Nobody doubts that 9-11 was commited by government insiders anymore, right?

Originally posted by hikix
this will eventually turn into a war, and you will get a good 4 pages of replies. The people who believe in the official story (yes, they exist on this site) will never give in, no matter how much evidence you provide, and vice-versa.

It is a good thing we have members that believe different sides of this story, but time and time again when this issue comes up the thread turns into a war.

......and its already starting

A war? Because everybody doesn't roll over, nod their heads in amazed agreement, and pat each other on the back for being smarter than everybody else doesn't mean there's a war.

What I have been noticing more and more lately is that the "TRUTH" movement wants nothing to do with the truth. The "truth" movement is really the "Let's twist and manipulate every piece of data we can find to make it look like the government did it" movement.

Originally posted by PartChimp

You have to remember which side is thriving on circumstantial (at best) evidence. Non-complicity skeptics are simply asking for some hard proof, and the truthcult mob fails to ante up every time. The burden of proof is never on the skeptic, it is on the party that is crying conspiracy.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by PartChimp]

As the saying goes...Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you are going to claim that the government attacked its own citizens on that day, I agree, you'd better have some rock solid, tangible proof if you want people to believe you.

To this point, I have seen no such evidence.

Nick, there is no way for me to have one piece of evidence conclusively proving everything and you know that...demanding such a thing as the only acceptable proof is just a silly game on your part, nothing more. Rather see-through, actually.It's not necessary to know exactly who did what at this stage, what we have here is enough evidence to know that the official story is a lie, and there's no reason to lie unless there's something to hide. Bottom line with guys like you is, I could have Bush on tape admitting the whole thing, and you STILL wouldn't accept it. lol, I'm done, keep believing the official fairy-tale if ya want.

I"M afraid the BIGGEST CHALLENGE to people BELIEVING THERE OWN GOV'T could have had played a role in the 9/11 attacks is

1. FEAR

2. ( simple-minded thinking) as a result of the mental state fear puts you in (and if you critical think about the matter it comes down to semantics)



lets deal with 2 and then see how 1 will evaporate since fear is USUALLY just

FAKE
EVIDENCE that
APPEARS
REAL

When people say the gov't of the united states were responsible for 9/11 many people often laugh. It is 2 general of a statement.

Certain fractions at high levels (unbeknownst to other at those high levels even and certainly the majority of those underneath them) who have more of a GLOBALISTic agenda and more ties to there multi national elite than the common people.

this statement i think is a bit more believable

Certainly this knowledge could be kept within certain (fractions) within the gov't WHO also have multinationalist ties (Tri lateral commission) , (CARLYE group) CIA, MOSSAD to name a few possibilites

now though this perspective i think the FEAR that

"The gov't was responsible for 9/11" seems to be able to fade away a bit since you can see that THE MAJORITY of US GOV't MAY have had no knowledge of this , but a POWERFUL FRACTION did, and the rest were paralyzed by FEAR and an unquestioning ALLIANCE to the united states and just did what they were told, even though i still think alot of them (especially senators and congressman are easily paid off and will look the other way in regard to OTHER issues)

NOW from THIS PERSPECTIVE

ASKYOURSELF who benefited the most from this, and anyother questions you find important and search for YOUR OWN EVIDENCE and TRUTH



[edit on 2-6-2007 by cpdaman]

Originally posted by dragonseeker
Nick, there is no way for me to have one piece of evidence conclusively proving everything and you know that...demanding such a thing as the only acceptable proof is just a silly game on your part, nothing more. Rather see-through, actually.It's not necessary to know exactly who did what at this stage, what we have here is enough evidence to know that the official story is a lie, and there's no reason to lie unless there's something to hide. Bottom line with guys like you is, I could have Bush on tape admitting the whole thing, and you STILL wouldn't accept it. lol, I'm done, keep believing the official fairy-tale if ya want.

Wrong again, it seems. You and your ilk keep throwing the bush-lover moniker at skeptics. Why? Because 99% of truthcultists only use 9/11 conspiracy as a way to take out their anger on Bush. It's simple psychology. Don't point the finger at the real evil entity, point it at the long-lobed moron at the fake helm of a sham government.

So asking for proof is a "silly game"? What if in the end, let's just say, the government's hands are completely clean in this affair? I know if i were ever on trial for as something as serious as complicity in a nation-altering terror strike that i would like for my accuser to have some pretty damning evidence before they locked me up and threw away the key.

