backside and stop thinking that the US is evil. They didn't plan any attacks, George Bush isn't friends with Osama, and there isn't some grand conspiracy to steal oil.

They should all get real jobs and focus on supporting the government, not draging it through the mud for their own personal agendas.

[Cough]

Well said puff daddy :arrowu:

[xKagex]

The quest for truth is admirable.

[poedua]

The quest for truth is admirable.

...not to mention expensive and downright painful ( i.e Sheen and Reeves ) :)

[Peckerwood]

What a bunch of communists. Look, take your head out of your backside and stop thinking that the US is evil. They didn't plan any attacks, George Bush isn't friends with Osama, and there isn't some grand conspiracy to steal oil.

They should all get real jobs and focus on supporting the government, not draging it through the mud for their own personal agendas.
Watch what happens when I replace some key words in your post with some pre WW2 patriot jargon, thereby simulating someone from Germany right after the ReichStag Fire:
What a bunch of communists. Look, take your head out of your backside and stop thinking that the Nazis are evil. They didn't plan the ReichStag Fire, Adolf Hitler isn't friends with the agitators, and there isn't some grand conspiracy to take over Europe.

They should all get real jobs and focus on supporting the Nazi government, not dragging it through the mud for their own personal agendas.

I am not saying Bush is Hitler...I am just showing the parallels of your rhetoric with a German Patriot from pre WW2 Germany. The poeple of that time were just as trusting in their own government, and Nazi sympathizers were everywhere, including those in other countries that saw Germany at the time as a beacon of truth and power that could save the rest of the world from Communists etc.

How much has really changed?

Add to this the business links that Prescott Bush had with the key players from that time that originally got Hitler into power in Germany, and one can see some interesting things procreating themselves further on down the line

[hotweiss]

Ahahaha. :D

That didn't do well for credibility. I guess if you're bored, you can stare at Keanu's good looks (for those inclined) :-0

They are being used to mobilize the masses. Apparently proof provided by professors, foreign dignitaries and engineers is not enough, they need actors to penetrate the masses.

[poedua]

They are being used to mobilize the masses. Apparently proof provided by professors, foreign dignitaries and engineers is not enough, they need actors to penetrate the masses.

" they need actors to penetrate the masses " - the credibility of the evidence and those putting it foward evidence should speak for itself IMO

Anytime you need actors validate a scientific / polticial debate such as a 9/11 allegation ...your already behind the 8 ball IMO.

[FastFokker]

Well the "conspiracist" numbers since just after 9/11 to date, are steadily increasing.. more and more people are questioning 9/11 at some level and to some extent.

Just because you wonder about 9/11, doesn't mean you think Bush directly paid cash out to the hijackers to do the dirty deed. But in the years prior to 9/11 and then the few years since 9/11, a lot of things just don't totally make sense or smell right.

People have lost faith in their government, and it's probably for good reason. I mean it would be a lot easier to just follow along in blind patriotism, that's for sure.

[hotweiss]

What a bunch of communists. Look, take your head out of your backside and stop thinking that the US is evil. They didn't plan any attacks, George Bush isn't friends with Osama, and there isn't some grand conspiracy to steal oil.

They should all get real jobs and focus on supporting the government, not draging it through the mud for their own personal agendas.

What are you talking about? The Bin Ladens and Bushs have been business partners for the longest of time. Here's something to open your eyes:

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/trailer/AMERICApromoV1_H264.mov

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1103725146236500421

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7347491944410924647

[hagbard]

What a bunch of communists. Look, take your head out of your backside and stop thinking that the US is evil. They didn't plan any attacks, George Bush isn't friends with Osama, and there isn't some grand conspiracy to steal oil.

They should all get real jobs and focus on supporting the government, not draging it through the mud for their own personal agendas.

If you're looking for commies, you need look no further than Bush's advisors.

[pfdude]

What a bunch of communists. Look, take your head out of your backside and stop thinking that the US is evil. They didn't plan any attacks, George Bush isn't friends with Osama, and there isn't some grand conspiracy to steal oil.

Proof? What's your source? :D Or did Bush and co. pay you to say that?

[poedua]

Proof? What's your source? :D Or did Bush and co. pay you to say that?

Bush & co. are accused of being guilty of planning 9/11 by conspiracists...and the accusers want to shift the burden of proof so that until Bush & co. are able to provide some proof of their innocence - " Proof? What's your source? "- they are deemed to be guilty by conspiracists.

That's not a valid argument - a lack of proof of Bush and Co's innocence cannot be offered as a proof of guilt - it's fallacious reasoning ( appeal to ignorance ). The burden of proof is always on the accuser...i.e innocent until proven guilty.

You simply can't conclude something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false.

[hotweiss]

Correction Sheen and Keanu won't be at the conference in LA, lol.

[king_george]

Well I spent the last weekend in Chicago at the 9/11 Truth conference. It was a great success with a lot of great new info that tried to expose the crimes of the "elite" - particularly 9/11. I got to meet Alex Jones, Steven Jones and the Loose Change guys. Great people fighting for a great cause. The conference was an eye opener for me, as I still think that the CIA used Bin Laden to recruit the terrorists. If you have the time you should go to the LA conference which will be premiering Alex's new movie this June:



Here's a question for the CT whackjobs:

If the Bush neo-con, globalist-jewish-illuminati cartel is so all-powerful and untouchable by the law, why are these guys still alive?

oops another:

Can the CTer's actually present a case rather than continually asking Bush & Co to prove their innocence and to not go around hollering "EXPLAIN THIS -EXPLAIN THAT!!!?

[FastFokker]

Here's a question for the CT whackjobs:

If the Bush neo-con, globalist-jewish-illuminati cartel is so all-powerful and untouchable by the law, why are these guys still alive?

oops another:

Can the CTer's actually present a case rather than continually asking Bush & Co to prove their innocence and to not go around hollering "EXPLAIN THIS -EXPLAIN THAT!!!?Sounds like you're just trying to sling mud.. if you're interested in reading and reviewing some theories and much detailed background information, the data is out there. Start googling.

Asking a question, with the preface "Here's a question for the CT whackjobs", you aren't going to get a positive response as you've already insulted anyone who would be willing to take the time and effort to share their point of view and beliefs.

Just because you don't believe something and haven't bothered to take the time to review FACTS, doesn't mean everyone else is a CT whackjob and you're the sane person because you trust what Fox News tells you.

[pfdude]

Bush & co. are accused of being guilty of planning 9/11 by conspiracists...and the accusers want to shift the burden of proof so that until Bush & co. are able to provide some proof of their innocence - " Proof? What's your source? "- they are deemed to be guilty by conspiracists.

That's not a valid argument - a lack of proof of Bush and Co's innocence cannot be offered as a proof of guilt - it's fallacious reasoning ( appeal to ignorance ). The burden of proof is always on the accuser...i.e innocent until proven guilty.

You simply can't conclude something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false.

The same can go both ways as there's also no proof that they didn't do it.

I for one am not convinced of whodunit (or better yet, planned the whole thing) yet. I am, however, convinced that there is a lack of proof available to the public. If there is nothing to hide, then why won't the US govt release the videos from the other cameras around the Pentagon and nearby hotel, gas stations, etc?

[king_george]

Sounds like you're just trying to sling mud.. if you're interested in reading and reviewing some theories and much detailed background information, the data is out there. Start googling.

Asking a question, with the preface "Here's a question for the CT whackjobs", you aren't going to get a positive response as you've already insulted anyone who would be willing to take the time and effort to share their point of view and beliefs.

Just because you don't believe something and haven't bothered to take the time to review FACTS, doesn't mean everyone else is a CT whackjob and you're the sane person because you trust what Fox News tells you.

Nice evasion. Very well done.

Thank you for your comments but unfortunately for the CT whackjobs I have reviewed facts from the CT sites and found them desperately wanting. Please don't assume that because someone doesn't believe the nutters then they are a toady/closed-minded/ignorant/unable to think for themselves.

I have reviewed FACTS and they are WRONG IMHO.

I have lots more questions too like can someone name a structural engineer who was at the site and agrees with the controlled demolition? No? Too bad.

What a typical CT response. Attack the messenger rather than the message.

[FastFokker]

Nice evasion. Very well done. So you're calling me a CT whackjob? :lol: I have reviewed facts from the CT sites and found them desperately wanting. Please don't assume that because someone doesn't believe the nutters then they are a toady/closed-minded/ignorant/unable to think for themselves.I assumed you hadn't since you asked about them.. if you've reviewed them, then why are you asking the question?

Looking to, as they say, $hit disturb? :lol: What a typical CT response. Attack the messenger rather than the message.I didn't attack you, I simply said calling people names will not result in getting a respectful and useful reply.. obviously from the first post, and this subsequent post, you aren't looking for respectful and mature conversation, you just want to fight.

Perhaps if any "CT whackjob" is so indulgent, you will get what you desire. ;)

As a defense, I personally don't feel I'm a "CT whackjob", I haven't concluded on any theories, I simply say the story presented by the administration and relayed by the mass media has some holes and questionable things either removed or glossed over. Although perhaps you would lump anyone questioning Fox News as a "CT whackjob". :lol:

[king_george]

So you're calling me a CT whackjob? :lol: I assumed you hadn't since you asked about them.. if you've reviewed them, then why are you asking the question?

Looking to, as they say, $hit disturb? :lol: I didn't attack you, I simply said calling people names will not result in getting a respectful and useful reply.. obviously from the first post, and this subsequent post, you aren't looking for respectful and mature conversation, you just want to fight.

Perhaps if any "CT whackjob" is so indulgent, you will get what you desire. ;)

As a defense, I personally don't feel I'm a "CT whackjob", I haven't concluded on any theories, I simply say the story presented by the administration and relayed by the mass media has some holes and questionable things either removed or glossed over. Although perhaps you would lump anyone questioning Fox News as a "CT whackjob". :lol:

I classify whackjobs as anyone who actually thinks Dylan Avery et al is actually after the truth and accepts his insane ramblings and absolutely stupid assertions and conclusions as gospel. ;) You don't seem to accept that so I don't think you are one of them, simple as that, but you did make some unfounded assumptions in the same manner as the Cters that i've had the misfortune to debate with so I made one too. If I'm wrong them I apologize.

If you're interested, I speak like this through long experience trying to have a sane conversation with the 911 "TRVTHERS" who have sooper sikrit info that nobody else has, but won't divulge anything to anyone other than other CTers. I have simply lost all respect for people in this situation. When I see someone actually advocating attending one of these sham conferences and giving it glowing reviews, than I have to wonder whatever happened to critical thinking. "Dylan is a god/genius/truthseeker/infallible" makes me want to vomit.

I really don't care if someone answers or not because they have no answer and would rather ignore or insult rather than answer.

I'll take $75 and give it to the Salvation Army before wasting it on the 911 Untruthers.

[hotweiss]

Well these "wackjobs" are having some trouble. Alex Jones was arrested and beat up in a separate incident. Professor Jones showed us some emails he received at the 9/11 Truth Conference which were a bit frightening. Someone first tried to threaten Professor Jones and then finally that person resorted to bribes in the name of a grant. The truth is so abstract and diabolical that it's hard to imagine, but in my opinion it's very real. Remember that the common man does not wars, but the elite do. In a dictatorship you force tyranny on the people and in a democracy you manipulate the people into tyranny. No one is trying to force anyone into thinking a certain way here, but keep your mind open. Instead of only getting your info from the Masonic media, try these sources:

www.informationclearinghouse.info
www.whatreallyhappened.com
www.infowars.com
www.globalresearch.ca
www.lonelantern.org

The daily Alex Jones radio broadcast is also a great source. You can listen to it live via the internet (infowars.com) or FTA satellite.

[xKagex]

There's definately something missing in the information leading to, and around 9/11. The problem with a lot of these "truth" people is that they're not questioning the truth as much as they're spouting their own versions of it. I respect anyone who honestly wants to find out the real truth, but I feel that people who claim unverifiable theories (like the "no planes" theory, or "it's a big illuminati plan to take over the world for the antichrist" theory) do the whole truth movement a huge disservice.

I guess I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist myself, although I don't claim to have any idea of the real truth. The official story just has too many holes, so the truth must lie elsewhere. For example, I just can't buy the idea that the owner of a building not hit by planes would give an order to "pull" the building, and it subsequently collapses neatly on its own footprint, giving the owner billions of dollars in insurance money. If he had time to rig his building with explosives, he obviously knew the nearby WTC buildings would a) be hit and/or b) likely collapse. Then there's all the other evidence of foreknowledge and ignored warnings by individuals in government, which I just can't ignore.

It's a little like Nero burning Rome so he could put in his own architectural plans, but since it was so obvious to almost everyone (including historians) he had to blame it on the Christians, who were subsequently persecuted on the basis of his lie. What goes around, comes around, I guess.

[Peckerwood]

Damn that Oswald...how dare he start all of this conjecture ;)

[poedua]

The same can go both ways as there's also no proof that they didn't do it.

I for one am not convinced of whodunit (or better yet, planned the whole thing) yet. I am, however, convinced that there is a lack of proof available to the public. If there is nothing to hide, then why won't the US govt release the videos from the other cameras around the Pentagon and nearby hotel, gas stations, etc?

No it can't.....read the post again......it's innocent until proven guilty...there is no burden of proof to prove innocence ( no proof that they didn't do it ) ...the burden of proof is to prove guilt.

Your comment of " there's also no proof that they didn't do it " - that is exactly the sort of fallacious reasoning I touched on in my earlier post.

That's not a valid argument - a lack of proof of Bush and Co's innocence cannot be offered as a proof of guilt - it's fallacious reasoning ( appeal to ignorance ). The burden of proof is always on the accuser...i.e innocent until proven guilty. You simply can't conclude something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. If you pursue that line of thinking, you're correct, there's .....

- no proof that Bush didn't do it

- no proof that Jimmy Carter didn't do it

- no proof that the Pope didn't do it

- no proof that Celine Dion didn't do it




...it's the classic argument from ignnorance, claiming that a proposition must be true ( Bush did it ) because there is no proof that it is false ( that he didn't do it ). That reasoning makes about as much sense as saying,

"The Toronto Police investigation was never able to establish that Joe Smith
was not at the scene of the crime on the night of August 25th, so we may safely conclude that he was there."

[king_george]

Well these "wackjobs" are having some trouble. Alex Jones was arrested and beat up in a separate incident. Professor Jones showed us some emails he received at the 9/11 Truth Conference which were a bit frightening. Someone first tried to threaten Professor Jones and then finally that person resorted to bribes in the name of a grant. The truth is so abstract and diabolical that it's hard to imagine, but in my opinion it's very real. Remember that the common man does not wars, but the elite do. In a dictatorship you force tyranny on the people and in a democracy you manipulate the people into tyranny. No one is trying to force anyone into thinking a certain way here, but keep your mind open. Instead of only getting your info from the Masonic media, try these sources:

www.informationclearinghouse.info
www.whatreallyhappened.com
www.infowars.com
www.globalresearch.ca
www.lonelantern.org

The daily Alex Jones radio broadcast is also a great source. You can listen to it live via the internet (infowars.com) or FTA satellite.

Well I hope whomever is threatening them gets caught and then gets the full punishment as accorded by law. I'd never advocate or approve of violence against anyone with a differing opinion.

And again, why do you assume I only watch the "Masonic" media (wtf is that anyways?). I've gone through the dreck on conspiracy sites and official sites many times looking for information. I have no idea if it was a conspiracy or not (although I lean towards not) but the CTers have not one shred of evidence that stands up to scrutiny. There are enough holes in that waste of good film stock called Loose Change you could drive a GO train through.

I get sick and tired of being acused of not looking at all the info available. Is it because CTers only think they do research and nobody else knows how? I came to my conclusions honestly through research so drop that line please.

I keep my mind open, but not far enough so my brain spills out onto the ground. The CTers might want to try that sometime.

