The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:02 pm

You're dead right dugoboy, 9/11 was not an isolated incident, but it was a world-changing one. I think any cracks in the official story that can be exposed will open more people's eyes to the wider conspiracy. nomo seems to claim to that 9/11 is a diversion but spends a lot of time trying to discredit so called "Truthers". I wonder why. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

Postby dbeach » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:02 pm

"most of which couldn't pilot a pizza delivery truck"<br><br>YOU BAD!<br><br>did'nt Mike Rubicon say move on from 9/11 last yr ?<br>and now he has moved on and out of the USA..<br>better to stay and play <br><br>the govtmint did 9/11 <br>did not <br>did so<br><br>how about 9/11 was the final coup in the long series of coups begun on 11/22/63 and leadin to the end of any personal liberties on 9/27/06 when the Fascist in Chief shredded the Bill of Rts<br><br>Watch as the internet forums get more Big Bro attention leadin to the gestapo version of internet free speech.<br><br>MCA is one more piece of the agenda for the USA <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Postby Bismillah » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:04 pm

Nomo's and Taibbi's "argument" rests on the idiotic premise that the burden of proof lies with those who disbelieve the Bush Gang. Their demand: "Give us a Complete Alternative Theory that explains everything, and then we'll take you seriously." To which the only non-timewasting reply is: Get real. <br><br>Naturally, there is not a single person on the web who has unrestricted access to the hidden evidence still being sat on by that Gang and its intelligence minions. <br><br>No one is obliged to be Miss Marple, and don't let people like nomo and Taibbi try to convince you otherwise. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The burden of proof lies with those who have access to the evidence and who claim to have explained everything already</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> - and it's already been demonstrated a hundred times over that their grotesque yarn cannot possibly be true. <p></p><i></i>
Bismillah
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:35 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

here's a story

Postby sln70 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:16 pm

Interconnected interests in many countries, some of whom have always been viewed as allies of the US and others of whom who have been treated with caution, were all working on individual projects, collecting intelligence, and putting two and two together.<br><br>In the US, some of these intersted parties formed a little think-tank: The Project For a New American Century (PNAC). Their ultimate goal was to spread American power and ownership across the globe, thus guaranteeing continual war and continuing profits from same. Some of them might have even been pure of purpose - feeling that American style capitalism and democracy were truly going to benefit the whole planet. <br><br>In other countries, power-hungry leaders and cults-of personality also wanted a role on the world stage, more wealth, and ties to power in the US.<br><br>Through intelligence collecting efforts, these players came to know of one another, and their purposes found a common denominator. Moreover, they wanted to be left alone to carry out their own little dealings - whatever they might have been - from smuggling arms to trading nuke secrets to delivering information on bio-weapons. Add into this mix the perversions of the players, and it became a 'you scratch my back and I'll cover your ass" scenario.<br><br>The PNAC agenda saw a light in the tunnel when they heard of the plans of what we we call Al-Qaeda. Manipulating the plans from afar, we had some highly placed PNAC members setting the stage early on. <br><br>Cheney and Rumsfeld changed NATO protocols, taking for themselves the authority to order shoot-downs instead of leaving the ability to make that call in the hands of the generals where it had, until that time, always resided.<br><br>Those same two co-ordinated terror drills for September 11th which mimicked the real attacks thereby confusing the entire command structure of the FAA, NORAD and the air-force.<br><br>Others readied the towers, making sure that the spectacle would not just be of planes crashing into a few floors, but of the twin skyscrapers being reduced to rubble within seconds. Perhaps this was never part of the original plan.. but say someone got wind of the impending 'attack' and threatened not to play along unless he got something out of it. that person, I imagine, might be someone who was an obscenely wealthy and well-connected real-estate man who wanted the property but not the attendant expensive mess that would have come with it in the form of cleaning up the buildings' asbestos-rich structure. <br><br>Still others warned their friends not to fly that day. Others planted ridiculous amounts of 'evidence' pointing to the hijackers in rental vehicles in airport parking lots that and passports on top of the tons of rubble.<br><br>The flights: what happened to the people on board? If we look at the plans in Operation Northwoods, those people would all be dead now, exploded into nothing over the ocean, while a copy of their plane was used (and piloted) by the government and operatives. It would figure most sensibly to me that the so-called hijackers truly did exist, but that they couldn't actually be trusted to have the skills to pull the operation off. Decoy planes were likely used, and all the people on board the original flights, including any of the 19 arab suspects who did make the flights - are dead. The decoy theory is made more interesting seeing as first reports indicated that the planes did not look like commercial 757s.<br><br>In the aftermath, friendly contractors cleaned up the mess and the evidence for a tidy sum. Friendly experts pronounced it case closed. Friendly press refused to ask obvious questions. Terror, rage and sorrow clouded the American people's judgment and observations long enough for the administration to pass myriad laws that stripped them of the rights they knew and held dear: the very freedoms the terrorists "hated."<br><br>Anyone who questioned this was an evil-doer.<br>We were either with the president, or we were with the terrorists.<br>We were encouraged to keep shopping.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
sln70
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Postby dugoboy » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:27 pm

