None-believers

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Originally posted by nick7261
Sorry, but it's not up to me to prove anything.

If you claim something contrary to established and accepted fact, yes you do.

I guess we just have a difference of opinion on the meaning of "established and accepted fact." When the government makes grandiose claims, then hides the evidence of those claims, the claims only rise to the level of "fact" based on "faith" that the government is telling the truth.

I'm surprised, considering your sig, that you don't get this.

Thanks for the discussion.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So what your saying is that all the experienced special ops people we have could not have pulled off 911 but a few people with little experience and training could ?

In conclusion i would like to say i can not believe poeple like you can still beleive and be a cult member of the media conspiracy. But i guess you have to believe the government can do nothing bad to feel safe.



[edit on 25-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]

The problem with your assertion is that the folks that get into special ops, tend to love their country. The idea that they'd be involved in a plot to murder 3000 so that oil companies profit margins could go up is laughably improbable. These SOF troops do get to go after the real enemies of our country. Special ops units tend to not want amoral/immoral sociopaths in their ranks. They look for people of very high character in addition to physical endurance and determination, creativity, and ability to learn advanced skills.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So what your saying is that all the experienced special ops people we have could not have pulled off 911 but a few people with little experience and training could ?

In conclusion i would like to say i can not believe poeple like you can still beleive and be a cult member of the media conspiracy. But i guess you have to believe the government can do nothing bad to feel safe.



[edit on 25-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]

The problem with your assertion is that the folks that get into special ops, tend to love their country. The idea that they'd be involved in a plot to murder 3000 so that oil companies profit margins could go up is laughably improbable. These SOF troops do get to go after the real enemies of our country. Special ops units tend to not want amoral/immoral sociopaths in their ranks. They look for people of very high character in addition to physical endurance and determination, creativity, and ability to learn advanced skills.

Oh i guess you never heard of black ops missions that were headed by poeple like G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North. They look for people that will do anything for their government if they believe they are doing something good for thier country.

The government would never give soldiers illegal and dangerous drugs for experiments. The government would never put soldiers, airmen and saliors near atomic explosions for experiments,,, OH WAIT THEY DID...

If the government let Pearl Harbor happen, letting a few planes hit some builidngs is nothing.

Why don't you do some research on how much money the defense contractors are making.

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by GwionX
Furthermore, outrageous unsupported claims are generally met with outrage...I don't make the rules, it is what it is.

I guess that's why so many people are pissed off at Bush and his administration.

Now THAT is a perfect example of a red herring for the lady's and gentlemen learning about rhetoric and scoring at home. But to rebutt your weak attempt at deflection: People may be pissed off at Bush-- but it isn't because they think he ransacked NEW YORK..because that is just goofy, oh, and untrue..sorry you should *really* get out more.

Red herring? You're the one who claims bin Laden is behind 9/11. Where's the evidence?

Lady's and Gentlemen THIS is called --jumping to conclusions-- A problem our friend Nick here seems to have quite an advanced case of..remember when you suddenly knew what shade of skin I had, and what God I worshiped, Heh.

You see Nick..I have NEVER said bin Laden is behind 9/11 .. I HAVE said "some overly smart doods from Afganistan attacked" And before you get all frothy mouthed and --jump to conclusions--again.. I realize most of the terrorists were from Saudi, Atta from Egypt, and another, Lebanon. REAL people, REAL plan, REAL planes, REAL destruction.

Seriously, you need to do more research on this. The entirety of the KSM information came from the 9/11 Commissioners reading the PENTTBOM report written by the FBI. That's where it all traces to.

This is where grown-ups start laughing at you. If your logic follows; how do we know George Washington lawfully became our first president? Was it just some "official conclusion?" Was Benjamin Franklin a Brittish spy? If you cannot believe anything...you cannot be objective.

Testimony from Sheikh Mohammed was also used by defence lawyers for Zacarias Moussaoui, who was jailed for life in 2006 for his role in the 11 September attacks."

This is incorrect. The Moussaoui defense wanted to call KSM as a witness, but the government didn't want KSM to testify. They reached a deal in which neither KSM nor Reid testified, and instead both parties agreed to stipulate to a written statement regarding KSM and Reid.