I read those sites and found them full of the same old same old assertions and baseless speculations and Bush-hating propoganda, so why don't you read this and see what it's worth:

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html


BTW I've listened to Jones and he is a true 7th degree whackjob, but he doens't deserve any threats or anything else illegal.

[king_george]

No it can't.....read the post again......it's innocent until proven guilty...there is no burden of proof to prove innocence ( no proof that they didn't do it ) ...the burden of proof is to prove guilt.

Your comment of " there's also no proof that they didn't do it " - that is exactly the sort of fallacious reasoning I touched on in my earlier post.

That's not a valid argument - a lack of proof of Bush and Co's innocence cannot be offered as a proof of guilt - it's fallacious reasoning ( appeal to ignorance ). The burden of proof is always on the accuser...i.e innocent until proven guilty. You simply can't conclude something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. If you pursue that line of thinking, you're correct, there's .....

- no proof that Bush didn't do it

- no proof that Jimmy Carter didn't do it

- no proof that the Pope didn't do it

- no proof that Celine Dion didn't do it




...it's the classic argument from ignnorance, claiming that a proposition must be true ( Bush did it ) because there is no proof that it is false ( that he didn't do it ). That reasoning makes about as much sense as saying,

"The Toronto Police investigation was never able to establish that Joe Smith
was not at the scene of the crime on the night of August 25th, so we may safely conclude that he was there."

Awesome... :arrowu:

Argument from ignorance is a common tactic used by the loose change crew. They are pros at it.

[hotweiss]

If you have the time, read the 9/11 time line:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

These conspiracy assertions might become a little bit more plausible when they are connected to some relevant historical facts.

[xKagex]

Awesome... :arrowu:

Argument from ignorance is a common tactic used by the loose change crew. They are pros at it.

Now if only you could come up with an argument other than "look at those wacky CTs, haha they're so stupid!". Poedua is very good at subverting debates into arguments about where the burden of proof lies, but they really do nothing to arrive at the truth - which is all any of us really want. I suppose that seems odd to someone who just eats up whatever the media feeds them, but it's true.

[poedua]

If you have the time, read the 9/11 time line:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

These conspiracy assertions might become a little bit more plausible when they are connected to some relevant historical facts.

If they are as " plausible " as Celine Dion possibly being respsonsible for 9/11 ( because as we all know........there's no proof that Celine didn't do it ) then you're right. :)

[hotweiss]

If they are as " plausible " as Celine Dion possibly being respsonsible for 9/11 ( because as we all know........there's no proof that Celine didn't do it ) then you're right. :)

Wow, you figured out what deductive reasoning is, now go research what linear logic is.

[poedua]

Now if only you could come up with an argument other than "look at those wacky CTs, haha they're so stupid!". Poedua is very good at subverting debates into arguments about where the burden of proof lies, but they really do nothing to arrive at the truth

No subvertion. You know were the burden of proof lies when trying to prove guilt as well as I do. It's the cornerstone of our judicial system. You know as well as I do, that one is considered innocent until proven guilty , and that guilt is supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. To say innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof ( and i can't believe you actually said this next part ) ..." do nothing to arrive at the truth " underscores how unsubstantiated CT accusations really are.

If you are saying the burden of proof is irrelevant in establishing whether an accused is guilty or not...then we have no need for trial and juries then do we. it is impoosible to make any claims about the truth when there is absolutely not oine shred of evidence that establishes the truth ( guilt ) beyond a reasonble doubt.

When the US says Osam bin laden did 9/11 - CTs stand up and say... prove he did it..where is the proof, there is no evidence, innocent until proven guilty

When a tape surfaces in which bin laden admits to planing 9/11 - CTs jump up and down and claim the tape is a fake, bin laden is taking credit for something he didn't do, it is a fake bin laden, bin laden is dead ...prove the tape is true

[Peckerwood]

Many people took credit for the 9/11 job...only one confession was accepted.

Even though he happened to be a CIA asset...even though his relatives were flown out of the US on the one day when nobody else could get a plane...even though his family had strong ties with Bush Sr and Bush Jr.

Perhaps he is still a CIA asset...How come they can find Saddam in a hole somewhere in Iraq, but they can't find Usama in a hole somewhere in A-Stan

And why bother going to Iraq, when Iran was a much greater supporter of Al-Qaeda. Simply because to invade Iran you would have to hit them from both Astan and Iraq...two fronts makes it much easier

:rolleyes:

[poedua]

Many people took credit for the 9/11 job...only one confession was accepted.

Even though he happened to be a CIA asset...even though his relatives were flown out of the US on the one day when nobody else could get a plane...even though his family had strong ties with Bush Sr and Bush Jr.

Perhaps he is still a CIA asset...How come they can find Saddam in a hole somewhere in Iraq, but they can't find Usama in a hole somewhere in A-Stan

:rolleyes:

- bin Laden - unsolicited uncoerced taped confession - thus a suspect - innocent until proven guilty of 9/11

- Bush - relatives flown / CIA asset etc. etc. - thus a suspect - innocent until proven guilty of 9/11

collect the evidence on both and see which holds up

[poedua]

Wow, you figured out what deductive reasoning is, now go research what linear logic is.

Is this what it's come to now ? A 9/11 time line ? A time line is not evidence of guilt ...even in the CTs world of justice .

[Peckerwood]

- bin Laden - unsolicited uncoerced taped confession - thus a suspect - innocent until proven guilty of 9/11

- Bush - relatives flown / CIA asset etc. etc. - thus a suspect - innocent until proven guilty of 9/11

collect the evidence on both and see which holds up
I don't believe the Official story about 9/11 anymore than I believe the Warren Commission on Oswald

A bunch of haphazard Terrorists whom all failed their respective courses on flight training in nothing more complicated than a Cessna, who then used boxcutters to take over jet planes and then slammed them into buildings(nevermind the pentagon impact so low to the ground as to indicate serious training on landing skills--which they failed miserably on the Cessnas) of which no less than 8 of them have been found alive.

A single lone gunman who barely passed his marksmanship training making shots that defy basic physics and which two Marine snipers(both with real world kills) say that they couldn't make the shots in the time frame given with the rifle presented...one of which held the record for the longest recorded sniper kill for close to 40 years(Master GnySgt Carlos Hathcock). Both of which who have seen actual kills concur that the headshot came from the front right...which compiled sound evidence corroborates

[hotweiss]

Well, the time line will show you that the CIA has been sacrificing lives to subvert and exploit the Middle-East for decades. The CIA "intervention" is solely based on lies, manipulation, deception and ruthlessness and this pattern has been there from the start so why would it end now?

Here are some questions for you:

Why has the media never been clear about Saddam's reason for invading Kuwait?

Why does the media skip over the fact that US sanctions have killed 1.5 million civilians in Iraq?

9/11 is unfortunately just the tip of the iceberg.

[xKagex]

I don't believe the Official story about 9/11 anymore than I believe the Warren Commission on Oswald

A bunch of haphazard Terrorists whom all failed their respective courses on flight training in nothing more complicated than a Cessna, who then used boxcutters to take over jet planes and then slammed them into buildings(nevermind the pentagon impact so low to the ground as to indicate serious training on landing skills--which they failed miserably on the Cessnas) of which no less than 8 of them have been found alive.

A single lone gunman who barely passed his marksmanship training making shots that defy basic physics and which two Marine snipers(both with real world kills) say that they couldn't make the shots in the time frame given with the rifle presented...one of which held the record for the longest recorded sniper kill for close to 40 years(Master GnySgt Carlos Hathcock). Both of which who have seen actual kills concur that the headshot came from the front right...which compiled sound evidence corroborates

Yes, but all that just sounds like "good reasonable arguments". Since the US and media say "Al Queda did it" and "Oswald did it", the burden of proof must lie with those who disagree with them.

Right, poedua?

It's not fair that we have to question everything we're told because there are too many holes in official stories for them to be plausible. Then again, I guess they've won, because for the most part I don't care anymore. Life's too short and there are too many other more interesting mysteries to solve.

If I'm a good little citizen, I probably won't even notice how all my freedoms disappeared.

[Peckerwood]

Life's too short and there are too many other more interesting mysteries to solve.

I like pyramids

:D

[poedua]

I don't believe the Official story about 9/11 anymore than I believe the Warren Commission on Oswald

It was Oswald ..3 shots from behind hit Kennedy / Connally ...the House Select Committee forensic team unanimously supported this conclusion based on the review of the evidence. Evidence supports the mainstram view of 9/11 just as it does Oswald. But, you can believe what you want.

A bunch of haphazard Terrorists whom all failed their respective courses on flight training in nothing more complicated than a Cessna, who then used boxcutters to take over jet planes and then slammed them into buildings(nevermind the pentagon impact so low to the ground as to indicate serious training on landing skills--which they failed miserably on the Cessnas) of which no less than 8 of them have been found alive.

Yes, that is what happened - based on the evidence...the evidence supports it.

A single lone gunman who barely passed his marksmanship training making shots

Garbage.....he was more than a competant rifle shot....as has been documented....and could have easily pulled it off...again, based on the evidence. As it is with the evidence of 9/11, the House Select Committee evidence supports the mainstream view.

that defy basic physics and which two Marine snipers(both with real world kills) say that they couldn't make the shots in the time frame given with the rifle presented...one of which held the record for the longest recorded sniper kill for close to 40 years(Master GnySgt Carlos Hathcock). Both of which who have seen actual kills concur that the headshot came from the front right...which compiled sound evidence corroborates

There is no need to swing this into a JFK topic ...AGAIN !!!!

Give your head a shake Peckerwood. For the umpteenth time.....there is no defying of phsyics, no magic bullet...all the physics of the bullet trajectories from behind and from Oswald's gun have been validated by the House Select Committee. As it is with the evidence of 9/11, the House Select Committee evidence supports the mainstream view.

Sigh, Oswald's shooting " feat " has already been replicated countless times and has been endorsed as more than " do-able " by experts. This stupid notion that Owald didn't have the skill to do it has been thoroughly de-bunked ..as has the alleged knoll shooters, as has the magic bullet, etc. etc. etc. etc.Again, as it is with the evidence of 9/11, the House Select Committee evidence supports the mainstream view.

If you want to go on a long thesis by way of reply, start by de-bunking the House Select Committee findings whiih contradict your own ....not the Warren Commision. Scrap the Warren commission.

And instead of hi-jacking this thread and debating JFK here ..and turning it into another JFK thread .....revive your earlier JFK thread and keep the debate localised there....for those who care. This is on 9/11.

[poedua]

Yes, but all that just sounds like "good reasonable arguments". Since the US and media say "Al Queda did it" and "Oswald did it", the burden of proof must lie with those who disagree with them.

bin laden said he did it ( repeatedly ), and once arrested, the US will have the burden of proof to find him guilty in a court of law.....bin laden is innocent until proven guility....bin laden shouldn't have to prove he didn't do it ...now should he ?

forensic evidence from the House Select Committee proves Oswald did it...scientists met the burden of proof challenge and met it IMO

The burden of proof always lies with the acccuser...not the accused.

CTs are the accusers of Bush and his administration ...the burden of proof lies with the CT's.

It's not fair that we have to question everything we're told because there are too many holes in official stories for them to be plausible.

Thee aren't any " holes " - that is just a CT interpretion of the facts ...an equal number see no " holes " at all....similar as to how CT's have their own interpretation of Area 51, UFO's, captured aliens, New World Order, etc. etc....they have the unique CT interpretation of 9/11 :)

[Peckerwood]

And instead of hi-jacking this thread and debating JFK here ..and turning it into another JFK thread .....revive your earlier JFK thread and keep the debate localised there....for those who care. This is on 9/11.
Hey...you listening?

I didn't hijack the thread or attempt to turn it into a JFK thread

I simply posed the point...I don't buy the Official story I see the same similarities in both story lines...official crap that has holes in it big enough to fly a 757 through.

For god's sake figure it out and stop jumping down a person's throat the moment they post an analytical metaphor...Jesus ****ing christ :rolleyes:

[xKagex]

I like pyramids

:D

I like mystery schools.. unfortunately I haven't really been invited into any :D

[poedua]

Hey...you listening?

I didn't hijack the thread or attempt to turn it into a JFK thread

I simply posed the point...I don't buy the Official story I see the same similarities in both story lines...official crap that has holes in it big enough to fly a 757 through.

For god's sake figure it out and stop jumping down a person's throat the moment they post an analytical metaphor...Jesus ****ing christ :rolleyes:

Posing the point is one thing ..I have no no problem with that at all. But going into an entire pararaph of JFK sniper minutiae is quite another...particularily when the minutiae was utterly needless and superfluous to the 9/11 topic at best.

Jumping down your throat ? :?: Hardly. :)

I simply rebutted your rather outlandish detailed JFK claims - or a "analytical metaphor "as you put it - with claims put foward by the House Select Committee on JFK that contradict yours. This JFK chestnut you brought out is an example of how you CT's keep putting this stuff out there over and over and over again - despite the fact these claims have been already been debunked with ample evidence that refutes each point you throw out there....i.e House Select Committee.

You have a problem with 9/11 - fine . Present an argument for a 9/11 conspiracy, naming names and dates and methods etc. based on facts that prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt...I have no problem with that. My only real problem lies with blatantly ignoring facts that challenge and refute CT arguments ...whatever fact doesn't fit gets conventiently ignored or dismissed by CT's - as you did with the House Select Committee facts. Facts like dead bodies from a plane that hit the Pentagon - a plane CT's say never existed...the existence of dead bodies from a flight manifest or pieces of the plane in the Pentagon don't fit the missle theory..so they're ignored.

[BadDrafter]

Hey...you listening?

I didn't hijack the thread ...

I don't buy the Official story

...official crap that has holes in it big enough to fly a 757 through.



Howabout I hijack a 757 with boxcutters, and fly it through you instead?

I don't buy the official story either but these asshilos are obfusticating the truth and charging a gate fee to get in. Lower than low. It looks like a UFO convention to me.

[Peckerwood]

Posing the point is one thing ..I have no no problem with that at all. But going into an entire pararaph of JFK sniper minutiae is quite another...particularily when the minutiae was utterly needless and superfluous to the 9/11 topic at best.
It is obvious that you cannot see the correlations between the two...perhaps I have to spell it out.

Lackluster individuals carrying out a special attack of great magnitude in technical performance. You can't see that?
Jumping down your throat ? Hardly.
Posing a 5 paragraph rebuttal for the one paragraph of my own is greatly overboard if it diverts from the intended argument...specifically in that I feel the two are linked through their ridiculous claims. Specifically a government that is intent on covering up a crime, and thusly providing it's own outlandish claims that fail to recognize basic guidelines such as simple physics.
I simply rebutted your rather outlandish detailed JFK claims - or a "analytical metaphor "as you put it - with claims put foward by the House Select Committee on JFK that contradict yours. This JFK chestnut you brought out is an example of how you CT's keep putting this stuff out there over and over and over again - despite the fact these claims have been already been debunked with ample evidence that refutes each point you throw out there....i.e House Select Committee.
You were the one that went on a tangent and "swung" the topic into a JFK thread through refutation of the JFK paragraph of my post without recognizing the whole post for what it was...a metaphor for government complicity in the face of criminal acts that attack government establishments
You have a problem with 9/11 - fine . Present an argument for a 9/11 conspiracy, naming names and dates and methods etc. based on facts that prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt...I have no problem with that.
Of which I have done in the past in other similar threads, including arguments based primarily on Physical analysis...to which your primary response has always been "who" "why" etc totally ignoring the "how" and "what" which are literal footprints in the application of this specifc tragedy.
My only real problem lies with blatantly ignoring facts that challenge and refute CT arguments ...whatever fact doesn't fit gets conventiently ignored or dismissed by CT's - as you did with the House Select Committee facts.
If the "facts" do not directly relate and support physical proof then they aren't facts, but instead they are simply heresay.
Facts like dead bodies from a plane that hit the Pentagon - a plane CT's say never existed
You must be referring to the bodies of the people that were already in the Pentagon at the time of impact into that specific section...but if you are referring to bodies from a plane, a plane that was obliterated on impact, and shredded into millions of itty-bitties, then you must be the first one to ever see any.