Settling for circumstantial is not something to shoot for, but it seems like the truth movement thrives on it.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by PartChimp]

cpdaman-

I don't believe the government was an acting hand in 9/11 because I'm afraid? Or because I can't reason? Your diatribe should serve as ample material for fence-sitters as to why more skepticism on the subject is in order. You basically just wrote a rant on how you are superior to skeptics because you are intelligent enough to blindly swallow an incendiary theory.

Oh, by the way, for a classic example of incoherent thought process and extreme paranoia, as well as faux-science, check out this thread. Listen to this truth-movement figurehead's radio interviews. I think you'll plainly see the fear-mongering and inability to reason falls not on the shoulders of the skeptics, but the vast majority of the fanatical truth movement.

Originally posted by talisman
I for one think that the military not being able to track the planes because their transponders were off is ludicrous at best. That is a good beginning point. But the case is circumstantial.

Except that with the exception of flight 77, ALL the flights were tracked for their entire flight path. And flight 77 was only off radar for SOME of the flight.

This is another thing I've noticed, is that there is wrong information put out that's accepted as truth and gospel.

Take a look at the Pentagon NTSB animation is wrong thread. PF911Truth put out the "smoking gun" and said the animation proves that flight 77 went North of the Citgo, and everyone accepted it, but Caustic Logic found some holes in it.

I'm still a skeptic.

I found no reason to believe the government did it.

Every little stupid video I've seen proved nothing to me.

Originally posted by PartChimp

Originally posted by dragonseeker
Nick, there is no way for me to have one piece of evidence conclusively proving everything and you know that...demanding such a thing as the only acceptable proof is just a silly game on your part, nothing more. Rather see-through, actually.It's not necessary to know exactly who did what at this stage, what we have here is enough evidence to know that the official story is a lie, and there's no reason to lie unless there's something to hide. Bottom line with guys like you is, I could have Bush on tape admitting the whole thing, and you STILL wouldn't accept it. lol, I'm done, keep believing the official fairy-tale if ya want.

Wrong again, it seems. You and your ilk keep throwing the bush-lover moniker at skeptics. Why? Because 99% of truthcultists only use 9/11 conspiracy as a way to take out their anger on Bush. It's simple psychology. Don't point the finger at the real evil entity, point it at the long-lobed moron at the fake helm of a sham government.

So asking for proof is a "silly game"? What if in the end, let's just say, the government's hands are completely clean in this affair? I know if i were ever on trial for as something as serious as complicity in a nation-altering terror strike that i would like for my accuser to have some pretty damning evidence before they locked me up and threw away the key.

Settling for circumstantial is not something to shoot for, but it seems like the truth movement thrives on it.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by PartChimp]

Damn I hate intellectual dishonesty..I never said asking for proof was a silly game, just the level of proof that's deemed acceptable..I never used the term bush-lover, I was just using him as an example..you skeptics like to cherry-pick posts like the admin cherry-picked intel before the war..honest disagreements are fine, spin isn't..

what has happened similar to the JFK scenario but much quicker , more and more evidence is coming to light about 911.

The Internet has functioned like a massive catalyst in bringing the truth to the people.

"people who believe conspiracy theory's regarding 911 don't watch that much tv , they get there news from the Internet"

The legend that is W Bush.

May the man rot in hell ,

I don't think we will ever know the truth,

I just wish there were more good men in the world in positions of power.

You have to understand the history of money and the people who really do control our countries.

911 is a very small piece of a massive puzzle.

The more you research and understand how things work , the more you will understand why 911 will remain an enigma for ever.

To get you started. look into what has happened to the presidents which have tried to reclaim control of America's money.





[edit on 113030p://550611 by tombangelta]

Originally posted by dragonseeker
Nick, there is no way for me to have one piece of evidence conclusively proving everything

How about *ONE* piece of evidence conclusively proving *ANTYHING*!? Nobody said you had to prove everything.

demanding such a thing as the only acceptable proof is just a silly game on your part, nothing more. Rather see-through, actually.

I didn't demand anything. I challenged anybody to provide ANY evidence. You replied with a link to a CT website that's filled with speculation and half-truths. You still haven't cited even the tiniest bit of evidence of anything, and are now choosing to attack my standards of proof rather than even attempt to provide any evidence.

It's not necessary to know exactly who did what at this stage, what we have here is enough evidence to know that the official story is a lie, and there's no reason to lie unless there's something to hide.