and thats it bismallah. but they won't. they'd burn every last piece of evidence they have and they still wouldn't say or care. we are the flock they wish to cull and in their eyes we are not important enough to be told the truth. unless we did something drastic WHICH WE WON'T EVER DO!<br><br>so..hopefully the democrats win sweepingly, in both chambers, and then those who can will push for the truth, not just mere accountability. <p>___________________________________________<br>"Fascism finds root best in unreality, dysfunction and irresponsibility." - Me<br><br>"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell<br><br>"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always." -Mahatma Gandhi</p><i></i>
dugoboy
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

Postby postrchild » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:34 pm

Ridiculous claim #2<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly baroque and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>1st of all it didnt take tens of thousands "IN" on it. Only a few officials would have to be "IN" on it, to make everyone else including subordiantes believe the "reality they were creating."<br>It wasnt stupid but sickly brilliant in its conception. It wasnt flawless, but botched in its execution. The Shanksville explosion wasnt A) a real plane crash site B) supposed to be shot down but crashed into another target.<br><br>and Going Out On a Limb Here....<br><br>Ridiculous claim #3<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>BUSH: You guys are brilliant! (to Dick and Don)<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
postrchild
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Postby nomo » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:40 pm

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>You're dead right dugoboy, 9/11 was not an isolated incident, but it was a world-changing one. I think any cracks in the official story that can be exposed will open more people's eyes to the wider conspiracy. nomo seems to claim to that 9/11 is a diversion but spends a lot of time trying to discredit so called "Truthers". I wonder why.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Bollucks, Seamus. 9/11 did not change the world. It's still the same old rotten place it always was, and it still needs good people to expose the lies and the crimes.<br><br>The problem with the "Truthers" is that they're too narrowly focussed on something that they can never prove, and worse, something that makes them look like total blathering fools, and that's what these (rather brilliant, imho) articles are about.<br><br>The vast majority of so-called "Truth" websites postulate all kinds ridiculous theories, and like you, are overly paranoid when someone expresses their skepticism. It's the great old game of divide and conquer. Any outsider looking in will just shrug and say we're all just crazy.<br><br>Ask yourself: if it truly was 19 hijackers with box cutters, and not controlled demolition, would that make the crimes that are being committed in our names <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>right now</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> any less serious? <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Postby sunny » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:42 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> James Bamford, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Body of Secrets</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Now, the reason this didn't happen at the time is that we had a real, thinking President who was, no doubt, morally repelled by such a plan. Does anyone truly believe that Bush would turn this down, given the enormous money and power that would accrue to himself and his cronies if such an event were to occur? What is the rationale for thinking the neocons <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>would not</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> resurrect Operation Northwoods? What is the rationale for thinking Bush <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>would not</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> acquiecse to such a plan? The "grown-ups" (ie, those who consider themselves wiser than the rest of us) of the world are failing to see what is before their very eyes. <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Postby nomo » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:51 pm