Also consider that all we have been privvy to as of yet is body bags...no bodies to see.
...the existence of dead bodies from a flight manifest or pieces of the plane in the Pentagon don't fit the missle theory..so they're ignored.
And who presented the flight manifest...who told everyone it was a plane, specifically a 757, when even the eyewitnesses could not concur that it even was a commercial jet.

And as for ignoring facts...when those witnesses that reported it being a missile or a small fighter or a private jet, they were ignored except for those that said it was a 757.

hmmm

[poedua]

It is obvious that you cannot see the correlations between the two...perhaps I have to spell it out.

Of course I can. The irrationality of arguments ( i.e 15 different books on 15 DIFFERENT JFK " whodunit " theories " from JFK CT's - meaning 14 are dead wrong ) have a great deal in common with the flawed argument logic of 9/11 CT's ( i.e appeals to ignorance )...and that's been my point all along both here and in previous threads

Lackluster individuals carrying out a special attack of great magnitude in technical performance. You can't see that?
Sigh , this is the same broken record logic you use with Oswald and his sniper skills ...now its flying skills'. Disgruntled American / United airline pilots didn't coincidently decide to commit suicide, the planes weren't flown by remote control, there were no missles, all the commericial planes and passengers are still missing from daily life and all the physical crash evidence proves the planes were there. Don't be fooled by spurious correlations...that's a fools game. The terrrorists had the means to easily pull this off.

Posing a 5 paragraph rebuttal for the one paragraph of my own is greatly overboard if it diverts from the intended argument...specifically in that I feel the two are linked through their ridiculous claims. Specifically a government that is intent on covering up a crime, and thusly providing it's own outlandish claims that fail to recognize basic guidelines such as simple physics.

Wrong. A statement of the claim was suffficient ...the dump of sniper facts was completley out of context and unrelated to the post - as it was all subject to rebuttal , a rebuttabut irrelvant to the thread topic. Nice try.

You were the one that went on a tangent and "swung" the topic into a JFK thread through refutation of the JFK paragraph of my post without recognizing the whole post for what it was...a metaphor for government complicity in the face of criminal acts that attack government establishments.

Wrong again. I told you to stop hi-jacking the thread by dumping in irrelevant & false JFK info on snipers and how 'Oswald couldn't have done it " yada yada yada ...and I said that that the claim iss completely false and unrelated to 9/11..since all of it is false as has been proven by the HSCA

Of which I have done in the past in other similar threads, including arguments based primarily on Physical analysis...to which your primary response has always been "who" "why" etc totally ignoring the "how" and "what" which are literal footprints in the application of this specifc tragedy.

If the "facts" do not directly relate and support physical proof then they aren't facts, but instead they are simply heresay.

This is utter nonsense. The facts DO prove it. Physical evidence corroborates all the planes involved in 9/11 not to mention Oswald / rear shots with JFK...none any of the conclusions of either investigations is based upon " hearsay "- hearsay " is unsubstantiated evidence and is why it is inadmissable in a court of law.


You must be referring to the bodies of the people that were already in the Pentagon at the time of impact into that specific section...but if you are referring to bodies from a plane, a plane that was obliterated on impact, and shredded into millions of itty-bitties, then you must be the first one to ever see any. Also consider that all we have been privvy to as of yet is body bags...no bodies to see..

body bags ? a body is decimated as it with the Pentagon crash - or any jet crash - the bodies ( or more accurately...the " pieces " of the bodies ) that remain are scattered pieces and that is all that's left. Every single passenger on the flight that hit the pentagon has been ID'd with DNA and all are accounted for - via DNA match to family members or pre- exitising DAN samples.

And who presented the flight manifest...who told everyone it was a plane, specifically a 757, when even the eyewitnesses could not concur that it even was a commercial jet...

Nonsense. Hundreds of witnesses saw a jet hit the pentagon ..no one saw a missle. Pieces of the plane were found in the wreckage. The manifest was corrorborated by grieving family members of the passengers on the jets - who confrimed which plane fight their loved ones were on, and who since had their loved onés remains confrimed by DNA'to match crash site human remains. . So it is " the evidence " that "told" us it was a plane,,,not hearsay.

And as for ignoring facts...when those witnesses that reported it being a missile or a small fighter or a private jet, they were ignored except for those that said it was a 757....

When is this going to end ? You are ignoring simple facts. Why, I don't know. Hundreds of eyewitnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon. . A plane was found in the wreckage. The bodies ( pieces ) of passengers from that plane were also found in the wreckage and DNA matched to family who confirmed they were on that plane that morning. NO one saw any missle. It's evidence Peckerwood ...not hearsay. Occam's razor

[king_george]

Now if only you could come up with an argument other than "look at those wacky CTs, haha they're so stupid!". Poedua is very good at subverting debates into arguments about where the burden of proof lies, but they really do nothing to arrive at the truth - which is all any of us really want. I suppose that seems odd to someone who just eats up whatever the media feeds them, but it's true.
*sigh*
"Whatever the media feeds them". Shall I repeat my self maybe in 16 point font and bright colors? No but here it is one more time:
I HAVE READ THE CT AND OFFICIAL SITES DURING MY RESEARCH!!!

The CTers are shifting the burden of proof by saying "It's a conspiracy. Prove it isn't!!" I am not arguing for or against them here, I'm pointing out the holes in the CT stories. Holes that are cavernous, but if you want to believe them go ahead. Is the official story true? I don't know but there is nothing in it that contravenes observations or defies the laws of physics.

When are the CTers going to stop saying things like "It looks like a controlled demolition therefore it is. Prove me wrong!"
No, the CTers must prove it WAS controlled.

BTW I never said they are stupid. Misguided, liars, whackjobs looking for self-aggrandizing publicity, but never stupid. Some of the posters at their forum, now THEY are stupid.. :cheesygri

Anyways, I'm still waiting for a coherent conspiracy theory.

[hotweiss]

*sigh*
"Whatever the media feeds them". Shall I repeat my self maybe in 16 point font and bright colors? No but here it is one more time:
I HAVE READ THE CT AND OFFICIAL SITES DURING MY RESEARCH!!!

The CTers are shifting the burden of proof by saying "It's a conspiracy. Prove it isn't!!" I am not arguing for or against them here, I'm pointing out the holes in the CT stories. Holes that are cavernous, but if you want to believe them go ahead. Is the official story true? I don't know but there is nothing in it that contravenes observations or defies the laws of physics.

When are the CTers going to stop saying things like "It looks like a controlled demolition therefore it is. Prove me wrong!"
No, the CTers must prove it WAS controlled.

BTW I never said they are stupid. Misguided, liars, whackjobs looking for self-aggrandizing publicity, but never stupid. Some of the posters at their forum, now THEY are stupid.. :cheesygri

Anyways, I'm still waiting for a coherent conspiracy theory.

Well actually the conspiracy theories arose from the proof. After a few engineers, physicists and politicians looked at the visual and political proof a little light bulb went of in their head. Let's see, a CIA asset which is very closely related to the Bush's is the perpetrator of 9/11; he of course denied at first. Of course the next logical step was to destroy a country which refused an oil pipeline and which eliminated opium production. Following this Iraq was destroyed, which of course was dictated by another CIA asset - Saddam. Let's not forget that most of the supposed hijackers were Saudi. Come on, how naive are you?

ps-I can keep on going and going...

[king_george]

Well actually the conspiracy theories arose from the proof. After a few engineers, physicists and politicians looked at the visual and political proof a little light bulb went of in their head. Let's see, a CIA asset which is very closely related to the Bush's is the perpetrator of 9/11; he of course denied at first. Of course the next logical step was to destroy a country which refused an oil pipeline and which eliminated opium production. Following this Iraq was destroyed, which of course was dictated by another CIA asset - Saddam. Let's not forget that most of the supposed hijackers were Saudi. Come on, how naive are you?

ps-I can keep on going and going...

Yet another CTer tactic. If you don't believe you are naive or . Ho hum...same old same old

Who are these professionals and where can I read their papers on the subject? Or is this another foaf story?
As for the rest, simply speculation and assertions. Try and back up some statements rather than simply parroting what you've read somewhere. Assertions are not evidence of anything.

Argument from incredulousness noted. Remember it's up to YOU to show the conspiracy, not for anyone to disprove it.

[poedua]

Well actually the conspiracy theories arose from the proof.


Wrong. They come from flawed reasoning. Here's why.

CTs supplying question after question or alleged fact after fact or testimonial after testimonial of a "mysterious" or " contradictory " nature - without ANY evidence of a plot existing to be the conclusion to these stated premises - is adding anything to this debate. And, borrowing your term, it is nothing but a " naive " approach toward the debate or as a means of acertianing the alleged truth about 9/11.

My argument is that conspiracy theories like 9/11, Roswell, UFO, JFK, all suffer from the same weakness. They cite alleged facts that are collected together to support a pre-determined hypothesis, not the facts forming the hypothesis. It reflects a fallacy of " confirmation bias " IMO. - i.e adopting a 9/11 conspiracy belief dogmatically that only focuses on alleged evidence that supports the 9/11 conspiracy while ignoring evidence that clearly refutes it. Worse yet, the classic CT response to irrefutable evidence of their claims, is that CTs will say any attempt to refute CT claims is even further evidence of a conspiracy plot.

Many 9/11 conspiracy buffs have cited all sorts of evidence that 9/11 was an alleged governemnt plot - CIA, Bush , whatever - anything but terrorists. This is not unlike those who claim ( in books no less ) the either the Mafia or the CIA killed JFK - not Oswald. And as hard as it is for the authors who collected all that JFK evidence for a book - all but one of them is wrong. Citing evidence is no guarantee the evidence is proof of anything - as many JFK authors who have proven wrong have painfully realized.

However, just because CTs like you you dont believe the official 9/11 story, it doesn't mean your interpretation is automatically false. Not at all.

I'm simply suggesting it may be false IF the conclusion that a conspiracy exists doesn't logicallly follow from the evidence being presented by CTs - which it almost always doesn't. Facts are being dumped by CT's which allegedly support CT claims - but that's where it ends...no conclusions logically follow from the facts. I'm simply saying that if people want to refute the official verison - fine - go for it, I have no problem with that.

It just seems to me that conspiracists often succumb to committing the fallacy of " confirmation bias " - they've adopted the 9/11 conspiracy belief dogmatically and aren't seriously interested in confirming or disconfirming this belief. It's a form of selective thinking that focuses on alleged evidence that supports what 9/11 conspiratists already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. That's my point and the central issue I have with CTs.

All I would suggest is that CTs also not compound matters by engaging in the fallacy of arguing from ignorance in addition to confirmation bias. So that when they answer that even though this alleged evidence they've presented may not prove a conspiracy exists - 100%,( which is what i'm saying ) since there is no evidence a plot didn't exist - , a conspiracy must exist. Fallacious reasoning . IMO.

Case in point....you said " Let's not forget that most of the supposed hijackers were Saudi. Come on, how naive are you? " The Bush family knows Saudis..the alleged terrorists were Saudis...therefore, since the Bushs know Saudis the Bush's were in on 9/11.......utterly fallacious reasoning.

[king_george]

I believe that form of debate is called "poisoning the well". Starting from a predetermined point of view and then making the facts fit that view rather than examining the facts independently.

WWhatever it's called it's totally bogus. Argument by assertion.

[poedua]

I believe that form of debate is called "poisoning the well". Starting from a predetermined point of view and then making the facts fit that view rather than examining the facts independently.

WWhatever it's called it's totally bogus. Argument by assertion.

Agreed.

[fakishan]

Case in point....you said " Let's not forget that most of the supposed hijackers were Saudi. Come on, how naive are you? " The Bush family knows Saudis..the alleged terrorists were Saudis...therefore, since the Bushs know Saudis the Bush's were in on 9/11.......utterly fallacious reasoning.
man oh man, I should of paid more attention to your posts. I can't believe the bull you're spewing.

fallacious reasoning? only if the argument was "bush knew saudis and the hijackers were saudis, therefore....". When you include the rest of the evidence; bush knew saudis, bush had meeting with saudis in texas before the attack, neo-cons groomed bin laden, bin-laden family members were flown out of the country after the attacks, taliban offered bin laden if the US would not attack....

well you must enjoy giving bush felatio if you refuse to acknowledge a reasonable connection here.

[king_george]

man oh man, I should of paid more attention to your posts. I can't believe the bull you're spewing.

fallacious reasoning? only if the argument was "bush knew saudis and the hijackers were saudis, therefore....". When you include the rest of the evidence; bush knew saudis, bush had meeting with saudis in texas before the attack, neo-cons groomed bin laden, bin-laden family members were flown out of the country after the attacks, taliban offered bin laden if the US would not attack....

well you must enjoy giving bush felatio if you refuse to acknowledge a reasonable connection here.

OK you've made a tenuous connection. What does this mean? Does this mean Bush engineered the attacks? State your case rather than using innuendo like a typical CTer.

PS Nobody needs your immature insults either.

[smg669]

man oh man, I should of paid more attention to your posts. I can't believe the bull you're spewing.

fallacious reasoning? only if the argument was "bush knew saudis and the hijackers were saudis, therefore....". When you include the rest of the evidence; bush knew saudis, bush had meeting with saudis in texas before the attack, neo-cons groomed bin laden, bin-laden family members were flown out of the country after the attacks, taliban offered bin laden if the US would not attack....

well you must enjoy giving bush felatio if you refuse to acknowledge a reasonable connection here.

If you're going to insult someone by insinuating that they enjoy performing fellatio on a prominent world leader, at least take the time out of your busy schedule to spell fellatio correctly. Neo-cons indeed...

[poedua]

man oh man, I should of paid more attention to your posts. I can't believe the bull you're spewing.

fallacious reasoning? only if the argument was "bush knew saudis and the hijackers were saudis, therefore....". When you include the rest of the evidence; bush knew saudis, bush had meeting with saudis in texas before the attack, neo-cons groomed bin laden, bin-laden family members were flown out of the country after the attacks, taliban offered bin laden if the US would not attack....

well you must enjoy giving bush felatio if you refuse to acknowledge a reasonable connection here.

I find that last sentence of yours above..and the term you put in bold - offensive and an " uncalled for " insult.

You'd be better served to simply focus - and limit -your replies the points I raised in my post and direct your comments toward them only ..and not toward me personally.

Lanuguage like that is innapropriate in a civil debate.

Smarten up.

[fakishan]

you still avoided actual debate after posting your fallacious argument :lol:

when someone lies and deceives outright like that, where's the possibility for civil debate?

hypocrisy.

[king_george]

you still avoided actual debate after posting your fallacious argument :lol:

when someone lies and deceives outright like that, where's the possibility for civil debate?

hypocrisy.

Again the tired old tactic of attacking the messenger instead of the message. Forget any civil debate and throw insults around.

Boring...and typical.

And childish...

[poedua]

Again the tired old tactic of attacking the messenger instead of the message. Forget any civil debate and throw insults around.

Boring...and typical.

And childish...

Well said. And as is often the case, those who perpetually resort to " attacking the messenger ' , do so, because of their inability to effectively attack the message itself ...they're left with no other options.

My 4 " childish " kids do it all the time :)

[fakishan]

Again the tired old tactic of attacking the messenger instead of the message. Forget any civil debate and throw insults around.

Boring...and typical.

And childish...

what are you talking about, my rebutal is in the first reply, which you chose to ignore and instead focus your reply over the humour I included.

sucks to be you, attacking the one questionable point rather than the whole message.

[FastFokker]

I believe that form of debate is called "poisoning the well". Starting from a predetermined point of view and then making the facts fit that view rather than examining the facts independently.Well disregarding the debate portion, I started out believing the explanations and blame of 9/11. I trusted everything that was fed to me, until I started figuring out all the players in the game.. and the situations leading up to 9/11.

America made Saddam, America made Osama, America made Al Queda, America made the Taliban.. there is no conspiracy theory. :lol:

As for the Bush hating, that's just a given.. Bush was one popular mofo just after 9/11.. yet today he's one of the most widely despised people, internationally and from within the borders of his own nation. Bush will go down in history, and it's probably not going to be nice things remembered by his leadership.

[hotweiss]

Yet another CTer tactic. If you don't believe you are naive or . Ho hum...same old same old

Who are these professionals and where can I read their papers on the subject? Or is this another foaf story?
As for the rest, simply speculation and assertions. Try and back up some statements rather than simply parroting what you've read somewhere. Assertions are not evidence of anything.

Argument from incredulousness noted. Remember it's up to YOU to show the conspiracy, not for anyone to disprove it.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/021104vonbuelow.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/

http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

http://911truthemergence.com/911FairyTale.pdf

[poedua]

http://physics911.net/stevenjones.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/021104vonbuelow.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/

http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

http://911truthemergence.com/911FairyTale.pdf

Why are you now supporting king_george 's position ?

After spending the last half or so going over those links you provided, You quickly realize that all you have successlfully done is to actually prove king_george's point.

And that is, these sites " dump " all sorts of alleged facts of science, time lines , associations, revealing events that simply lead to speculation and unsupported assertions to fit a pre-determined hypothesis - a conspiracy. . Facts of science that refute clearly these theories are simply and conveniently ignored - as king_george pointed out. The alleged facts of science, time lines , associations, revealing events don't lead to anything else but speculation and unsupported assertions.

Nowhere in any of those links does anyone provide any evidence of a conspiracy.

[FastFokker]

I believe the best evidence is the numbers of people who have turned around since just after 9/11, believing entirely with blind patriotism to democracy and to the fallen victim, America.. to that a short number of years later, questioning everything surrounding 9/11.

The events before, the events during and the events after.

Surely that's not enough to convict, but it's enough (IMO) to call for a method of explaining and resassuring the people of fragile democracies that the official explanation is the true explanation.

People just want answers, but instead they're running into brick walls and given nothing, other than being treated as if they are terrorists and enemies of their own country.

[poedua]

I believe the best evidence is the numbers of people who have turned around since just after 9/11, believing entirely with blind patriotism to democracy and to the fallen victim, America.. to that a short number of years later, questioning everything surrounding 9/11.

The events before, the events during and the events after.

Surely that's not enough to convict, but it's enough (IMO) to call for a method of explaining and resassuring the people of fragile democracies that the official explanation is the true explanation.

People just want answers, but instead they're running into brick walls and given nothing, other than being treated as if they are terrorists and enemies of their own country.

That's well and fine, but people aren't running into any brick walls...they're running into blind alleys as far as CTs are concerned. Just as any investigation would. Lot's of good leadsin their opinion - but none of which pan out in the end. That's just normal...but frustrating for CTs. They have a pre-determined hypothesis that someone else other than bin laden did 9/11..- it it HAD to be Bush. That is the theory. So they gather up as much evidence as they can find to see if they can prove it..and none of it sticks. The evidence doesn't lead to a theory as with most investgations, a theory leads to the evidence - that is accepted ( what fits ) and ignored ( what doesn't fit ) with CTs.

It's like JFK and those 15 different theories on who killed JFK - with enough evidence to publish 15 books no less - At least 14 of those books are dead wrong ...despite having all the so-called evedence of the truth of a conspiracy.

How can 2 books on JFK supporting 2 different exist if both claim their collection of evidence is the true evidence ? How can that be ? What makes one book right and one book wrong ?

Claims of evidence of the truth isn't proof of anything unless you can prove it - the large number of JFK books tell us that in spades.

[hotweiss]

Why are you now supporting king_george 's position ?

After spending the last half or so going over those links you provided, You quickly realize that all you have successlfully done is to actually prove king_george's point.

And that is, these sites " dump " all sorts of alleged facts of science, time lines , associations, revealing events that simply lead to speculation and unsupported assertions to fit a pre-determined hypothesis - a conspiracy. . Facts of science that refute clearly these theories are simply and conveniently ignored - as king_george pointed out. The alleged facts of science, time lines , associations, revealing events don't lead to anything else but speculation and unsupported assertions.

Nowhere in any of those links does anyone provide any evidence of a conspiracy.

I'm sorry, but Bush and the Masons didn't want to admit that they did it. None the less, the best proof is history. Just start reading some history and you'll find many cases which parallel 9/11. Come on, pre-emptive war?

[poedua]

I'm sorry, but Bush and the Masons didn't want to admit that they did it.

Masons eh ?

Another possibility as to why they " didn't want to admit that they did it "........is because ( ready for it ? ) .......they didn't do it. CTs need to at least be open to all the other possibilities as well as to their own pre-determined probabilties of what causes events to occur.

None the less, the best proof is history. Just start reading some history and you'll find many cases which parallel 9/11. Come on, pre-emptive war?

Yes, I agree . History has shown that when you make accusations without any irrefutable & substantited evidence whatsover , you end up with nothing but speculation and strong suspicions - and little else.

And as we all know, when you base a theory on nothing but speculation and strong suspicions, and do so in the absence of irrefutable & substantiated evidence , it can get you into a lot to trouble. Because what you may think is there, in fact, isn't there at all. You look at all these speculations and strong suspicions yet you are still dead wrong in your assumptions / theories.

Where else have we seen this happen - apart from the folly of 9/11 CTs ?

Does WMD and Iraq ring a bell ?

Or.... innocent men on Death Row ? This faulty reasoning or selective attention to evidence based on seemingly " evidence beyond a reasonable doubt " that CTs fall victim to , is the same reasoning that has resulted in innocent men to be found guilty in a court of law - only to be exonerated as innocent with the aid of DNA evidence.

[hotweiss]

Masons eh ?

Another possibility as to why they " didn't want to admit that they did it "........is because ( ready for it ? ) .......they didn't do it. CTs need to at least be open to all the other possibilities as well as to their own pre-determined probabilties of what causes events to occur.



Yes, I agree . History has shown that when you make accusations without any irrefutable & substantited evidence whatsover , you end up with nothing but speculation and strong suspicions - and little else.

And as we all know, when you base a theory on nothing but speculation and strong suspicions, and do so in the absence of irrefutable & substantiated evidence , it can get you into a lot to trouble. Because what you may think is there, in fact, isn't there at all. You look at all these speculations and strong suspicions yet you are still dead wrong in your assumptions / theories.

Where else have we seen this happen - apart from the folly of 9/11 CTs ?

Does WMD and Iraq ring a bell ?

Or.... innocent men on Death Row ? This faulty reasoning or selective attention to evidence based on seemingly " evidence beyond a reasonable doubt " that CTs fall victim to , is the same reasoning that has resulted in innocent men to be found guilty in a court of law - only to be exonerated as innocent with the aid of DNA evidence.

Well considered that Bush's whole cabinet is Masonic, I'd think it's a pretty fair accusation.

Try not to spin the subject with analogies. :)

[batman321123]

evidence smevidence. I believe Bush did it, whether i have evidence or not :)

[poedua]

Well considered that Bush's whole cabinet is Masonic, I'd think it's a pretty fair accusation.

Try not to spin the subject with analogies. :)

Hardly a spin..

All I'm saying is there is an error in reasoning and misinterpration of alleged evidence that will result in an innocent man being wrongly convicted and setnenced to death, or, the same error in reasoning and misinterpration of alleged evidence that will result in conclusion of a " slam dunk " certainty that there are WMD - a false conclusion leading to an invasion.

This is the same error in reasoning and misinterpration of alleged evidence that MAY also cause CTs to come to the false conclusion that Bush did 9 / 11.

" Alleged " evidence to support WMD & convicting men to death & 9/1l1 conspiracies.....all address potential errors in reasoning used to arrive at false conclusions IMO

[poedua]

evidence smevidence. I believe Bush did it, whether i have evidence or not :)

Spoken like a true CT ! :)

[hardcoredummy]

What a bunch of communists. Look, take your head out of your backside and stop thinking that the US is evil. They didn't plan any attacks, George Bush isn't friends with Osama, and there isn't some grand conspiracy to steal oil.


The Bush's family has been friends with the Bin Laden family for MANY MANY years. And if Iraq wasn't for oil, what was it for then? WMD? where are the WMD? If they are going for WMD, then why aren't they invading NK and Iran? NK ADMITTED that they were going for WMD, whereas Iraq didn't. If it's to bring democracy to the Iraqi people and free them, then why aren't they doing the same for all the millions that are dying in Africa every year?

I'll agree with you on your first point though, they didn't plan the attack.

[xKagex]

poedua, what do you make of the 'war games' that took place on 9/11? Since you're not a conspiracy theorist (or CT, as I guess it's been shortened to) I'm just curious how you see this as fitting into the schedule of events. Considering the same thing happened with the London attacks, are these just advantageous events used by the terrorist?

What about Building 7? Do you believe it fell on its own? What do you make of the people who heard the owner call for it to be "pulled"?

Is it a coincidence that Bush Sr and a member of the Bin Laden family (Shafig Bin Laden) were meeting at a conference of the Carlyle group in Washington? Not to mention the chief financier of the so-called hijackers, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with Bush administration officials the week before 9/11.

What about the fact that Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, wasn't really behaving like a fundamental muslim. Quite the opposite, in fact. He was allegedly partying with CIA-connected pilots while he got his flight training in fall/winter 2000 at Huffman Aviation in Venice, Fla., where two of the other 9/11 hijacker pilots trained. Atta wasn't acting much like a holy martyr: He wore jeans and sneakers, played video games, bought himself a red Pontiac and was said to be a hedonist. The Press posed the question to Ben-Veniste: If Atta belonged to the fundamentalist Muslim group, why was he snorting cocaine and frequenting strip bars? http://www.madcowprod.com/longislandpress.htm
How do you explain that at least 8 of the hijackers were still alive after crashing planes into buildings? (cached link at http://propagandamatrix.com/seven_of_the_wtc_hijackers_found_alive.html)

I mean, just because Al Queda loves to take responsibility for everything, and because some former CIA-trained guy says a bunch of stuff on tapes (which just get recycled when the need arises), does that mean I should believe it was nothing but a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists? I just don't see enough evidence to support the 'official story'.

The fact of the matter is that I don't see any real motive for muslims, since they're obviously getting the short end of the stick. The fact that the Afghanistan offensive was planned before 9/11, and that the Taliban offered to hand over Bin-Laden seems to suggest the real motives lies somewhere else. And once we discover motive, we can usually come up with a list of suspects.

I'm not going to come up with any theories anymore, because I'm tired of being classified as a lunatic conspiracy theorist. I suppose asking questions is no longer a good, democratic thing to do.

[king_george]

Well considered that Bush's whole cabinet is Masonic, I'd think it's a pretty fair accusation.

Try not to spin the subject with analogies. :)

Evidence?

Why is being Masonic a bad thing?

[king_george]

poedua, what do you make of the 'war games' that took place on 9/11? Since you're not a conspiracy theorist (or CT, as I guess it's been shortened to) I'm just curious how you see this as fitting into the schedule of events. Considering the same thing happened with the London attacks, are these just advantageous events used by the terrorist?

What about Building 7? Do you believe it fell on its own? What do you make of the people who heard the owner call for it to be "pulled"?

Is it a coincidence that Bush Sr and a member of the Bin Laden family (Shafig Bin Laden) were meeting at a conference of the Carlyle group in Washington? Not to mention the chief financier of the so-called hijackers, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with Bush administration officials the week before 9/11.

What about the fact that Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, wasn't really behaving like a fundamental muslim. Quite the opposite, in fact. http://www.madcowprod.com/longislandpress.htm
How do you explain that at least 8 of the hijackers were still alive after crashing planes into buildings? (cached link at http://propagandamatrix.com/seven_of_the_wtc_hijackers_found_alive.html)

I mean, just because Al Queda loves to take responsibility for everything, and because some former CIA-trained guy says a bunch of stuff on tapes (which just get recycled when the need arises), does that mean I should believe it was nothing but a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists? I just don't see enough evidence to support the 'official story'.

The fact of the matter is that I don't see any real motive for muslims, since they're obviously getting the short end of the stick. The fact that the Afghanistan offensive was planned before 9/11, and that the Taliban offered to hand over Bin-Laden seems to suggest the real motives lies somewhere else. And once we discover motive, we can usually come up with a list of suspects.

I'm not going to come up with any theories anymore, because I'm tired of being classified as a lunatic conspiracy theorist. I suppose asking questions is no longer a good, democratic thing to do.

And around the merry-go-round goes. EXPLAIN THIS!! EXPLAIN THAT!!!
No
YOU are claiming conspiracy..YOU explain why that is eveidence of one.

Asking questions is an admirable trait and I encourage everyone to do it. But when answers are presented that you consider wrong, explain why instead of using innuendo. Assertions and "I don't think" and "I can't understand" types of statements mean nothing.

[king_george]

what are you talking about, my rebutal is in the first reply, which you chose to ignore and instead focus your reply over the humour I included.

sucks to be you, attacking the one questionable point rather than the whole message.

I never implied anyone perform "felatio" on a world leader. If that's your type of humor...well don't quit your day job and turn to stand up. Now care to explain your "connection" you mentioned before?

[Peckerwood]

xKagex...I believe that the simulation was called Operation Vigilant Guardian

Here is a direct link to Alex Jones discussing the topic:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/170904alexdrillclip.WMV

In the link there is also a short ABC clip discussing the topic itself

[poedua]

poedua, what do you make of the 'war games' that took place on 9/11?

I make nothing of it. As king_george said ..an open ended question with no implications being firmly planted. I could do the same ....i.e what do you make of the fact is was a sunny day on 9/11...the relevance needs to be establshed...and, in the end, what it proves. Saying there were war games proves nothing ..what does it prove ?

Since you're not a conspiracy theorist (or CT, as I guess it's been shortened to) I'm just curious how you see this as fitting into the schedule of events. Considering the same thing happened with the London attacks, are these just advantageous events used by the terrorist?

See the king_george post ....this is another example. I have no issue with the schedule of events.

It's like a Rorschach test - you are seeing something in all of these " alleged " examples of evidence of conspiracy that I am not seeing. If you see these events as noteworthy and meaningful and indicative of something other than what they are...let us know. I can't explian why you say they are relevant - only you can do that.


What about Building 7? Do you believe it fell on its own? What do you make of the people who heard the owner call for it to be "pulled"?


I make nothing of this either..there is no reason to. If you think there is, give a detailed expalantion as to the anomaly and what it proves. You're asking ME to explain things YOU find curious...shifitng the burden of the explanation on me for something I have no issue with.. You are succoming to exactly what king_george identified.

Is it a coincidence that Bush Sr and a member of the Bin Laden family (Shafig Bin Laden) were meeting at a conference of the Carlyle group in Washington?

I don't know. If it is a coincidence in your mind - fine. A coincidence to what ? And if it is - so what does that have to do with 9/11 ? Is this suppose to be proof of a conspiracy ? What is the relevance of this so-called coincidence to anything at all ? Can you explain ?


Not to mention the chief financier of the so-called hijackers, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with Bush administration officials the week before 9/11.

You're doing exactly what king_george touched on. OK Fine ...keep going with your explanation. This means what then ? Is this supposed to be proof of something. How is it relevant and what does it prove ...you haven't mentioned any of that yet.

What about the fact that Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, wasn't really behaving like a fundamental muslim. Quite the opposite, in fact. http://www.madcowprod.com/longislandpress.htm

You say he didn't berhave like a fundamental muslim. So what ? Is this supposed to be proof of something. How is it relevant and what does it prove ...you haven't mentioned any of that yet. Waht does this prove ?

