To the "OS'ers" and "Truthers", I Think we can all Agree..

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


Do you have a link to a recording of this?

forums.randi.org...

Bill:

If you caught our radio show Saturday Night (online and in two AM broadcast markets), we ran a special 9/11 show. We spent an entire hour eviscerating the "bombs in the building"/"controlled demolition" theories with a structural engineer and two other experts.

Your link brings me to a registry page.
I'm sorry I don't follow the connection between my comments and what you've linked.
Can you elaborate? Should I listen to an archived show?
Thanks.

Ok sorry.

Bill made a comment on JREF that ATS ran a radio show on Sept 10 that as he says himself, "eviscerates the CD stuff.

I ca't find a link to a recording of it, and was wondering since you're a Mod, if you could help a fella out here to find it.

This thread: forums.randi.org...

I don't think that 911 had such a big impact on the US foreign policy, there would have been similar wars if 911 didn't happen.

How do you justify bombing cavemen in Afghanistan without 911? By the way, there is information to suggest that the Afghanistan invasion was planned well before 911. I guess they were just waiting around for the perfect excuse, which miraculously fell right into their lap.

Of course 911 was exploited to sell it to the public, but as we saw with Iraq its not that hard to find other reasons.

It's a lot easier to find and use bogus excuses when your people are shocked and only thinking about revenge towards a fabricated enemy.

I think the patriot act is an actual overreaction to 911, and was not something that was already in the pipeline.

How fast was the Patriot Act allegedly written after 911? How fast was it passed into law? How much time did the elected officials have to read, contemplate and debate such an unconstitutional and treasonous piece of legislation?

Yeah sure...everything just happened overnight as an overreaction and was not meticulously planned for quite some time.

Removed: double post.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Seriously, they weren't/aren't cavemen. A person would have to be dense to believe that. Sure, technically, a number of their bases are underground or in caves, but that does not apply the connotation of an idiot primitive.

That said, I agree with the OP. The government has used and abused hundreds of thousands to millions of people since 9/11, and in my opinion, they probably allowed or helped 9/11 to happen.

Thats true, but unless the terrorists are those who seek to seize power through a false flag attack and launch wars to secure natural resources, how are they winning?

Lets assume Alquaeda is real and an Islamic radical group, how would victory be defined for them? What good does them the patriot act do or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? How would such a group measure victory?

You have one side which has obvious gains from a false flag attack. Yet you have another side which has no immediate gain from utilizing terrorism or even an long therm objective.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
How do you justify bombing cavemen in Afghanistan without 911? By the way, there is information to suggest that the Afghanistan invasion was planned well before 911. I guess they were just waiting around for the perfect excuse, which miraculously fell right into their lap.

I can't justify it because of 911, but it happened anyway. If you plan to attack Afghanistan, you don't fake an attack with Saudis, Egyptians and Libyans. That does not make sense to me. Personally I was against both the Afghan en Iraq war. But I am not an American so I don't share the sentiment about 911 as strongly.

I have no doubts that if Afghanistan was already planned they would have found a reason, 911 or not. They also found a reason to attack Iraq. But I don't think Afghanistan was planned to be honest. If you are going to attack a country, you want to maximize benefit. I don't think Afghanistan would be on top of my list.

It's a lot easier to find and use bogus excuses when your people are shocked and only thinking about revenge towards a fabricated enemy.

It is. But I do not think it is necessary. There are much simpler bogus excuses.

How fast was the Patriot Act allegedly written after 911? How fast was it passed into law? How much time did the elected officials have to read, contemplate and debate such an unconstitutional and treasonous piece of legislation?

Yeah sure...everything just happened overnight as an overreaction and was not meticulously planned for quite some time.

I strongly doubt it was planned. Similar laws were also introduced in other countries, including the one I live. It is just a predictable reaction to such an event.

reply to post by -PLB-


12 Trillions worth of natural resources are not good enough for you? Why do you think Afghanistan has been attacked? See, thats the fault in your logic. You assume they would have found an Afghani to use. To pull something like that off, they needed a trusted ally. Tim Osman was just that allie, who had proven himself to be reliable throughout the 80s. Also they did not want to attack just Afghanistan. The plan was to invade whatever country that needs invading, because alquaeda is hiding there. Think of it of a bullseye that can be shifted around as needed.