Just for fun, if you really believe that KSM testified, try to look up his testimony in the court record. It's not there because he wasn't a witness.

Maybe you shouldn't trust the BBC reporters.

Testimony..Written? Stop wasting my time and Post Solid Proof.

No, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The government pinned 9/11 on bin Laden without putting up any evidence of same. This is NOT a connection to al-Qaeda because what you cited is not even true. KSM didn't testify. The only "evidence" of what KSM allegedly said is what the FBI tells us he said.

Show me the confession of Jeff Dalmer, Richard Rameriz, Ted Bundy.( *hint- Bundy's was released in 2005post-mortum) This is NEVER done in serial/mass murder cases. I bet you think they were all govenment plots too..if I follow your logic..Buuuut. You cannot think straight.

So now you're saying there is no solid proof bin Laden ordered 9/11?

NOW? WTF? How about NEVER DID. You just want to dodge the Real SOILD EVIDENCE ISSUE, with this stinker of a smokescreen.

So what we have a video that nobody can authenticate allegedly showing two arabs that look like the arabs the government claims were on the hijacked planes talking to bin Laden. And that is evidence of what?

I dunno..You are the "truth seeker"..I doubt you would check, because it wouldn't fit into your fantasy world..but if it were a coorperate homepage..then the WHOLE thing would just fit together like a big-ass Hello Kitty Jigsaw Puzzle. Pffbt.

PPOSTFU
HAND (have a nice day)

Your turn NICK, show us the SOLID EVIDENCE showing the GOV planned 9/11

[edit on 26-2-2007 by GwionX]

I never said that the government planned 9/11. What I have said is that the government's explanations, and their lack of investigation and evidence is dubious.

The government has reached a conclusion that it was bin Laden and has been fighting a war in Afghanistan for 5 years now based on this conclusion. And yet bin Laden hasn't even been charged in the 9/11 attacks, not has bin Laden been captured.

You would think that the largest mass murder case in the history of the U.S. would have been solved by now, but apparently it hasn't been. If KSM was the mastermind and an accomplice, why hasn't he been tried for the murders of 9/11?

And there IS solid evidence that members of the government have destroyed evidence. Sandy Berger already plead guilty to stealing and destroying classified documents, and the DoD acknowledged that 2.5 terabytes of information collected by Able Danger was ordered destroyed. Col. Anthony Schaffer claims this information related to Mohammed Atta and the al-Qaeda cell in NY.

I would suggest you start doing some real research into this. You can start with the Flight 800 case and Dietrich Snell. Check out his relation to Jamie Gorelick and the 9/11 Commission, and his role in NY law enforcement. Find out who prevented the Able Danger information from even reaching the 9/11 Commissioners.

Why? What end would it serve?

I don't care to grow old waiting and chasing my tail; while wading through the constant onslaught of cult-like propaganda and idiotic, unsubstanciated claims.

that kinda stuff will make ya crazy...like Russell Crowe in "a Beautiful Mind"

[edit on 26-2-2007 by GwionX]

Originally posted by GwionX
Why? What end would it serve?

Well for starters, you might actually learn something.

I don't care to grow old waiting and chasing my tail; while wading through the constant onslaught of cult-like propaganda and idiotic, unsubstanciated claims.

Oh yeah.... I forgot that you're probably too busy chasing after Neo-Nazis to waste time actually researching something substantive.

Here.. I saved you some time. This will get you started:

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Oh i guess you never heard of black ops missions that were headed by poeple like G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North. They look for people that will do anything for their government if they believe they are doing something good for thier country.

Exactly how many fellow Americans did Mr. Liddy or Mr. North kill?
In these 2 cases I believe it would be more accurate to say that they would do anything for their country, if they felt it was the right thing to do, as their loyalty was to their country first.

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
All the time 911 CT Cult leaders like Alex Jones waffle on I just see the sort of delusional rant that so many leaders have dictated in the past to their gullible masses. The self belief is scary.

If there were just one dominant theory I would give the idea a little bit more time. I have read, heard, watched a lot of the 911 guff in the past and I genuinely cannot see what the Cultists see. All the evidence is subjective at best IMHO.

I think that the 911 CT Cult put too much credit and ability to the people they indicate perpetrated this so called crime. A country that can't even get its armed forces to hit the right side in an armed conflict, would have no chance of pulling it off

But in conclusion I am glad that you 911 CT Cultists have found something to do with your life. I wouldn't want that amount of paranoia and loathing on the streets. Besides at least so far its a peaceful cult, you guys might have joined a more dodgy cult like a contemporary version of the Branch Davidians, instead of being brainwashed by a Cult leader like Alex Jones

So just because you don't believe in the theories, that makes everyone else who do a "cultist?" You must be one of those persons that think they're always right.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Originally posted by nick7261
Sorry, but it's not up to me to prove anything.

If you claim something contrary to established and accepted fact, yes you do. But I'm now done / this thread, you're more interested in trying to win an internet argument than having a discourse or discussion. Get the validation you so truly desire from the other posters who agree with you, and sleep better at night my friend.

How is it established fact? Just because the government said so?


[edit on 27-2-2007 by NegativeBeef]

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by NegativeBeef
For those who don't believe the slightest chance that 9/11 was an inside job, I would like to know what is your reason for thinking this? I'm not talking about people who just doubt it, I'm talking about people who won't even consider the remote possiblility. Is it because you think that our government is somehow so benevolent as to be incapable of such acts?

Because the scenario is absurd.

It requires all the military services and leaders (including Colin Powell) AND the police force of NYC AND the firefighters of NYC to be in on some sort of grand plot where they agree that they're going to kill their own teammates and destroy equipment and property... and kill people they knew (casually or well) for some sort of "government plan" that ... did what, exactly?

It requires the collusion of two presidents (or more) from different parties plus Congresspersons (including some newly elected ones) and so forth.

It requires the Army's division of long range planning to agree to have a strike on their own offices, destroying many years of work (that's what was in that area. I know one of the generals who had an office in the area.) It requires *thousands* of people to keep silent about it for years before, to destroy all documents, and to politely go along with it afterward.

On the other side, we have "a conspiracy by the leader of an international organization; a leader who's struck American targets before and who targeted this buiding before." Someone with wealth and power, who attacked before and after this event.

Nor does the "proof" have any support as other real conspiracies did. For example, compare this to things like Mai-Lai (Vietnam) or other similar incidents. Guilt-ridden people involved in the scenario come forward and their accounts are later supported by many other people involved with the events.

I also find the audio material unconvincing and the bold statments that people know how a building should fall. If these folks were physicists (like Richard Feynman, who showed how the O-rings caused the Challenger disaster) or structural engineers, I'd believe their evidence (and like with Feynman, others would come forward with the data to support his statements.)

So... no mob of experts leap up to say this is so, no hordes of guilt-ridden and angry involved people show up to bring down the ones guilty.

Osama did it. Pretending that he didn't is a dangerous strategy (and I wondered if it was some sort of conspiracy) that focuses attention inward and not out where the REAL threat is.

It's only absurd because you made that up yourself. Why would it take all the services of our government if a small group (basically a gang) of rogue terrorist can pull it off. And please if you're going to post something like that, show proof.

Originally posted by HarvinTabor
Simple,

We couldn't pull something like this off and keep it a secret. The logistics are just too great. And allowing people to make books, movies and investigate it claiming to know "the truth" is as risky as pulling it off. If the US Government had done this, every person that tried to "tell the truth" about it would disappear. Sorry, but that's how it would be.

Wouldn't that kind of be obvious if everyone who made a book, movie about 9/11 conspiracies all of the sudden dissappeared? What's easier? kill everyone who claims to know the truth, or just make them look like fools?

[edit on 27-2-2007 by NegativeBeef]

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Exactly how many fellow Americans did Mr. Liddy or Mr. North kill?
In these 2 cases I believe it would be more accurate to say that they would do anything for their country, if they felt it was the right thing to do, as their loyalty was to their country first.

We will never know how many people were killed in the weapons for drugs Iran-Contra operaton.

Yes and if they felt it was the right thing to do for thier country they would probly assist or let 911 happen.