How do you explain that at least 8 of the hijackers were still alive after crashing planes into buildings? (cached link at http://propagandamatrix.com/seven_of_the_wtc_hijackers_found_alive.html)

OK fine. Finish your point....bring your allegations to completion. Is this supposed to be proof of something. How is it relevant and what does it prove ...you haven't mentioned any of that yet.

I mean, just because Al Queda loves to take responsibility for everything, and because some former CIA-trained guy says a bunch of stuff on tapes (which just get recycled when the need arises), does that mean I should believe it was nothing but a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists?

All the evidence suggests he is the strongest suspect. There are no other suspects based on the evidence so far. If there is evidence of someone else...what is the evidence and who did it ?


I just don't see enough evidence to support the 'official story'.

Actually, it's the opposite, there isn't enough evidence - there is however plenty of speculation and noting of events - to support a conspiracy.

The fact of the matter is that I don't see any real motive for muslims, since they're obviously getting the short end of the stick. The fact that the Afghanistan offensive was planned before 9/11, and that the Taliban offered to hand over Bin-Laden seems to suggest the real motives lies somewhere else. And once we discover motive, we can usually come up with a list of suspects.

....keep going...none of which is evidence of a conspiracy. You keep making king_george 's point for him.

I'm not going to come up with any theories anymore, because I'm tired of being classified as a lunatic conspiracy theorist. I suppose asking questions is no longer a good, democratic thing to do.

I think you should ask questions, point out amomalies ...just cite how they are relevant and what they actually prove. Lot's and lots of questions from CTs ...but no proof or answers to back up the expanations to the questions.

[ that said .....can a long winded diatribe from peckerwood be far behind ? ]

[Peckerwood]

[ that said .....can a long winded diatribe from peckerwood be far behind ? ]
ROTFLMFAO

:lol:

You love me...admit it ;)

[hotweiss]

Evidence?

Why is being Masonic a bad thing?

Simply put, the people at the top of the pyramid are evil. They will do anything to hold on to their power and wealth. Just don't confuse the naive Masons in the first 3 degrees (most Masons) that are not aware of the real agenda and that are brainwashed into this "business club" based on a fairytale dogma which is founded on the support of "their" banks and the sustenance of "their" nepotism. Almost every single war in this world can be linked to the people at the top of the pyramid including World War 2 which killed 50 million. More information can be found here:

http://freemasonrywatch.org

[hotweiss]

Hardly a spin..

All I'm saying is there is an error in reasoning and misinterpration of alleged evidence that will result in an innocent man being wrongly convicted and setnenced to death, or, the same error in reasoning and misinterpration of alleged evidence that will result in conclusion of a " slam dunk " certainty that there are WMD - a false conclusion leading to an invasion.

This is the same error in reasoning and misinterpration of alleged evidence that MAY also cause CTs to come to the false conclusion that Bush did 9 / 11.

" Alleged " evidence to support WMD & convicting men to death & 9/1l1 conspiracies.....all address potential errors in reasoning used to arrive at false conclusions IMO

There's one thing you have to understand - it's a conspiracy. The true nature of this crime has been concealed and all of the tracks have been erased. The elite that reside in the American government have the same flaws just like everyone else except they cannot be checked as they are at the top of the hierarchy and I can guarantee you that they are not holy. Why is it so hard to believe that they (only a few) could have conspired to commit 9/11? After all they killed 1.5 million through sanctions in Iraq, 2 million in Vietnam, 250,000 in Iraq due to military intervention and now close to 2,500 of their own in Iraq. Oh and let's not forget that the U.S. is the number one arms producer in the world. Think about how many have died thanks to their weapons.

PS-nothing happens by accident in politics

[gordholio]

There is an elite and it operates under different branches:
Bilderberg Group, Illuminati, top people in the Masons, Skull and Bones members, etc.
They make the decisions and we are the pawns. We have no say really.

[hotweiss]

There is an elite and it operates under different branches:
Bilderberg Group, Illuminati, top people in the Masons, Skull and Bones members, etc.
They make the decisions and we are the pawns. We have no say really.

Definately, in this present day democracy is a farce. The only thing more powerful than these organizations are the few main banks.

[Peckerwood]

If well developed highly intelligent elitists did exist...where would they reside? A Toronto slum? A NYC ghetto?

Hell no.

They would reside in the best places to secure their control on things of course...

Government establishments(how many US presidents have been Masons)...
Wealth generators such as banks(Masons were the first to create banks)...
International Organisations insuring wealth generation(multinational corporations)

These people did not get to their positions overnight...it took centuries of intergovernmental wrangling, warfare, and wealth generation where those with intellect bound together with like-minded goals and continued their stranglehold on the lower uneducated classes...they will not give it up willingly or easily.

And I don't blame them

If you were smarter than the rest of your room mates...and your room mates happened to be a bunch of rowdy maroons...wouldn't you pit them against each other so as to avoid any direct attacks on your own person?

Sure you would...and then you could comfortably set the foundings for solutions to their "problems" thereby ensuring your established lead in the house...they all look to you for problem solving and in turn they no longer see you as a direct threat...instead more like a beacon of knowledge that they can siphon from time to time...of course they never get any smarter, cause if they did then they would become a direct rival...

So you seek the intelligent ones within the rowdiness and look to create alliances...then in turn you share knowledge and create a base for operations within the frat house to which the intelligent ones maintain power through subtle manipulation.

Problem - create a false problem and leave no signs that it was you that did it
Reaction - people are afraid of this "new" problem and look to find answers
Solution - offer the solution to the problem and appear to be the fixer of all issues.

This system ensures that you will continue to be well respected within the frat house and a non-threat.

That is until you get caught.

Dissemination of false information...discrediting of possible opponents...creation of a power-structure based on respect through faith of action on your part.

Thus the opponents that "discovered" you, end up looking like morons to everyone else...thus avoiding a revolt inside the frat house.

A beautiful chess game that requires excellent knowledge of abstract psychology(basis for mass psychology), institutional logistics(helps if you are the one to design and create the institution), and physical foundations created long before entering the frat house(establishment of direct coup both physical and mental)

If you look hard enough you can see it happening. I had to have a couple of Masons show me through subtle manipulation...one was my Great Uncle...the other is my Aikido Sensei.

It is quite interesting and it works quite well...although very complicated

[hotweiss]

If well developed highly intelligent elitists did exist...where would they reside? A Toronto slum? A NYC ghetto?

Hell no.

They would reside in the best places to secure their control on things of course...

Government establishments(how many US presidents have been Masons)...
Wealth generators such as banks(Masons were the first to create banks)...
International Organisations insuring wealth generation(multinational corporations)

These people did not get to their positions overnight...it took centuries of intergovernmental wrangling, warfare, and wealth generation where those with intellect bound together with like-minded goals and continued their stranglehold on the lower uneducated classes...they will not give it up willingly or easily.

And I don't blame them

If you were smarter than the rest of your room mates...and your room mates happened to be a bunch of rowdy maroons...wouldn't you pit them against each other so as to avoid any direct attacks on your own person?

Sure you would...and then you could comfortably set the foundings for solutions to their "problems" thereby ensuring your established lead in the house...they all look to you for problem solving and in turn they no longer see you as a direct threat...instead more like a beacon of knowledge that they can siphon from time to time...of course they never get any smarter, cause if they did then they would become a direct rival...

So you seek the intelligent ones within the rowdiness and look to create alliances...then in turn you share knowledge and create a base for operations within the frat house to which the intelligent ones maintain power through subtle manipulation.

Problem - create a false problem and leave no signs that it was you that did it
Reaction - people are afraid of this "new" problem and look to find answers
Solution - offer the solution to the problem and appear to be the fixer of all issues.

This system ensures that you will continue to be well respected within the frat house and a non-threat.

That is until you get caught.

Dissemination of false information...discrediting of possible opponents...creation of a power-structure based on respect through faith of action on your part.

Thus the opponents that "discovered" you, end up looking like morons to everyone else...thus avoiding a revolt inside the frat house.

A beautiful chess game that requires excellent knowledge of abstract psychology(basis for mass psychology), institutional logistics(helps if you are the one to design and create the institution), and physical foundations created long before entering the frat house(establishment of direct coup both physical and mental)

If you look hard enough you can see it happening. I had to have a couple of Masons show me through subtle manipulation...one was my Great Uncle...the other is my Aikido Sensei.

It is quite interesting and it works quite well...although very complicated

Yes, that's a very truthful Darwinian/Hegelian analysis, but we should strive to be as far away as possible "ideologically" from our animal cousins, after all that's what makes us human. They shouldn't be rationalized, they should be vilified.

[Peckerwood]

Yes, that's a very truthful Darwinian/Hegelian analysis, but we should strive to be as far away as possible "ideologically" from our animal cousins, after all that's what makes us human. They shouldn't be rationalized, they should be vilified.
Our basis for rationale is the same aspect that animals use...ours is just a hell of a lot more complicated and principled...nothing more.

Vilification is along the same rationale...vilifying them is nothing more than attacking them using their own tactics.

And a revolution is no better because they will be at the forefront in the creation of the new establishment so they can usurp it to their liking.

It is a fact of life and far to difficult to eliminate...unless of course we go back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition...and we know how well that turned out.

[hotweiss]

Our basis for rationale is the same aspect that animals use...ours is just a hell of a lot more complicated and principled...nothing more.

Vilification is along the same rationale...vilifying them is nothing more than attacking them using their own tactics.

And a revolution is no better because they will be at the forefront in the creation of the new establishment so they can usurp it to their liking.

It is a fact of life and far to difficult to eliminate...unless of course we go back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition...and we know how well that turned out.

In this context I used rationalization and vilification as antonyms of each other.

[poedua]

There's one thing you have to understand - it's a conspiracy.

I undersgand you beleive it's a conspiracy. Trouble is, there is absolutely no evidence of a conspiracy. No one has yet proven one. If a conspiracy exists, simply provide the details of WHO did it. .....please tell me who all the players were, what their relationships were, where it was planned and what evidence exists that proves the existence of the cosnpiracy...not hints that a conspiracy may exist.

The true nature of this crime has been concealed and all of the tracks have been erased.

Well that is a CT pre-conceived theory only. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere to prove this is the fact . That is the problem..this notion " has been concealed and all of the tracks have been erased " is simply a belief...like a belief in GOD...the valdility of the beleif in GOD which is simply based on faith....not facts or physical proof .

The elite that reside in the American government have the same flaws just like everyone else except they cannot be checked as they are at the top of the hierarchy and I can guarantee you that they are not holy. Why is it so hard to believe that they (only a few) could have conspired to commit 9/11?

Because there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to prove this is the fact - being capable of conspiring is not proof of guilt of conspiring..that is a quantum leap of logic.

After all they killed 1.5 million through sanctions in Iraq,

Those were UN anctions ...not US sanctions...the US did not kill 1.5 million..if anything the defiance of Saddam to adhere to UN conditions put his own poeple in jeopardy. Compliance by iraq would avoide many of the deaths that occured


2 million in Vietnam,

Irrelevant


250,000 in Iraq due to military intervention

US invasion has allegedly led directly or indirectly to 43,000 civilian deaths...by both the US and insurgents


Oh and let's not forget that the U.S. is the number one arms producer in the world. Think about how many have died thanks to their weapons.

Illogical argument to the point and irrelevant

[poedua]

Our basis for rationale is the same aspect that animals use...ours is just a hell of a lot more complicated and principled...nothing more. .

Just to be clear, what " basis " of amimal rationale would that be that we humans use as well ?

[hotweiss]

I undersgand you beleive it's a conspiracy. Trouble is, there is absolutely no evidence of a conspiracy. No one has yet proven one. If a conspiracy exists, simply provide the details of WHO did it. .....please tell me who all the players were, what their relationships were, where it was planned and what evidence exists that proves the existence of the cosnpiracy...not hints that a conspiracy may exist.



Well that is a CT pre-conceived theory only. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere to prove this is the fact . That is the problem..this notion " has been concealed and all of the tracks have been erased " is simply a belief...like a belief in GOD...the valdility of the beleif in GOD which is simply based on faith....not facts or physical proof .



Because there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to prove this is the fact - being capable of conspiring is not proof of guilt of conspiring..that is a quantum leap of logic.



Those were UN anctions ...not US sanctions...the US did not kill 1.5 million..if anything the defiance of Saddam to adhere to UN conditions put his own poeple in jeopardy. Compliance by iraq would avoide many of the deaths that occured




Irrelevant




US invasion has allegedly led directly or indirectly to 43,000 civilian deaths...by both the US and insurgents




Illogical argument to the point and irrelevant

Yes, it is based on a preconceived theory, every crime investigation is based on a preconceived theory. And actually there is physical proof relating to 9/11 and there is even much more circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy theorists are not solely basing their theories on the capability of carrying out such an event, but this fact should be considered. Also, the sanctions were US lead, but you have to remember that the UN is a Masonic invention. The US and the UN serve the same master. The former US atrocities are relevant as they establish a pattern and they help to establish character.

[Peckerwood]

Just to be clear, what " basis " of amimal rationale would that be that we humans use as well ?
Social structuring through antagonistic manipulation...wolves and chimps show advanced forms of this behaviour...their respective physical needs tend to drive the basis for direct action, just like our own.

Remove constant need supplements from society and watch the resultant decay of civility...civility being the behaviour shown through complacency by means of constant need supplement...once that system of supplication is removed or disrupted, the natural result is to bargain through manipulation.

Violence in this case is used as a chip in the manipulative bargaining process. The same way that a wolf will growl or bare it's teeth while eating to ward off other rivals in the facilitaion of need supplementaion.

[xKagex]

I make nothing of it. As king_george said ..an open ended question with no implications being firmly planted. I could do the same ....i.e what do you make of the fact is was a sunny day on 9/11...the relevance needs to be establshed...and, in the end, what it proves. Saying there were war games proves nothing ..what does it prove ?



See the king_george post ....this is another example. I have no issue with the schedule of events.

It's like a Rorschach test - you are seeing something in all of these " alleged " examples of evidence of conspiracy that I am not seeing. If you see these events as noteworthy and meaningful and indicative of something other than what they are...let us know. I can't explian why you say they are relevant - only you can do that.





I make nothing of this either..there is no reason to. If you think there is, give a detailed expalantion as to the anomaly and what it proves. You're asking ME to explain things YOU find curious...shifitng the burden of the explanation on me for something I have no issue with.. You are succoming to exactly what king_george identified.



I don't know. If it is a coincidence in your mind - fine. A coincidence to what ? And if it is - so what does that have to do with 9/11 ? Is this suppose to be proof of a conspiracy ? What is the relevance of this so-called coincidence to anything at all ? Can you explain ?




You're doing exactly what king_george touched on. OK Fine ...keep going with your explanation. This means what then ? Is this supposed to be proof of something. How is it relevant and what does it prove ...you haven't mentioned any of that yet.



You say he didn't berhave like a fundamental muslim. So what ? Is this supposed to be proof of something. How is it relevant and what does it prove ...you haven't mentioned any of that yet. Waht does this prove ?



OK fine. Finish your point....bring your allegations to completion. Is this supposed to be proof of something. How is it relevant and what does it prove ...you haven't mentioned any of that yet.



All the evidence suggests he is the strongest suspect. There are no other suspects based on the evidence so far. If there is evidence of someone else...what is the evidence and who did it ?




Actually, it's the opposite, there isn't enough evidence - there is however plenty of speculation and noting of events - to support a conspiracy.



....keep going...none of which is evidence of a conspiracy. You keep making king_george 's point for him.



I think you should ask questions, point out amomalies ...just cite how they are relevant and what they actually prove. Lot's and lots of questions from CTs ...but no proof or answers to back up the expanations to the questions.

[ that said .....can a long winded diatribe from peckerwood be far behind ? ]

I asked you some serious questions, although there are many more. I never asserted that they prove anything, my only point is that there are obvious holes and discrepancies in the official story.

You've made your point. I won't be debating this any longer. That was a good half hour of my life I'll never get back.