If you want to invade Pakistan, because they are losing patience with the Afghanistan pipeline and take gas from Iran instead, all you have to do is say "Gee I think the Pakistanis are working with Al Quaeda, we need to move in".

www.propublica.org...

reply to post by Cassius666


I suspect you got that number from a truther site. It is much easier to bribe a local warlord than to extract resources in a war area. And, once the war is over, the USA does not have any right over those resources. They will be in the same line as China, India and Europe.

reply to post by -PLB-


The difference between a truther website and the information fed through the media is, if it is erroneous it is not because of intent. I assume I should trust television more, where the goverment you so vigorously defend presented stories of evil Iraqis ripping prematurely born babies out of their incubators after they were done going to Kuwait. And thats just for starters.

All things considered "truther websites" which might have a bad day are by far more reliable than a source which delibaretly seeks to spread lies through the massmedia. What makes you think terrorists with box cutters brought down 2 planes with 3 buildings? I assume you got that information from the "idiot" box.

Finally to answer your question, I might have gotten it from a truther website. But if that is not good enough for you here is a site unrelated to 911.

www.energymile.com...

And of course its much easier to bribe local warlords and right now they are setting up "toll boots" for American Supplyroutes. However what do you do, if the Taliban in 2001 were indeed after money, but it wasnt American money they were looking to settle for. They were about to accept somebody elses bribe or payment.

Then they used Bin Laden. Tim Osman was just the allie they needed, who had proven himself to be reliable throughout the 80s. Also they did not want to attack just Afghanistan. The plan was to invade whatever country that needs invading, because alquaeda is hiding there. Think of it as a bullseye that can be shifted around as needed.

If you want to invade Pakistan, because they are losing patience with the Afghanistan pipeline and take gas from Iran instead, all you have to do is say "Gee I think the Pakistanis are working with Al Quaeda, we need to move in".

www.propublica.org...

www.mirror.co.uk...

reply to post by Cassius666


I was not aware I was defending the government. (which is "the" anyway?). I was even against those wars. Do you think that being against those wars is defending the government? If not, what did you say so?

As for the reliability of data on truthers sites, it really is terrible. I am not saying other media is that much better, but truther sites have a clear agenda, and do anything to distort any piece of data as much as possible. The number of outright lies I have read on them are truly numerous. And I do believe there is bad intent there.

reply to post by Cassius666


I have no problem with believing there were other motives to attack Afghanistan. Some people in the chain of decisions likely had their own agendas. But I think that is probably true for any war or big decision. To point to a single possible motive and claim that this is "the" reason requires some hard evidence. I personally think the most important reason Afghanistan was attacked was just stupid retaliation. I do not see politicians, especially bush, as highly intellectual persons who only make well thought through rational choices. (on the contrary actually).

So what? Everybody is lying? If we have been lied to about the 911 attacks on the television and the truthers are lying to us through the internet, what do you think happened? Do you just go with "its too complicated to figure out?"

Bad intent? For what reason? And what would those lies be? And finally, are you sure the sites you are referring to arent set up to discredit the truth movement? Or do you think that is just paranoia? What source is realiable to you, if you do not trust truther websites? Television? Newspapers? I got from truther websites that there are plans to run oil and gas through Afghanistan and it will be traded in Dollars. Is that info wrong?

If somebody is lying with intent I would bet on those who have a clear motive. Do you have any idea how much 12 trillion dollars is? I assume you do not. 12 Trillion dollars in 100 Dollar bills weigh a lot more than 12.000.000 tons. You might want to invest in 300 of these

Originally posted by Cassius666
So what? Everybody is lying? If we have been lied to about the 911 attacks on the television and the truthers are lying to us through the internet, what do you think happened? Do you just go with "its too complicated to figure out?"

No, you can still make a well considered opinion based on the data we have, as long as you realize that it may not be true and you will have to reconsider your opinion when new data becomes available. In the MSM it mostly are not lies by the way, but just sloppy journalism.

Bad intent? For what reason? And what would those lies be? And finally, are you sure the sites you are referring to arent set up to discredit the truth movement? Or do you think that is just paranoia? What source is realiable to you, if you do not trust truther websites? Television? Newspapers?

Lying in order to promote your conviction isn't really a rare thing. It also happens for example in churches on a massive scale. In general do not trust what people with a conviction say. Also see my sig.