Ok, then just start by citing hard evidence that the official story is a lie. Just ONE bit of evidence. Accusations are not evidence. Theories are not evidence. Speculation isn't evidence.

Bottom line with guys like you is, I could have Bush on tape admitting the whole thing, and you STILL wouldn't accept it. lol, I'm done, keep believing the official fairy-tale if ya want.

Note the pattern here... it's pretty common among CTers. When challenged to provide *actual* evidence, CTers often resort to totally making up a contrived scenario, like Bush admitting to the whole thing on tape, and then saying "why bother showing you real evidence, you wouldn't even believe this fake evidence I just made up."

The reality is that there are just as many, if not more fairy tales made up daily by the "truth" movement. By the way, have you watched The PentaCon video?

Originally posted by dragonseeker
Damn I hate intellectual dishonesty..I never said asking for proof was a silly game, just the level of proof that's deemed acceptable..I never used the term bush-lover, I was just using him as an example..you skeptics like to cherry-pick posts like the admin cherry-picked intel before the war..honest disagreements are fine, spin isn't..

... How exactly am I spinning quoted text? I'm sorry, I believed I was dissecting exactly what you stated in the post above mine. How that can be skewed as cherry-picking is beyond me. Don't worry about actually responding to my assertions though; I'm completely used to truthers dodging realistic questions.

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by dragonseeker
Nick, there is no way for me to have one piece of evidence conclusively proving everything

How about *ONE* piece of evidence conclusively proving *ANTYHING*!? Nobody said you had to prove everything.

demanding such a thing as the only acceptable proof is just a silly game on your part, nothing more. Rather see-through, actually.

I didn't demand anything. I challenged anybody to provide ANY evidence. You replied with a link to a CT website that's filled with speculation and half-truths. You still haven't cited even the tiniest bit of evidence of anything, and are now choosing to attack my standards of proof rather than even attempt to provide any evidence.

It's not necessary to know exactly who did what at this stage, what we have here is enough evidence to know that the official story is a lie, and there's no reason to lie unless there's something to hide.

Ok, then just start by citing hard evidence that the official story is a lie. Just ONE bit of evidence. Accusations are not evidence. Theories are not evidence. Speculation isn't evidence.

Bottom line with guys like you is, I could have Bush on tape admitting the whole thing, and you STILL wouldn't accept it. lol, I'm done, keep believing the official fairy-tale if ya want.

Note the pattern here... it's pretty common among CTers. When challenged to provide *actual* evidence, CTers often resort to totally making up a contrived scenario, like Bush admitting to the whole thing on tape, and then saying "why bother showing you real evidence, you wouldn't even believe this fake evidence I just made up."

The reality is that there are just as many, if not more fairy tales made up daily by the "truth" movement. By the way, have you watched The PentaCon video?

that link has quite a bit of evidence, just because you deem it not evidence, doesn't mean you're correct..and my bush example was just that, an example..here's the thing: I don't need ploys and tactics to get my point across..I leave that to people like you. I post what think, honestly..ploys, tactics, and deceptions I leave for those who have an agenda, or are too deep in the kool-aid to engage in critical thought.
Wake up, man. We've been had.

Originally posted by dragonseeker

that link has quite a bit of evidence, just because you deem it not evidence, doesn't mean you're correct..and my bush example was just that, an example..here's the thing: I don't need ploys and tactics to get my point across..I leave that to people like you. I post what think, honestly..ploys, tactics, and

For somebody who keeps claiming things like there is "quite a bit of evidence" you certainly seem to be having a difficult time of providing *ANY* evidence.

What you *THINK* is not evidence.

Asking people to provide evidence is not a ploy or a tactic. And the only deception I've seen so far is self-deception on your part if you actually believe you've gotten any point across.

deceptions I leave for those who have an agenda, or are too deep in the kool-aid to engage in critical thought.
Wake up, man. We've been had.

Who is really the kool-aid drinker? Somebody who challenges that claims be backed with evidence, or those that believe that referencing somebody else's "research" proves a point?

Interestingly, the "kool-aid" reference comes from the Jim Jones cult in which his followers blindly believed whatever he said right to their deaths.

So who is more of the "kool-aid" mentallity here? Me for asking to be shown evidence of government complicity, or you for simply deferring to somebody else's "authority" as evidence?

I doubt it yes.