[xKagex]

If you look hard enough you can see it happening. I had to have a couple of Masons show me through subtle manipulation...one was my Great Uncle...the other is my Aikido Sensei.

It is quite interesting and it works quite well...although very complicated

Seriously? I'd actually ruled out the Masons and Freemasonry as fairly harmless organizations. The only conspiracy I see is one called "the money trail" and it's not much of a conspiracy, more a series of events that lead to more money for the elite, at the expense of the rest of us.

My thoughts on Masons are that they are an organization that seeks to keep "secret" knowledge alive through weird rituals and "mystery school" initiations. This knowledge, usually known as the occult, would have been quite illegal and threatening to the Church back in the Dark Ages, which is when many of these groups were established. Throughout history there have always been mystery schools which claim to have information and knowledge that's been hidden from the general public.

I'm interested in your view though.. PM me if you want.

[king_george]

Simply put, the people at the top of the pyramid are evil. They will do anything to hold on to their power and wealth. Just don't confuse the naive Masons in the first 3 degrees (most Masons) that are not aware of the real agenda and that are brainwashed into this "business club" based on a fairytale dogma which is founded on the support of "their" banks and the sustenance of "their" nepotism. Almost every single war in this world can be linked to the people at the top of the pyramid including World War 2 which killed 50 million. More information can be found here:

http://freemasonrywatch.org

Yikes another "information" site that needs to get a web designer with a brain.
Actually it's interesting just for the fact that it uses so much religious imagery trying to prove that being a Mason is being in league with the ol' debbil SATAN!!! :twisted:

Anyways I can't read through that dreck with out getting a headache. Got an independent site that has verifiable facts rather than interpretation according to that book of fairy tales called the buy-bull? I love the 666 thing on the UPC codes. Classic nutcase comedy. Another fave is the fact s/he chooses 5 buildings in downtown DC and then draws a pentagram. Spooky!! I can draw a pentagram with 5 houses right near where I live, and we have a 666 on our street! Can the portal to Hell be nearby?
Anyways the site is chock full of "According to a source" type quotes. Absolutely worthless crap.
OMG I just noticed the Flintstones are on a page. Who wooda thunkit?

My neighbor is a mason (he has his trade papers) and he is unionized too! Double Whammy!! :razz:

[king_george]

There is an elite and it operates under different branches:
Bilderberg Group, Illuminati, top people in the Masons, Skull and Bones members, etc.
They make the decisions and we are the pawns. We have no say really.

You're not paranoid, everyone really is out to get you!! :cheesygri

[king_george]

I asked you some serious questions, although there are many more. I never asserted that they prove anything, my only point is that there are obvious holes and discrepancies in the official story.

You've made your point. I won't be debating this any longer. That was a good half hour of my life I'll never get back.

bolding mine

Because they don't all by themselves. Argument by innuendo. Of course there are holes in the official story. Nobody denies that. YOU are claiming conspiracy, YOU explain why. Explanations do not include asking rhetorical questions.

[Happy13178]

The LA conference is well worth the $75. From 8 am to like 12 midnight you'll have access to tons of seminars and workshops. Plus, you'll acquire great insight from people like this:

http://69.93.122.250/%7Eamerican/info/presenters.htm

Plus, Charlie Sheen and Keanu Reeves will be there also.

Why pay $75 for a bunch of stuff I can find in a $5 copy of the National Enquirer? I can get bigger stars than Keanu and Charlie, with better dirt. I know they don't have the first-hand knowledge that Sheen and Reeves do, but I'm sure I can make do. Better yet, search the net for blogs on the conspiracy theories. You spend money on this stuff, and yet you post in rfd....interesting....

[Happy13178]

There's one thing you have to understand - it's a conspiracy. The true nature of this crime has been concealed and all of the tracks have been erased. The elite that reside in the American government have the same flaws just like everyone else except they cannot be checked as they are at the top of the hierarchy and I can guarantee you that they are not holy. Why is it so hard to believe that they (only a few) could have conspired to commit 9/11? After all they killed 1.5 million through sanctions in Iraq, 2 million in Vietnam, 250,000 in Iraq due to military intervention and now close to 2,500 of their own in Iraq. Oh and let's not forget that the U.S. is the number one arms producer in the world. Think about how many have died thanks to their weapons.

PS-nothing happens by accident in politics

Do you really have nothing better to do? Really? Is Calgary that boring?

[poedua]

I asked you some serious questions, although there are many more. I never asserted that they prove anything, my only point is that there are obvious holes and discrepancies in the official story.

You've made your point. I won't be debating this any longer. That was a good half hour of my life I'll never get back.

xKagex - there is no problem posing " serious questions " of events that you can't understand regarding 9/11 as you do - and as many other CTs do. But the questions being posed aren't being put foward as evidence of being able to " prove anything ", they are simply being put foward as an obvservation of an interesting fact and that is where it stops.

I think the problem lies in that CTs will not ( or can not ) answer these questions themselves, and therefore punt the " burden of proof / answering " the questions to others.

In fact, CT's go a step further. CTs cite a fact or event they think is unusal, they pose this to nonCTs for an explanation - as you did to me - and when nonCTs don't find it unsual and/or have any explanation, the CTs interpret this as even further evidence of a conspiracy.

I'd only ask you 2 questions ;

1. Do you think Bush / ( or some US agency(s) ) planned 9/11 to provide an excuse for invading Iraq ? In other words, what was THE #1 reason for a US planned 9/11 attack in your view ?

2. And, don't you think these US plotters would have left no stone unturned to ensure this plot was NOT - or should I say NEVER - discovered anytime before or after 9/11 ?

[poedua]

bolding mine

Because they don't all by themselves. Argument by innuendo. Of course there are holes in the official story. Nobody denies that. YOU are claiming conspiracy, YOU explain why. Explanations do not include asking rhetorical questions.

Couldn't agree more. That's it in a nutshell........ argument by innuendo.........explanations via rhetorical questions.

[xKagex]

I'd only ask you 2 questions ;

1. Do you think Bush / ( or some US agency(s) ) planned 9/11 to provide an excuse for invading Iraq ? In other words, what was THE #1 reason for a US planned 9/11 attack in your view ?

2. And, don't you think these US plotters would have left no stone unturned to ensure this plot was NOT - or should I say NEVER - discovered anytime before or after 9/11 ?

1. Iraq was only one tiny piece of the puzzle. The much bigger problem, with larger repercussions, is the erosion of liberty and democracy in America itself. This "group", whoever they are, is obviously trying to do (to the world) what they failed to do about 60 years ago.

2. They're obviously not used to being questioned. I don't think they counted on the huge impact of the Internet. Even so, they've obviously succeeded in turning people who question the truth into conspiracy theorists. Like a wise man once said: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”.

(I can't believe I'm arguing, when I said I wouldn't).

[poedua]

1. Iraq was only one tiny piece of the puzzle. The much bigger problem, with larger repercussions, is the erosion of liberty and democracy in America itself. This "group", whoever they are, is obviously trying to do (to the world) what they failed to do about 60 years ago.

Let me rephrase the question, as you don't touch on any motive. As a CT, it is your contention that the Bush administration / elements of the US government actually planned and executed the 9 / 11 attacks - an unprecedented act.

I am curious what you think the primary " motive " was ? Most pre-mediated crimes to this level of planning involve a motive . Why do it ? What would it accomplish or allow them to accomplish ? For example, if some plotter must have made the case, that if " we " destroy the WTC, hit the Pentagaon etc. etc. , then we can do " X " as a consequence. What is " X" - particularly if Iraq is only a minor piece of the puzzle as you suggest ?

What unprecedented objective requires such an unprecedented act like 9/11 - an objective that could NOT be achieved any other way ?

2. They're obviously not used to being questioned. I don't think they counted on the huge impact of the Internet. Even so, they've obviously succeeded in turning people who question the truth into conspiracy theorists. Like a wise man once said: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”.

(I can't believe I'm arguing, when I said I wouldn't).

Regardless of the reaction you describe , that wasn't my question. Let me re-phrase it.

I was curious to know your opinion as to whether youthought the alleged US plotters, since it is allegdly an " inside job ' would have all things humanly possible to avoid detecton of this internal plot. Because it's discovery could shake the very foundation of the US as a country. With those sorts of high stakes, do you think that avioding detection of the plot would have THE top proirity of the plotters ?

[king_george]

In a nutshell, why are all the CT freaks alive and able to spread their crap on the net? An evil organization would take pains to eliminate all sources of controversy wouldn't they? I have heard they can arrange "accidents" if necessary, so why haven't they?

Could it be there is no conspiracy?

[hotweiss]

xKagex - there is no problem posing " serious questions " of events that you can't understand regarding 9/11 as you do - and as many other CTs do. But the questions being posed aren't being put foward as evidence of being able to " prove anything ", they are simply being put foward as an obvservation of an interesting fact and that is where it stops.

I think the problem lies in that CTs will not ( or can not ) answer these questions themselves, and therefore punt the " burden of proof / answering " the questions to others.

In fact, CT's go a step further. CTs cite a fact or event they think is unusal, they pose this to nonCTs for an explanation - as you did to me - and when nonCTs don't find it unsual and/or have any explanation, the CTs interpret this as even further evidence of a conspiracy.

I'd only ask you 2 questions ;

1. Do you think Bush / ( or some US agency(s) ) planned 9/11 to provide an excuse for invading Iraq ? In other words, what was THE #1 reason for a US planned 9/11 attack in your view ?

2. And, don't you think these US plotters would have left no stone unturned to ensure this plot was NOT - or should I say NEVER - discovered anytime before or after 9/11 ?

1. Bush is a Masonic puppet. He just reads prepared speaches and shakes hands, nothing more. The Masonic bankers and the industrialists planned out the whole thing. They are trying to make the Middle-East a corporate colony which will be enslaved by banks. Open a history book, it's not going to seem far fetched after you put down the remote and video games; actually none of this will seem far fetched if you know any history. Unfortunately the majority of society is dumbed down with a sabotaged educational system, television, video games, and drugs. It's all by design.

2. Yes, 9/11 was planned out with military precision, although mistakes were made. For example, they found a passport beside the WTC, several of the suicide hijackers were later found alive and their biggest mistake was that they underestimated the public. Here's some physical proof:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[hotweiss]

In a nutshell, why are all the CT freaks alive and able to spread their crap on the net? An evil organization would take pains to eliminate all sources of controversy wouldn't they? I have heard they can arrange "accidents" if necessary, so why haven't they?

Could it be there is no conspiracy?

Great question! Government bullying would simply validate the conspiracy theorists. Why go after the barking dogs when you control the hierarchy? Everybody is happy when they have money and food, they know that masses will not risk their lives/standard of living for the truth. The Masonic media manipulated masses into a furor after 3,000 American civilians died, but the media was numb to the fact that 1.5 million Iraqi civilians died due to US lead sanctions. The media is how they manipulate the masses and I'm sure that you'll see the internet as we know it being altered within a decade or so. Believe me that they are getting scared, their cult of evil is slowly being exposed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-82095917705734983

Prior to the internet, the above when mentioned would be deemed insane.

[king_george]

The Masons...

I was under the impression that it was the Evil Jewish Cabal® that controlled the media.

How wrong I am.

How do I get a membership card into a group that controls the world? :cheesygri

Seriously, how can any person who can think critically believe there is a group(s) that can control almost everything in today's world? Can you give even ONE verifiable, concrete and indisputable evidence of a Masonic/Bilderberg/Illuminati action?

Great question! Government bullying would simply validate the conspiracy theorists. Why go after the barking dogs when you control the hierarchy? Everybody is happy when they have money and food, they know that masses will not risk their lives/standard of living for the truth. The Masonic media manipulated masses into a furor after 3,000 American civilians died, but the media was numb to the fact that 1.5 million Iraqi civilians died due to US lead sanctions. The media is how they manipulate the masses and I'm sure that you'll see the internet as we know it being altered within a decade or so. Believe me that they are getting scared, their cult of evil is slowly being exposed:

Nice non-answer too. I asked why they are still around and why they can spread their version of events unhindered. Apparently they eliminate folks with no consience at all. So why are they still alive? How do you know they are scared? From reading CT sites?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...095917705734983

What a pile of crap. Unsupported assertions, vague suspicions and outright innuendo. A list of "members" but none are shown on camera. Typical of the standard of "evidence" used by losers like Alex Jones. He is nothing but a media ***** IMHO.

Get another hero to cite, he is a total jackass.

[poedua]

1. Bush is a Masonic puppet. He just reads prepared speaches and shakes hands, nothing more. The Masonic bankers and the industrialists planned out the whole thing. They are trying to make the Middle-East a corporate colony which will be enslaved by banks. Open a history book, it's not going to seem far fetched after you put down the remote and video games; actually none of this will seem far fetched if you know any history. Unfortunately the majority of society is dumbed down with a sabotaged educational system, television, video games, and drugs. It's all by design.
I see.......

- " Masonic bankers and the industrialists planned out the whole thing [ 9 / 11 ] "

- " to make the Middle-East a corporate colony which will be enslaved by banks "

...so the 9 /11 plot was actually an evil Masonic scheme to take over the Mid -East economy...not to take over the entire world mind you ..just the Mid-East...would I suppose that would only make them " semi-evil " or " quasi-evil " ...know if there are any learned academic men - i.e Phd's - among these Masonic bankers and industrialists ...some " Dr. Evils " in a manner of speaking ? :)

Tell me. Why couldn't they get the Middle-East to be a corporate colony enslaved by [ Masonic ] banks the good old fashioned way...you know... lying, cheating, corruption, fraud and blackmail, mergers, takovers etc. ? Why was 9/11 the only way to achieve this objective and why that date in time - 9 / 11 ..i.e not earlier or later ?


2. Yes, 9/11 was planned out with military precision, although mistakes were made. For example, they found a passport beside the WTC, several of the suicide hijackers were later found alive and their biggest mistake was that they underestimated the public.

Were Masons flying the planes - or did the Masons contract that suicide part out ?

I assume 9/11 was a resounding sucess in your view then.....is the Masonic scheme of trying to make the Middle-East a corporate colony which will be enslaved by banks on schedule ?

Here's some physical proof:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Yes a very credible analysis indeed.....a prime example

....We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this [ 30 floor ] block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!

....30 floors just turned to powder - just like that, not upon impact with the ground at collapse or after the planes hit - but in mid-air.

Right. :rolleyes:

[king_george]

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Ho hum the same crap over and over again. Why can't this Jones clown think up some new fallacies to spread about.

I can't even get past the first page without seeing a mistake..

There was molten metal at the site and he says molten steel, but never even once mentions how he knows it was steel. Plus the support trusses didn't have to melt, only hea tup and weaken.

Such a silly and ignorant fool he is. Cutter charges indeed. I wish he would mention just how much thermite would be needed to cut all the columns and where (and how) they were placed in the building. There is not one iota of physical evidence there that can be verified by an independent third party. Same old same old. He insists it's a conspiracy and then picks out facts that taken alone would seem to support his assertions. A closed-minded fool.

[FastFokker]

Ho hum the same crap over and over again. Why can't this Jones clown think up some new fallacies to spread about.

I can't even get past the first page without seeing a mistake..If you haven't gotten past the first page, maybe you should withhold your judgement of the person being a clown/ignorant fool, just because you disagree with one of his first commentaries. :confused:

There could actually be some real insights and valid information inside, if you took the time to read and maintained an open mind. Just a thought.

Unless you did read the entire thing and found nothing valid.. then simply ignore me. :)

[king_george]

If you haven't gotten past the first page, maybe you should withhold your judgement of the person being a clown/ignorant fool, just because you disagree with one of his first commentaries. :confused:

There could actually be some real insights and valid information inside, if you took the time to read and maintained an open mind. Just a thought.

Unless you did read the entire thing and found nothing valid.. then simply ignore me. :)

I didn't say I never read it, I said I found a mistake on the very first page of his paper. There were lots more than that. He shows himself a credulous fool throughout the paper.