If somebody is lying with intent I would bet on those who have a clear motive. Do you have any idea how much 12 trillion dollars is? I assume you do not. 12 Trillion dollars in 100 Dollar bills weigh a lot more than 130.000.000 tons. You should ask to be payed out in Euros.

It seems to me that you yourself have a bit of a hard time to imagine that much money, I don't really. It is about similar to the GDP of the USA, or in other words, the value of what the USA produces in one year in services and goods. So it is not that spectacular. Besides, the value is not profit, as extracting, processing and transporting it also costs a lot.

reply to post by -PLB-


Its still spectacular even more spectacular is the trading deficit the US runs. A trading deficit the US can only afford because oil is being traded in US Dollar denominations. So it isnt just about the 12 Trillion worth of natural resources in the Caspian sea. Much more is at stake. The alternative would be the oil and gas going through Iran and Irans oil bourse and of course the gas Iran possesses and that is an alternative edging closer to reality. An example for others to follow might be set.

Sloppy journalism accounts for one slip up. If one lie is presented on all the channels then somebody has been lying. The first casulity of war is the truth. The pretext to almost every war of agression is a lie to justify invasion when the target is not foolish enough to act in a way, that would justify invasion through a superior force. Somehow you think "this time its different" and that America and indeed the world have spent billions and 10 years and counting to go after Alquaeda, as we have been told through the idiot box.

Also yes, it is not that unusual to lie to push your conviction, or your lie if you know it to be a lie. But what makes you think the truthers are the ones lying? I sense far more faith fueled "conviction" among American patriots, with all the symptoms one would expect. Which side of the debate is it that is looking to stiffle debate, to establish dogmas that are not to be debadet? If you want to equate either side to religious people (still a couple notches shy of fanatic but religious still) then 911 deniers are a far better fit than truthers. A better fit for truthers would be the people who challenged the dogmas of the religious entity, who raise forbidden questions. If you are objective, you should reach the same conclusion.

But back on topic.

Those who stood to gain used Bin Laden. Tim Osman was just the allie they needed, who had proven himself to be reliable throughout the 80s. Also plan was not just to attack Afghanistan. The plan was to invade whatever country that needs invading, because alquaeda is hiding there. Think of it as a bullseye that can be shifted around as needed.

If you want to invade Pakistan, because they are losing patience with the Afghanistan pipeline and take gas from Iran instead, all you have to do is say "Gee I think the Pakistanis are working with Al Quaeda, we need to move in".

www.propublica.org...

www.mirror.co.uk...

Originally posted by Cassius666
Its still spectacular even more spectacular is the trading deficit the US runs. A trading deficit the US can only afford because oil is being traded in US Dollar denominations. So it isnt just about the 12 Trillion worth of natural resources in the Caspian sea. Much more is at stake. The alternative would be the oil and gas going through Iran and Irans oil bourse and of course the gas Iran possesses and that is an alternative edging closer to reality. An example for others to follow might be set.

So you decided to stick with the 12 trillion number even after I pointed out that its highly questionable. Or in other words, you refuse to reconsider your opinion.

You also do not address the fact that the USA does not own any of these resources. They have as much right on them as China.

I can't make much sense of the other reasons you come with.

Sloppy journalism accounts for one slip up. If one lie is presented on all the channels then somebody has been lying. The first casulity of war is the truth. The pretext to almost every war of agression is a lie to justify invasion when the target is not foolish enough to act in a way, that would justify invasion through a superior force. Somehow you think "this time its different" and that America and indeed the world have spent billions and 10 years and counting to go after Alquaeda, as we have been told through the idiot box.

Where did you get the idea from that I do not think we have been lied to by the government? Do you realize that both "you do not believe that 911 is an inside job, so you think the government never lies" and "the government has lied to use before, so 911 is an inside job" are both logical fallacies?

Also yes, it is not that unusual to lie to push your conviction, or your lie if you know it to be a lie. But what makes you think the truthers are the ones lying? I sense far more faith fueled "conviction" among American patriots, with all the symptoms one would expect. Which side of the debate is it that is looking to stiffle debate, to establish dogmas that are not to be debadet? If you want to equate either side to religious people (still a couple notches shy of fanatic but religious still) then 911 deniers are a far better fit than truthers. A better fit for truthers would be the people who challenged the dogmas of the religious entity, who raise forbidden questions. If you are objective, you should reach the same conclusion.