Is it because I'm trying to defend your government? No... Your government is a disaster, and would love to see them gone. Do I find it difficult to believe a government would hurt it's own people? They do it every day... just not through such drastic and obvious means. If the government could get away with a hugely beneficial event at the cost of a few thousand innocent lives I'm sure they could justify it to themselves.

But it just so happens that 9/11 was beneficial to no one. Sure they got some oil, but they got the criticism of the world and the blood of thousands in Iraq on their hands.

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by subject x

I do think, though, that the most telling evidence that the government was in on it was the fact that the W. just sat in that classroom with a dumb look on his face. It seems to me that if they had no knowledge of the attack, the secret service would have swarmed in and whisked him away, not knowing how many planes were involved or where they were headed, and anyone with a TV would have known where W. was right then.

Nothing personal, but this is a perfect example of what many CTers think is evidence.

Here's the pattern:

A person has some sort of idea what they THINK should have happened. The reality of what DID happen doesn't match what they think SHOULD have happened. They then reach this conclusion...

The REALITY is what is wrong because it didn't match what they imagined in their head should be real. 99% of all CT "theories" fit into this pattern.

What I THINK should have happened is the same thing that happens when any POTUS is potentially in danger of being attacked.

The REALITY is that the secret service swarm him and whisk him away to a safe location. Please correct me if I'm mistaken in this.
What makes this instance any different?

This isn't a smoking gun or anything, but it influences my personal opinion on the subject.

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by dragonseeker

that link has quite a bit of evidence, just because you deem it not evidence, doesn't mean you're correct..and my bush example was just that, an example..here's the thing: I don't need ploys and tactics to get my point across..I leave that to people like you. I post what think, honestly..ploys, tactics, and

For somebody who keeps claiming things like there is "quite a bit of evidence" you certainly seem to be having a difficult time of providing *ANY* evidence.

What you *THINK* is not evidence.

Asking people to provide evidence is not a ploy or a tactic. And the only deception I've seen so far is self-deception on your part if you actually believe you've gotten any point across.

deceptions I leave for those who have an agenda, or are too deep in the kool-aid to engage in critical thought.
Wake up, man. We've been had.

Who is really the kool-aid drinker? Somebody who challenges that claims be backed with evidence, or those that believe that referencing somebody else's "research" proves a point?

Interestingly, the "kool-aid" reference comes from the Jim Jones cult in which his followers blindly believed whatever he said right to their deaths.

So who is more of the "kool-aid" mentallity here? Me for asking to be shown evidence of government complicity, or you for simply deferring to somebody else's "authority" as evidence?

once again the game you're playing is, trying to dictate what is evidence, and what isn't. situation like this, you take what you can get, and keep working until you get more, which is what 9/11 truth is about. We can do this all day but all I'm saying is the official story isn't true, and I'm endeavoring to find out what is true, however I can. I'm not gonna stop either

O.K, the razzy isn't very mature, but I think we should lighten this thing up a bit

[edit on 2-6-2007 by dragonseeker]

Originally posted by nick7261
Interestingly, the "kool-aid" reference comes from the Jim Jones cult in which his followers blindly believed whatever he said right to their deaths.

Actually, the "Kool-Aid" reference dates to before Jim Jones.
It dates back to the 1960's and the habit of dispensing '___' by adding it to Kool-Aid.
This was known as "Electric Kool-Aid", and those who were "out of touch" with reality were said to have "drank the Kool-Aid"

Originally posted by CaptainLazy
I doubt it yes.

Is it because I'm trying to defend your government? No... Your government is a disaster, and would love to see them gone. Do I find it difficult to believe a government would hurt it's own people? They do it every day... just not through such drastic and obvious means. If the government could get away with a hugely beneficial event at the cost of a few thousand innocent lives I'm sure they could justify it to themselves.

But it just so happens that 9/11 was beneficial to no one. Sure they got some oil, but they got the criticism of the world and the blood of thousands in Iraq on their hands.

I would argue that Israel benefited, since they consider Iraq(and Iran and syria) a threat to them.

Originally posted by subject x
What I THINK should have happened is the same thing that happens when any POTUS is potentially in danger of being attacked.

The REALITY is that the secret service swarm him and whisk him away to a safe location. Please correct me if I'm mistaken in this.
What makes this instance any different?

This isn't a smoking gun or anything, but it influences my personal opinion on the subject.

With all due respect, I am not following exactly what your point is here. The secret service protecting the president's life is comparative to you believing the 9/11 truth-movement because... what? It is a natural reaction?