All kinds of vague theories and no substance whatsoever. He isn't even a structural engineer and yet he presents his "facts" as valid on building collapses. Argument from complete ignorance.

No worries I won't ignore you... :razz:

[FastFokker]

Very possible, I haven't read it myself.. though everyone should be suspect. Heck even the leader and commander of America (Prez. Bush Pt.2) is a fraud. :lol:

I have to sleep now, but I should try and read through that link tomorrow.. maybe I can join forces with you, or otherwise fight you tooth and nail. :lol:

Nitey nite!

[poedua]

Ho hum the same crap over and over again. Why can't this Jones clown think up some new fallacies to spread about.

I can't even get past the first page without seeing a mistake..

There was molten metal at the site and he says molten steel, but never even once mentions how he knows it was steel. Plus the support trusses didn't have to melt, only hea tup and weaken.

Such a silly and ignorant fool he is. Cutter charges indeed. I wish he would mention just how much thermite would be needed to cut all the columns and where (and how) they were placed in the building. There is not one iota of physical evidence there that can be verified by an independent third party. Same old same old. He insists it's a conspiracy and then picks out facts that taken alone would seem to support his assertions. A closed-minded fool.

On the charges. There were 2 buildings.....100 stories high....each compleletly wired with exoplisves and with all the WTC security, no one ever noticed the work going on . A quote from a demo company on their " highest building " controlled demolition.....

Under CDI direction, NASDI/Homrich's 21 man crew needed 3 months to investigate the structure and 4 months to complete preparations per CDI's implosion design.

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 “primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20020304145120

...all this for only an abondoned building that's 410 feet tall...the WTC is 1,360 feet tall.

And through it all, they somehow " found a passport beside the WTC " but not a millimeter of detonating cord or charge residue were anywhere to be found - what are the odds of that ??? :)

[hotweiss]

I see.......

- " Masonic bankers and the industrialists planned out the whole thing [ 9 / 11 ] "

- " to make the Middle-East a corporate colony which will be enslaved by banks "

...so the 9 /11 plot was actually an evil Masonic scheme to take over the Mid -East economy...not to take over the entire world mind you ..just the Mid-East...would I suppose that would only make them " semi-evil " or " quasi-evil " ...know if there are any learned academic men - i.e Phd's - among these Masonic bankers and industrialists ...some " Dr. Evils " in a manner of speaking ? :)

Tell me. Why couldn't they get the Middle-East to be a corporate colony enslaved by [ Masonic ] banks the good old fashioned way...you know... lying, cheating, corruption, fraud and blackmail, mergers, takovers etc. ? Why was 9/11 the only way to achieve this objective and why that date in time - 9 / 11 ..i.e not earlier or later ?




Were Masons flying the planes - or did the Masons contract that suicide part out ?

I assume 9/11 was a resounding sucess in your view then.....is the Masonic scheme of trying to make the Middle-East a corporate colony which will be enslaved by banks on schedule ?



Yes a very credible analysis indeed.....a prime example

....We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this [ 30 floor ] block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!

....30 floors just turned to powder - just like that, not upon impact with the ground at collapse or after the planes hit - but in mid-air.

Right. :rolleyes:

The question Professor Jones and all the other engineers are asking is how did the cement get pulverized into dust before it hit the ground?

[hotweiss]

Ho hum the same crap over and over again. Why can't this Jones clown think up some new fallacies to spread about.

I can't even get past the first page without seeing a mistake..

There was molten metal at the site and he says molten steel, but never even once mentions how he knows it was steel. Plus the support trusses didn't have to melt, only hea tup and weaken.

Such a silly and ignorant fool he is. Cutter charges indeed. I wish he would mention just how much thermite would be needed to cut all the columns and where (and how) they were placed in the building. There is not one iota of physical evidence there that can be verified by an independent third party. Same old same old. He insists it's a conspiracy and then picks out facts that taken alone would seem to support his assertions. A closed-minded fool.

Of course, you can disputes a professor's analysis of the collapse. My mistake.

[hotweiss]

On the charges. There were 2 buildings.....100 stories high....each compleletly wired with exoplisves and with all the WTC security, no one ever noticed the work going on . A quote from a demo company on their " highest building " controlled demolition.....



...all this for only an abondoned building that's 410 feet tall...the WTC is 1,360 feet tall.

And through it all, they somehow " found a passport beside the WTC " but not a millimeter of detonating cord or charge residue were anywhere to be found - what are the odds of that ??? :)

It's a conspiracy, maybe somehow they pulled it off. Just remember that Marvin Bush was in charge of the security for the WTC until the the day of the attack. Coincidence?

[hotweiss]

The word is getting out! Millions have seen this video already and 2 million people listen to the Alex Jones radio show every day.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

[poedua]

The question Professor Jones and all the other engineers are asking is how did the cement get pulverized into dust before it hit the ground?

You just made my point ..when have you ever heard of a controlled demoltion in which 30 floors just " vaporize " into dust ? He was refering to a block of floors ...not just cement.

Buildings collpase when imploded ..they don't " vaporize " ...which none the 30 floors did.

A 410 foot building requires 36,000 ft. of detonating cord...so it isn't a stretch to assume a 1,300 foot bulding lke a WTC tower would require somewhere around 110,000 feet of cord.

Isn't it odd that no cord was ever found in the wreckage ...not one millimeter out of 110,000 feet of cord ?

Also, wouldn't you concede that all this analysis by the good profesor is based on his very careful and minute level of detailed investigation of video footage and audio records in order to come to a controlled demolition theory ?

After all, the North Tower was hit and then stood for 100 minutes - the South Tower was hit 17 minutes later and fell 55 minutes after that...that's a lot of footage by CNN, NBC, ABC etc. etc. for him to go over wouldn't you say ?

[gordholio]

You just made my point ..when have you ever heard of a controlled demoltion in which 30 floors just " vaporize " into dust ? He was refering to a block of floors ...not just cement.

Buildings collpase when imploded ..they don't " vaporize " ...which none the 30 floors did.

A 410 foot building requires 36,000 ft. of detonating cord...so it isn't a stretch to assume a 1,300 foot bulding lke a WTC tower would require somewhere around 110,000 feet of cord.

Isn't it odd that no cord was ever found in the wreckage ...not one millimeter out of 110,000 feet of cord ?

Also, wouldn't you concede that all this analysis by the good profesor is based on his very careful and minute level of detailed investigation of video footage and audio records in order to come to a controlled demolition theory ?

After all, the North Tower was hit and then stood for 100 minutes - the South Tower was hit 17 minutes later and fell 55 minutes after that...that's a lot of footage by CNN, NBC, ABC etc. etc. for him to go over wouldn't you say ?

How do you know there was no "detonating cord"?
The ruins of the building was removed before it could be really examined.

[gordholio]

You're not paranoid, everyone really is out to get you!! :cheesygri
It's not paronia, it's called the truth.

[poedua]

The word is getting out! Millions have seen this video already and 2 million people listen to the Alex Jones radio show every day.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

Millions beleive in UFO's too...and the fact that 2 million people listen to the Alex Jones radio show every proves he's in dubious company and thus speaks for itself.......

.....a " quality " rag like the National Enquirer has a total average weekly circulation of 1.9 million copies, including subscriptions, with a total estimated readership in the U.S. and Canada of 14.3 million.

....another is the Star tabloid, a total average weekly circulation of 1.5
million copies, including subscriptions, with a total estimated readership in
the U.S. and Canada of 7.5 million.

- the most recent WWE " Raw " wrestling telecast drew a 4.0 share - 4 millon plus [ Source : Wiki ]


http://sec.edgar-online.com/2002/02/05/0000950123-02-000937/Section6.asp


...nice try. :)

[poedua]

How do you know there was no "detonating cord"?

Well...for starters...none was found.

They didn't allegedly find snowmobiles or Zamboni's or a Hummer in the debris there either...but to use your logic, I suppose it's a possibility too.

Nonetheless, even though there was no cord found, the absence of this evidence is in no way contrary to the validity of a demolition theory being put forward by ( and according to ) CT's ..it's this sort of convoluded logic as seen by this example.....

" The Toronto Police investigation was never able to establish that Joe Smith was not at the scene of the crime [ i.e can't know there was no "detonating cord ] on the night of August 25th, so we may safely conclude that he was there.[ it was a controlled demolition ] "

...amazing CT logic.

The ruins of the building was removed before it could be really examined.

Really.

They went through it with a fine tooth comb enough to come up with almost 20,000 tissue samples from WTC debris so that almost half of the WTC victims have now been indified via DNA....so much for removing the debris.

Soft tissue samples stand up better and somewhow survive under the masssive weight of collpase of the WTC than industrial detonating cord would stand up I suppose :rolleyes:

[king_george]

It's a conspiracy, maybe somehow they pulled it off. Just remember that Marvin Bush was in charge of the security for the WTC until the the day of the attack. Coincidence?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Marvin Bush left the job in early 2000.

That took me all of 10 seconds to discover.

Try again.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marvin_Bush

http://www.answers.com/topic/marvin-bush

Alex Jones is a complete tool. His papers are best used in a toilet stall. Worshipping him as the "TRVTH" is misguided at best, stupidity at worst.

[king_george]

It's not paronia, it's called the truth.

Only in your fantasy world. I prefer to deal with reality.

If it's the truth I'll say it again

PROVE IT.

[king_george]

Of course, you can disputes a professor's analysis of the collapse. My mistake.

A professor of what again? Structural engineering? No? Is the magic letters Phd make him infallible?

When a real engineer rather than a media ***** wannabe tells me it could not happen that way then I'll take notice.

Apparently according to the infowars site, Bush even has ties to Nazis!! What a loony tune. A true 7th degree black belt total nutcase.

[king_george]

The question Professor Jones and all the other engineers are asking is how did the cement get pulverized into dust before it hit the ground?

Jones is not an engineer. Stop implying he is. As far as the others are, they must be ******** that they can't figure out that concrete pulverizes under pressure. There was lots of pressure involved in the buidlings falling. What's the puzzle here?

[FastFokker]

Millions beleive in UFO's too...Hundreds of millions believe in a God too..

Seems the world has more Theorists than non-Theorists. Maybe that in itself is a conspiracy also! :eek:

[poedua]

Hundreds of millions believe in a God too..

Seems the world has more Theorists than non-Theorists. Maybe that in itself is a conspiracy also! :eek:

I'd suggest there is a difference. Here's why.

A belief that GOD exists does not require any proof of fact or evidence whatsoever. The belief in the existence of GOD derives it's validity as a consequence of faith. You can have valid beleif in GOD in the absence of facts / science / proof.

A belief that a 9/11 conspiracy exists presumes " an accused " ( i.e Bush ) and "guilt " ( i.e affix responsibility ) and therefore DOES require a proof of fact or evidence . Unlike a beleif in GOD, the belief in the existence of a 9/11 conspiracy presuming the guilt of an accused derives it's validity as a consequence of being able to PROVE that case for guilt. And, you can not have valid beleif in a 9/11 conspiracy presuming the guilt of an accused to PROVE a conspiracy in the absence of facts / science / proof .

And, as yet ..there is no evidence of any kind that PROVES a 9/11 conspiracy.

That is the difference in my view.

[king_george]

Hundreds of millions believe in a God too..

Seems the world has more Theorists than non-Theorists. Maybe that in itself is a conspiracy also! :eek:

Dang it stop before my head explodes!!

Maybe thats part of the conspiracy too :lol:

[king_george]

[QUOTE=poedua]
And, as yet ..there is no evidence of any kind that PROVES a 9/11 conspiracy.[QUOTE]

You just don't get it. According to CT wisdom, lack of evidence IS evidence for a conspiracy. :lol: Plus when there is no solid evidence, make something up on the spot so Occam's Razor gets to be like a butter knife.

I read somewhere (I'll try and find the link) that this is the perfect conspiracy with all tracks erased so nobody can any evidence against them and then in the next sentence describe the conspiracy. How dopey is that?

[poedua]

[QUOTE=poedua]
And, as yet ..there is no evidence of any kind that PROVES a 9/11 conspiracy.[QUOTE]

You just don't get it. According to CT wisdom, lack of evidence IS evidence for a conspiracy. :lol: Plus when there is no solid evidence, make something up on the spot so Occam's Razor gets to be like a butter knife.

I read somewhere (I'll try and find the link) that this is the perfect conspiracy with all tracks erased so nobody can any evidence against them and then in the next sentence describe the conspiracy. How dopey is that?

I'd agree...you're preaching to the choir when it comes to trying to figure out CT wisdom.

Good points on the " perfect conspiracy " too ...here's a bumper sticker I saw that pretty much sums it up ...

" The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working."

...the " black hole " of rationalizations IMO :)

[FastFokker]

I'd suggest there is a difference. Here's why.Yes there are differences.. but as shown with religion, masses of people can be motivated to do things they otherwise wouldn't do and wouldn't believe.

If religion was a new thing of the day, and I suppose it could be illustrated by NEW religions of the day.. they're played as cults and are casted as a shams, total quackery. Yet the old religions seem to be set in stone and are as valid and accepted as gravity.

I guess either we should file all things completely uncertain under "wacko/nutjob/quackery/CT", such as UFO's, big foot, Loch Ness monster, 9/11 Conspiracies, religion, ghosts..etc. Or we could embrass all with an open mind, seeking the truth and testing the theories.

Just a thought.

[poedua]

Yes there are differences.. but as shown with religion, masses of people can be motivated to do things they otherwise wouldn't do and wouldn't believe.

If religion was a new thing of the day, and I suppose it could be illustrated by NEW religions of the day.. they're played as cults and are casted as a shams, total quackery. Yet the old religions seem to be set in stone and are as valid and accepted as gravity.

I guess either we should file all things completely uncertain under "wacko/nutjob/quackery/CT", such as UFO's, big foot, Loch Ness monster, 9/11 Conspiracies, religion, ghosts..etc. Or we could embrass all with an open mind, seeking the truth and testing the theories.

Just a thought.

fair enough

[king_george]

Yes there are differences.. but as shown with religion, masses of people can be motivated to do things they otherwise wouldn't do and wouldn't believe.

If religion was a new thing of the day, and I suppose it could be illustrated by NEW religions of the day.. they're played as cults and are casted as a shams, total quackery. Yet the old religions seem to be set in stone and are as valid and accepted as gravity.

I guess either we should file all things completely uncertain under "wacko/nutjob/quackery/CT", such as UFO's, big foot, Loch Ness monster, 9/11 Conspiracies, religion, ghosts..etc. Or we could embrass all with an open mind, seeking the truth and testing the theories.

Just a thought.

I agree. The thing is that before testing a theory or looking for the truth, there has to be a solid grounding of reliable evidence, something sadly lacking in UFO's, big foot, Loch Ness monster, 9/11 Conspiracies, religion, ghosts etc.
Time and time again, the scientific method has shown to be the only reliable way of gathering solid evidence.
Hand waving, innuendo and suspicions are never enough.

Oops forgot...I personally think all organized religions are fairy tales for the weak-minded. There might be a god, I don't know but I'm sure if there is a god then I bet s/he would get totally pissed off with what people do in his/her name.

[Peckerwood]

Loch Ness Monster?

Don't you mean the Loch Ness Elephant? :D

[hotweiss]

[QUOTE=poedua]
And, as yet ..there is no evidence of any kind that PROVES a 9/11 conspiracy.[QUOTE]

You just don't get it. According to CT wisdom, lack of evidence IS evidence for a conspiracy. :lol: Plus when there is no solid evidence, make something up on the spot so Occam's Razor gets to be like a butter knife.

I read somewhere (I'll try and find the link) that this is the perfect conspiracy with all tracks erased so nobody can any evidence against them and then in the next sentence describe the conspiracy. How dopey is that?

What are you talking about? There's tons of evidence and you know it.

[hotweiss]

Jones is not an engineer. Stop implying he is. As far as the others are, they must be ******** that they can't figure out that concrete pulverizes under pressure. There was lots of pressure involved in the buidlings falling. What's the puzzle here?

Jones is a physicist, and he's a good one. His analysis of 9/11 coincides with his specialty - physics.

[hotweiss]

A professor of what again? Structural engineering? No? Is the magic letters Phd make him infallible?

When a real engineer rather than a media ***** wannabe tells me it could not happen that way then I'll take notice.

Apparently according to the infowars site, Bush even has ties to Nazis!! What a loony tune. A true 7th degree black belt total nutcase.

Yes, that is a fact. Wow, how does it feel to have your television world shattered with such facts?

http://nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_Link

I know, I know, CNN/FOX didn't show it so it's not true.

[hotweiss]

poedua, let me show you how meaningless analogies are:

George Bush is not smart, ignorant people are never voted into presidency, therefore George Bush is not a president.

Come on...

[poedua]

[QUOTE=king_george][QUOTE=poedua]
And, as yet ..there is no evidence of any kind that PROVES a 9/11 conspiracy.

What are you talking about? There's tons of evidence and you know it.

What are YOU talking about ? I stand by what I said.......

......there is ZERO evidence to PROVE any conspiracy whatsoever.

There are , however, a lot of CT questions and speculations and musing and conjecture etc. etc. - which collectively PROVE nothing at all.

But I am willing to stand corrected by irrefutable evidence that PROVES the actual conspiracy - and, since you have PROOF is was a conspiracy, I'd be interested.....

- Who headed the conspiracy ?
- How long did it take to plan ?
- When did the planning start and end ?
- How many people - in total - were involved to " keep the secret " ?
- How many agencies ..( i.e CIA, FBI, NTSB, NSA, NYPD, NYFD, Joint Chiefs, Dept of Defence etc. etc. ) were involved in the conspiracy / cover-up ?
- Who led the subsequent cover-up ?
- Who flew the planes into the WTC / Pentagon ?
- Where were the missles launched from - what type of missles / warhead ?
- What did they do with the planes , assuming missles did it ?
- How long did it take to wire the WTC for demolition ?


.....thoughts ?

I'l tell you what ...I'll make it easy for you......simply tell us all the TOP 3 pieces of evidence that, that in your opinion, beyond a shadow of doubt, not only PROVE a conspiracy, but also indentify who, what, where and when of it's planning.

The BEST 3 pieces of evidence you CTs have...put it on the table...your best shot......and stand by it as irrefutable proof.

[poedua]

poedua, let me show you how meaningless analogies are:

George Bush is not smart, ignorant people are never voted into presidency, therefore George Bush is not a president.

Come on...

Actually unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracies from CTs in the absence of even a shred of evidence of proof best characterize the term "meaningless" IMO. :)

[poedua]

poedua, let me show you how meaningless analogies are:

George Bush is not smart, ignorant people are never voted into presidency, therefore George Bush is not a president.

Come on...

Why do you undermine your own arguments all the time ?

You just backed yourself into a corner in this debate - yet again- by providing that Bush reference. Think about it. :)

[xKagex]

I'm more interested in the Bush + royal family link.

http://www.newenglandancestors.org/publications/NEA/royal_descents_of_600_immigrants_607_2712.asp
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/education/articles/research/special_guests/gary_boyd_roberts/gbr82.asp

#56 and #57

Interesting, no?

[poedua]

I'm more interested in the Bush + royal family link.

http://www.newenglandancestors.org/publications/NEA/royal_descents_of_600_immigrants_607_2712.asp
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/education/articles/research/special_guests/gary_boyd_roberts/gbr82.asp

#56 and #57

Interesting, no?

No - reason ?

Again, it PROVES nothing....if it does ...tell us, what does it PROVE ?

[hotweiss]

[QUOTE=hotweiss][QUOTE=king_george]

What are YOU talking about ? I stand by what I said.......

......there is ZERO evidence to PROVE any conspiracy whatsoever.

There are , however, a lot of CT questions and speculations and musing and conjecture etc. etc. - which collectively PROVE nothing at all.

But I am willing to stand corrected by irrefutable evidence that PROVES the actual conspiracy - and, since you have PROOF is was a conspiracy, I'd be interested.....

- Who headed the conspiracy ?
- How long did it take to plan ?
- When did the planning start and end ?
- How many people - in total - were involved to " keep the secret " ?
- How many agencies ..( i.e CIA, FBI, NTSB, NSA, NYPD, NYFD, Joint Chiefs, Dept of Defence etc. etc. ) were involved in the conspiracy / cover-up ?
- Who led the subsequent cover-up ?
- Who flew the planes into the WTC / Pentagon ?
- Where were the missles launched from - what type of missles / warhead ?
- What did they do with the planes , assuming missles did it ?
- How long did it take to wire the WTC for demolition ?


.....thoughts ?

I'l tell you what ...I'll make it easy for you......simply tell us all the TOP 3 pieces of evidence that, that in your opinion, beyond a shadow of doubt, not only PROVE a conspiracy, but also indentify who, what, where and when of it's planning.

The BEST 3 pieces of evidence you CTs have...put it on the table...your best shot......and stand by it as irrefutable proof.

Most of it has been mentioned in this thread.

[hotweiss]

I'm more interested in the Bush + royal family link.

http://www.newenglandancestors.org/publications/NEA/royal_descents_of_600_immigrants_607_2712.asp
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/education/articles/research/special_guests/gary_boyd_roberts/gbr82.asp

#56 and #57

Interesting, no?

Yes, it's all about blood lines. How many of you know that Jeb Bush's sister is Vicente Fox's wife?

[poedua]

Yeah, it's all about blood lines. How many of you know that Jeb Bush's sister is Vicente Fox's wife?

Sigh...this is getting so tiring.

OK, iI'll bite . Blood lines ?

- Bush blood lines now point -to and PROVE - a Mexican role in the conspiracy ?

- Jeb Bush is part ( PROOF exists ) of the conspiracy ?

- The Saudi Royal famiy blood lines is that it ? They are related to WHO among the conspirators ? Which conspirator ? Based on what PROOF ?

...which " blood lines " PROVE a conspiracy and how ?

[poedua]

[QUOTE=poedua][QUOTE=hotweiss]

Most of it has been mentioned in this thread.

Trouble is, a lot of links have been provided with related commentary in posts so there are many more than just 3 however, which prompted my question for only the TOP 3 in the first place. .

What I'd like to know from you is - since you are adamant there was a conspiracy - what are your top 3 pieces of evidence that you stand by and hang your hat on - wiithout even the "slightest " reservation - as evidence to PROVE the existence of a conspiracy ???

Just your " best " 3 pieces of evidence...what are they ?

Put the 3 " on the table ".

[hotweiss]

Sigh...this is getting so tiring.

OK, iI'll bite . Blood lines ?

- Bush blood lines now point -to and PROVE - a Mexican role in the conspiracy ?

- Jeb Bush is part ( PROOF exists ) of the conspiracy ?

- The Saudi Royal famiy blood lines is that it ? They are related to WHO among the conspirators ? Which conspirator ? Based on what PROOF ?

...which " blood lines " PROVE a conspiracy and how ?

I'll let you research this one, let's stick to 9/11.

[hotweiss]

[QUOTE=hotweiss][QUOTE=poedua]

Trouble is, a lot of links have been provided with related commentary in posts so there are many more than just 3 however, which prompted my question for only the TOP 3 in the first place. .

What I'd like to know from you is - since you are adamant there was a conspiracy - what are your top 3 pieces of evidence that you stand by and hang your hat on - wiithout even the "slightest " reservation - as evidence to PROVE the existence of a conspiracy ???

Just your " best " 3 pieces of evidence...what are they ?

Put the 3 " on the table ".

Here's my best evidence:

1. The Masons have been trying to subvert the uncooperative Middle-East for the longest of time, this just gave them the excuse.

2. Many proven lies have been exposed: passport, false hijackers, WMD's

3. Buildings fell at free fall speed

4. The Bush's and Bin Laden's are friends

5. The Bush's and Bind Laden's both had a lot to gain from this war thanks to their investments in oil and the military industrial complex.

6. Everyone involved (including the villains) are somehow related to the CIA.

I can keep on going and going, but this guy came up with a fantastic list:

http://oldmanjoe.tripod.com/9-11_probabilities.htm

[xKagex]

It's no conspiracy, the royal families of the world have always been concerned with keeping their bloodlines pure. It's the reason Diana was picked for Charles, even though he obviously couldn't stand her. The Queen of Holland and the British royal family are all of German descent and are also related. I didn't realize that both Bush and his wife were of royal descent, but it doesn't surprise me. Many other presidents were too. (Maybe there's something to Dan Brown's claim about the Merovingian dynasty coming from Jesus.. but I doubt it.)

We're just having a discussion here, no need to get all defensive about conspiracies.

[poedua]

[QUOTE=poedua][QUOTE=hotweiss]

Here's my best evidence:

1. The Masons have been trying to subvert the uncooperative Middle-East for the longest of time, this just gave them the excuse.

I asked for evidence...not conjecture. . There is no evidence whatsoever they were involved - none at all - anywhere. Where is the irrefutale evidence Masons planned the whole thing ? Proof masons did it...you didn't supply ANY. Nice try. This is not evidence of anything to do with a conspiracy.

2. Many proven lies have been exposed: passport, false hijackers, WMD's

WMD allegations to support invasion happened AFTER 9/11 ......and NONE of this passport, false hijackers stuff has ever been proven at all..but even if it was...it is no evidence or proof of a conspiracy....not in the least. This is not evidence of anything to do with a conspiracy.


3. Buildings fell at free fall speed
They fell at speeds consistent with the collpase ..but again, there is no proof of a demolition - none - not a physical shred ( 20,000 pieces of tissue found but no trace of 100,000 feet of detonating cord found - please ) so this theory goes out the window too . This is not evidence of anything to do with a conspiracy..

[ despite what i'm sure Peckerwood is going to try and spin on this whole demolition issue with yet another thesis on the minutia of forumlas , physics and their roles in misleading 9/11 science .........yet again ]

4. The Bush's and Bin Laden's are friends

irrelevant as proof of anything..and the bin laden family had disowned and condemed osama years earlier...this is not evidence of anything to do with a conspiracy...zilch.

5. The Bush's and Bind Laden's both had a lot to gain from this war thanks to their investments in oil and the military industrial complex.

As were others I suppose . This is not evidence of anything to do with a conspiracy...simply conjecture again...it isn't proof....nothing but grasping at straws now


6. Everyone involved (including the villains) are somehow related to the CIA.

THIS is your proof ? You're kidding ...right ?

,,,listen...did you understand my question to you ......do you even know what it means to PROVE a conspiracy by means of evidence ? I asked for evidence of a conspiracy ...not evidence of events and circumstances you find odd or as yet can't understand ..and that all of what you gave me....a list of events etc. that you can't explain...and refuse or unable to explain becuase you have no way of using it to prove a conspiracy. Not one piece of what you listed is linked to a conspiracy...that is the claisic CT dilemma ...tons of allegd evidence ...none of it proof of a conspiracy.

really...do you have any idea of what it is you have to prove to say a conspiracy actually took place to be credible in this debate ?

Go over king_george's posts again..and you'll get some idea.

[poedua]

It's no conspiracy, the royal families of the world have always been concerned with keeping their bloodlines pure. It's the reason Diana was picked for Charles, even though he obviously couldn't stand her. The Queen of Holland and the British royal family are all of German descent and are also related. I didn't realize that both Bush and his wife were of royal descent, but it doesn't surprise me. Many other presidents were too. (Maybe there's something to Dan Brown's claim about the Merovingian dynasty coming from Jesus.. but I doubt it.)

We're just having a discussion here, no need to get all defensive about conspiracies.

Actually, I have no problem with any discussion of blood lines as a genereic topic in and of itself ...let's just try and keep it from coming in as a topic of alleged evidence of a conspiracy...to do so is laughable at best. :)

[Peckerwood]

They fell at speeds consistent with the collpase ..but again, there is no proof of a demolition, - not a physical shred ( 20,000 pieces of tissue found but no trace of 100,000 feet of detonating cord found - please ) so this therory goes out the window. This is not evidence of anything to do with a conspiracy.

I have to call you on this one.

I have worked with Detacord up here on hard rock mines as a blasting assistant, and it leaves nothing behind except for gaseous compounds...The centre line is primarily composed of Plastique (usually a C4 or RDX derivitive) and blows at a minimum of 18,000 feet per second with a post blow density of 1.8 grams per cubic metre...the waterproofed flexshell wrapping is vapourized instantly and also becomes gaseous.

If it didnt then it would not allow for a shockwave of enough concentration and velocity to pass through the block of Secondary explosive that is used to set off the Ammonium Nitrate.

The main reason that Detacord is used today is that it passes an extremely fast shockwave along it's entire line that reaches each secondary explosive without having to use fuseline or electric line which can both fail...with Detacord if the primary line charge fails then it won't pass down the rest of the cord. Making it much safer to handle and use than multiple blasting caps and Detaprime Boosters.

[xKagex]

Actually, I have no problem with any discussion of blood lines as a genereic topic in and of itself ...let's just try and keep it from coming in as a topic of alleged evidence of a conspiracy...to do so is laughable at best. :)

I don't claim to have evidence of anything. It's you that keeps wanting evidence. I have never claimed anything other than my own opinions, because I'll fully admit I have no idea. If I did, I probably wouldn't be arguing about it on forums.

Let's just say for a moment that there is a conspiracy. If there's a conspiracy, does it necessarily mean it's evil? I mean, what is "evil"? Lots of websites claim that it's all Satanic and about the Antichrist, but that's just narrow-minded if you ask me. I just see it as very rich and powerful people competing with other rich and powerful people. If you've worked for a large corporation you'll understand it's just "business". If they have to sacrifice a few employees to increase profits, don't expect them to keep you on because you have a family to feed. With the global corporatist economy, how can we really expect our governments to work any differently?

The world is run by privately owned banks. That's just a fact. The income tax collected off your cheques goes almost directly into paying interest on a debt to the Central Bank. These banks lend money and countries are expected to pay back that money plus interest. Since P can never equal P + I, we're always going to be indebted to banks. It's genius, really. The banks can print the money, hand it out, and expect it paid back with interest. It doesn't even have to be backed by gold anymore! These are privately owned entities, by the way, not government owned. Then there's the little fact that of the 100 largest economic entities in the world, 51 are corporations, compared to only 49 countries.

Don't take it personally. It's just business.

[gordholio]

I don't claim to have evidence of anything. It's you that keeps wanting evidence. I have never claimed anything other than my own opinions, because I'll fully admit I have no idea. If I did, I probably wouldn't be arguing about it on forums.

Let's just say for a moment that there is a conspiracy. If there's a conspiracy, does it necessarily mean it's evil? I mean, what is "evil"? Lots of websites claim that it's all Satanic and about the Antichrist, but that's just narrow-minded if you ask me. I just see it as very rich and powerful people competing with other rich and powerful people. If you've worked for a large corporation you'll understand it's just "business". If they have to sacrifice a few employees to increase profits, don't expect them to keep you on because you have a family to feed. With the global corporatist economy, how can we really expect our governments to work any differently?

The world is run by privately owned banks. That's just a fact. The income tax collected off your cheques goes almost directly into paying interest on a debt to the Central Bank. These banks lend money and countries are expected to pay back that money plus interest. Since P can never equal P + I, we're always going to be indebted to banks. It's genius, really. The banks can print the money, hand it out, and expect it paid back with interest. It doesn't even have to be backed by gold anymore! These are privately owned entities, by the way, not government owned. Then there's the little fact that of the 100 largest economic entities in the world, 51 are corporations, compared to only 49 countries.

Don't take it personally. It's just business.


The problem with "business" is when you go higher up, people tend to do anything to get the job done - they are ruthless and have very little, if any, conscience.