Several reasons: truthers are clearly convicted, the science disagrees with them, it is easy to identify the many lies,deception and falsehoods. For the last point you require to be unbiased and not share the conviction. Only when you are an outsider you can see it. Churchgoers also do not recognize the lies.

Those who stood to gain used Bin Laden. Tim Osman was just the allie they needed, who had proven himself to be reliable throughout the 80s. Also plan was not just to attack Afghanistan. The plan was to invade whatever country that needs invading, because alquaeda is hiding there. Think of it as a bullseye that can be shifted around as needed.

If you want to invade Pakistan, because they are losing patience with the Afghanistan pipeline and take gas from Iran instead, all you have to do is say "Gee I think the Pakistanis are working with Al Quaeda, we need to move in".

www.propublica.org...

www.mirror.co.uk...

edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

In my opinion you have a bit of a simplistic world view. Something like the evil imperialist are out for oil. There is a lot more at play. What you talk about are more like beneficial extras at best.

What would those flaws be? Truthers have spent a great deal of effort to point out the flaws in the official conspiracy theory and in the debunking attempts of 911 deniers AND in debunking conspiracy theories that came up in the wake of 911, that did not stand up to scrutinity. As you can see all the conspiracy theories get the same chance the official conspiracy theory got. Of course the same can not be said of those who elevated the conspiracy theory to a dogma that is not to be debated.

Church goers choose to NOT see, to NOT question. Thats a difference. If you equate truthers to religious people when 911 deniers are a better fit, then it clearly shows you are not objective. You are merely looking to fit any ugly shoe on truthers, even if the size is not even close.

So it is not "all about oil"? It is a beneficial bonus? That all oil is traded in US Dollar denominations is a beneficial bonus at best...for the US. What would the reason for America to be in Afghanistan then be in your opinion? So there are even more reasons for the US to be in Afghanistan. Hear hear. Could this additional reasons be so significant, that sacrifying 3000 Americans to get the population behind the war would be seen as the lesser of 2 evils? Or are you going to tell me that 10 years have been spent and thousands of American troops lost to kill Bin Laden, without even taking a picture of his body?

Originally posted by Cassius666
What would those flaws be? Truthers have spent a great deal of effort to point out the flaws in the official conspiracy theory and in the debunking attempts of 911 deniers AND in debunking conspiracy theories that came up in the wake of 911, that did not stand up to scrutinity. As you can see all the conspiracy theories get the same chance the official conspiracy theory got. Of course the same can not be said of those who elevated the conspiracy theory to a dogma that is not to be debated.

There is no alternative theory. There is just a bunch of people with wild ideas.

Church goers choose to NOT see, to NOT question. Thats a difference. If you equate truthers to religious people when 911 deniers are a better fit, then it clearly shows you are not objective. You are merely looking to fit any ugly shoe on truthers, even if the size is not even close.

Truthers hardly question their believes, and come with the same lies over and over.

So it is not "all about oil"? It is a beneficial bonus? That all oil is traded in US Dollar denominations is a beneficial bonus at best...for the US. What would the reason for America to be in Afghanistan then be in your opinion? So there are even more reasons for the US to be in Afghanistan. Hear hear. Could this additional reasons be so significant, that sacrifying 3000 Americans to get the population behind the war would be seen as the lesser of 2 evils? Or are you going to tell me that 10 years have been spent and thousands of American troops lost to kill Bin Laden, without even taking a picture of his body?

What oil. The USA does not have the rights over the resources. Meanwhile the war has cost 3.2 to 4 trillion, up to 1/3 of the figure you came with. And they don't own anything.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Cassius666
What would those flaws be? Truthers have spent a great deal of effort to point out the flaws in the official conspiracy theory and in the debunking attempts of 911 deniers AND in debunking conspiracy theories that came up in the wake of 911, that did not stand up to scrutinity. As you can see all the conspiracy theories get the same chance the official conspiracy theory got. Of course the same can not be said of those who elevated the conspiracy theory to a dogma that is not to be debated.

There is no alternative theory. There is just a bunch of people with wild ideas.

Church goers choose to NOT see, to NOT question. Thats a difference. If you equate truthers to religious people when 911 deniers are a better fit, then it clearly shows you are not objective. You are merely looking to fit any ugly shoe on truthers, even if the size is not even close.

Truthers hardly question their believes, and come with the same lies over and over.

So it is not "all about oil"? It is a beneficial bonus? That all oil is traded in US Dollar denominations is a beneficial bonus at best...for the US. What would the reason for America to be in Afghanistan then be in your opinion? So there are even more reasons for the US to be in Afghanistan. Hear hear. Could this additional reasons be so significant, that sacrifying 3000 Americans to get the population behind the war would be seen as the lesser of 2 evils? Or are you going to tell me that 10 years have been spent and thousands of American troops lost to kill Bin Laden, without even taking a picture of his body?

What oil. The USA does not have the rights over the resources. Meanwhile the war has cost 3.2 to 4 trillion, up to 1/3 of the figure you came with. And they don't own anything.

I dont think you understand what it means for the US Dollar "all oil must be traded in US Dollar denominations". To ensure it stays that way is well worth 4 12 or even 20 trillion dollars, regardless of who has the rights to it and who sells it to whom.

Of course there is an alternative theory. From my point of view, the Official conspiracy theory is right there along with all the other "wild theories". Somehow you argue that other people having other ideas means your personal flaw of conspiracy theory is the only feasible one. I dont see how that works. I can make the same argument and it would prove just as much, nothing.

What lies and believes would that be? You do not contribute much to the discussion. It just reads as if you are trying to attatch negative connotations to the worth truther, without reason or context at all, religious extremist, liar, believer. I explained why the "religious extremist" comparison fits far better 911 deniers than truthers and why it does not only not fit truthers, but why truthers would be the polar opposite if we follow the example you provided. You on the other hand just think of negative words put them next to the worth truther and pass that off as debate. Not to mention that 911 truthers had to overcome personal believes in order to accept the facts presented to them unbiased, especially American one. The way I understand it, while there are many Americans who are sceptical of their own goverment, there are also many Americans who think very highly of their goverment, so highly that they would rejected the idea outright that it would harm its own citizens.

"Winning" implies that their is still a game to play... For me, the game is over. The terrorists (whoever they are) have WON. All they need do is make a threat (or imply there is a threat) and we have LEO's on the streets with M-16's. Once a year we remember those who died at the WTC in what, to me, is our dose of brainwashing reminiscent of the "minute of hate" from 1984.

I have been an OS'er and a Truther in the past; now I'm a "don't know-don't care-er". I will never know the truth and so I have given up... Have I returned to the flock and gone back to sleep?

Originally posted by Cassius666
I dont think you understand what it means for the US Dollar "all oil must be traded in US Dollar denominations". To ensure it stays that way is well worth 4 12 or even 20 trillion dollars, regardless of who has the rights to it and who sells it to whom.

So your theory is that Afghanistan was attacked to ensure that oil is still traded in USD. And in order to attack Afghanistan, they did 911? I think you are making connections that are not there. Afghanistan plays next to no role in the whole oil business. And the Afghan war pissed of a couple of Arab countries who are now only less inclined to trade in USD.

Of course there is an alternative theory. From my point of view, the Official conspiracy theory is right there along with all the other "wild theories". Somehow you argue that other people having other ideas means your personal flaw of conspiracy theory is the only feasible one. I dont see how that works. I can make the same argument and it would prove just as much, nothing.

I have yet to find such a theory, which explain all events better than the official explanation. I have asked several truthers to point me to their full theory, but never had a serious answer. The "theory" from truthers can be summarized with "the OS is wrong and there was CD". It never goes much further than that. I don't call that an alternative theory.

What lies and believes would that be? You do not contribute much to the discussion. It just reads as if you are trying to attatch negative connotations to the worth truther, without reason or context at all, religious extremist, liar, believer. I explained why the "religious extremist" comparison fits far better 911 deniers than truthers and why it does not only not fit truthers, but why truthers would be the polar opposite if we follow the example you provided. You on the other hand just think of negative words put them next to the worth truther and pass that off as debate. Not to mention that 911 truthers had to overcome personal believes in order to accept the facts presented to them unbiased, especially American one. The way I understand it, while there are many Americans who are sceptical of their own goverment, there are also many Americans who think very highly of their goverment, so highly that they would rejected the idea outright that it would harm its own citizens.

I think it is very hard for someone who is convicted to see these lies. When I discuss 911 with a truthers, there is at least one fallacy or falsehood in almost every posts. Those fallacies and falsehoods are often directs copies from conspiracy sites. Truthers usually parrot what they read there, and ignore any source that contradicts their believes. Confirmation bias is common among truthers. But you have to take off your blinders to see it.