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Nomo's and Taibbi's "argument" rests on the idiotic premise that the burden of proof lies with those who disbelieve the Bush Gang. Their demand: "Give us a Complete Alternative Theory that explains everything, and then we'll take you seriously." To which the only non-timewasting reply is: Get real.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>So your argument is essentially: I don't believe it, and that's my position and I'm sticking to it. Impressive.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Naturally, there is not a single person on the web who has unrestricted access to the hidden evidence still being sat on by that Gang and its intelligence minions.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Ah well, yes, if they have "hidden evidence", then I guess we're shit out of luck, no?<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>No one is obliged to be Miss Marple, and don't let people like nomo and Taibbi try to convince you otherwise. The burden of proof lies with those who have access to the evidence and who claim to have explained everything already - and it's already been demonstrated a hundred times over that their grotesque yarn cannot possibly be true.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Oh really? Got any cites for that? I mean, credible cites, not some theology professor waxing euphorically about structural engineering and explosives.<br><br>(But dammit man, if they'd only release all that hidden evidence... Can you imagine?) <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

yes, in fact

Postby sln70 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:54 pm

I'd like to ask nomo to answer to that which sunny has posted.<br><br>Would you believe that the US government WOULD do such a thing, or is your disbelief confined to the mechanics of it? <p></p><i></i>
sln70
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Postby dugoboy » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:57 pm

but they won't release the evidence nomo. <p>___________________________________________<br>"Fascism finds root best in unreality, dysfunction and irresponsibility." - Me<br><br>"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell<br><br>"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always." -Mahatma Gandhi</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dugoboy@rigorousintuition>dugoboy</A>  <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.geocities.com/orcthrasher/files/images/Qn38113.gif" BORDER=0> at: 10/25/06 1:58 pm<br></i>
dugoboy
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Postby sunny » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:58 pm

We fund the gov't. They are <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>supposed</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to answer to us, especially when 3,000 of our fellow citizens are murdered on their watch, without so much as a single fighter jet being scrambled to stop the slaughter.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>So your argument is essentially: I don't believe it, and that's my position and I'm sticking to it. Impressive.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>That is also the position of the debunkers, so I guess we're even.<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sunny@rigorousintuition>sunny</A> at: 10/25/06 2:01 pm<br></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:08 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Bollucks, Seamus. 9/11 did not change the world.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>It certainly changed most people's perception of the world. Suddenly every man and his dog knew who Bin-Laden was, where Afghanistan is and why "WE" should invade Iraq.<br><br>You could argue that GWB's selection was the turning point, or Constantine's conversion to christianity, it still doesn't explain why you persist in shooting down truth seekers rather than seeking more truth.<br><br>If, as you say, we're wasting our time then let us get on with it and stop wasting yours on us. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Postby pugzleyca3 » Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:19 pm

"So your argument is essentially: I don't believe it, and that's my position and I'm sticking to it. Impressive."<br><br>Well, yeah. Since there are questions and the government has the answers, until they answer the questions, I see no reason to have any other position. What other position could there possibly be on the issue of 9/11 if a person is not buying the governments version of conspiracy theory? As a taxpaying citizen, I find how the White House handled the entire affair in regards to the investigation, funding, testimony etc. morally repugnant.<br><br>The articles you posted are the classic demonizing, condescending crap I see all over the internet. Nothing new to see here, move along. These people all use the same template when writing these types of articles.<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pugzleyca3>pugzleyca3</A> at: 10/25/06 2:22 pm<br></i>
pugzleyca3
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: yes, in fact

Postby nomo » Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:22 pm

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Would you believe that the US government WOULD do such a thing, or is your disbelief confined to the mechanics of it?</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I absolutely believe that the government would take full advantage of an event like 9/11 (well, you'd only need to look around), and I can also quite imagine them actively supporting such a plot.<br><br>My issue (and Taibbi's as well) is the emphasis that is being put on bombs and missiles when in reality, the "official story" at least as far as the mechanics are concerned, seems quite plausible to me.<br><br>Focussing on who did what, who paid for what, who benefitted is a helluva lot more useful than debating the size of the hole in the Pentagon. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest