Page 11 of 12 [ 171 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Salonfilosoof
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,184

20 Jan 2011, 5:46 am

MCalavera wrote:
Salonfilosoof wrote:
What country did you live in and what was it better than the West in your opinion?


I lived in Lebanon for several years. To the Lebanese government there, the people are nothing but unwanted garbage. I can't say the same about the American government or the British government or the Australian government.


I don't know about the Lebanese government, but the British government and the Australian government PRETEND to care about their populations. I don't know how pretending to care is actually better than showing you don't care.

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
Actually, all the evidence seems to point towards controlled demolition. Not only that, it's physically impossible for the WTC towers to have collapsed the way they did without the used of explosives.


That's not what peer-reviewed scientific papers say.


Which ones? Can you name some papers that were NOT published by a federal agency like the NIST?

MCalavera wrote:
And I have yet to see conclusive evidence for controlled demolition causing the buildings to collapse. Where is that evidence?


Check out the Journal of 9/11 Studies and let me know if you can find any papers that aactually ddresses their arguments and succesfully manages to debunk them..

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
So you wouldn't want to know if the US government planned it or not?


If it did, where's the evidence?


To my knowledge there's no direct evidence but a lot of circumstancial evidence that can only lead to the conclusion that either the CIA, Mossad or both were involved.

Anyway, let me reverse the argument here. Where's the evidence that muslem fundamentalists had anything to do with it?

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
I've seen footage of the most diverse witness reports varying from a missile to all kinds of airplanes. There is little consistency in the witness reports, actually.


I've yet to see one witness report seeing a missile. Is it that guy who's well known for having his words taken out of context by conspiracy theorists? If so, I wouldn't trust that footage.


It's been a while. I should take a look at the footage again before I can comment on that.

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
Still, I personally don't know or care what hit the Pentagon. It is peculiar, however, at what angle the Pentagon was hit considering the supposed airplane supposebly came from another direction yet managed to hit a side of the Pentagon that was under construction. How nice of the "terrorists" to do so :wink:


Ok, I'm unfamiliar with this bit here. Where did you get such information from?


You're unfamiliar with this? This is pretty old news actually.

Anyway, here's what Wikipedia tells us :
MCalavera wrote:
On September 11, 2001, a team of five al-Qaeda affiliated hijackers took control of American Airlines Flight 77, en route from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport, and deliberately crashed into the Western side of the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. EDT as part of the September 11 attacks. All 64 people on the airliner were killed as were 125 people who were in the building. The impact of the plane severely damaged the structure of the building and caused its partial collapse.[35] At the time of the attacks, the Pentagon was under renovation and several offices were unoccupied, resulting in fewer casualties. Only 800 of 4,500 people who would have been in the area were there because of the work. Furthermore the area hit, on the side of the Heliport Entrance facade, was the section best prepared for such an attack. The renovation there, improvements which resulted from the Oklahoma City bombing, had nearly been completed.


You'll find some more info on the renovation program, the flight path and other issues with the Pentagon attack at the [/quote]Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice website. Also very interesting is this infamous video which is probably the first source most people think of when they think of the anomalies regarding the Pentagon strike.

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
Quote-mining is not typical for one side. It's a common human flaw that can be find on both sides to a smilar degree.


I have no problem agreeing with this bit. I just haven't seen any quote-mining being done by the other side. In fact, I don't see why they need to. Anyone who's telling the truth doesn't need to resort to such deceptive tactics.


True. That's precisely why the sceptics of the official side don't need to :wink:

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
It is intellectual honesty, evidence and rational thinking that led me to reject the official version of 9/11.


Are you sure it's not you having a problem with the Jews that you reject the "official" version of 9/11? I mean, let's face it. Judging from your posts, you seem to have a problem with them. Did they do anything bad or naughty to you when you were a child?


First of all, I have been sceptical about the whole issue from the very start and back then I barely even contemplated about Jewish culture. Second, I have a problem with Jewish culture because of its corrosive influence on other cultures that has been well documented throughout history. I do not have any problem with Jews who do not engage in such behavior and condemn it, like eg. professor Norman Finkelstein or professor Israel Shahak.

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
When you look at both claims in detail, they burst like a bubble. They're as credible as your average Christian myth, really.


Oh, really?

You seem to know more than all the scientists out there who disagree with you. Doesn't that sound so fantastic?


I'm a former member of Mensa, used to be a maths whiz in high school, I'm currently a programmer by profession and in my spare time I've been doing research on psychology, history, political science and various other human sciences for more than 10 years now. Is it really that hard to believe that I just might know more about some of these issues than scientists who might be biased by any agenda?

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
There's a lot of disinformation out there. Alex Jones, David Icke and Texe Marrs are a few well-known examples. Some are probably in it for the money and others are probably on the CIA payroll. Other sources are reliable, though. You just need to wade through piles of sh** before you stumble on some fine gems and what I did what precisely that : hand-pick a few gems beneath a pile of sh**.


CIA payroll? So now there's a conspiracy going on between several conspiracy theorists? LOL!

And you're complaining about fantastic ...


Ever heard of COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program)? Ever heard of Operation Northwoods? If not, look it up. US intelligence agencies have a long history of aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting organizations and individuals, whether domestic or abroad, by any means possible.

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
I'll check it out ASAP. I'm currently on a smallband connection because I exceeded my limits and I won't have broadband for another two or three days.


That's what happens when you watch too many conspiracy theory videos.


:roll:

Actually, I probably spent most of that bandwidth enjoying myself watching creationists make a fool of themselves at YouTube and downloading ebooks on programming.

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
Why do you insist on calling sceptics deniers?! Also, don't you think it's peculiar that people are thrown in jail for questioning historical accuracy on one particular part of history while this is pretty much common practice in ANY other part of history (although some governments are currently trying to make any questioning with regards to any officially recognised genocide illegal).


First of all, if you want me to call you a skeptic instead of a denier, then start acting like one ... and get rid of this agenda that you seem to have against the Jews. It's making you sound very biased.


So a genuine sceptic cannot criticise Jews without losing credibility? Is that what you're saying? Also, how does my opinion on Jewish culture make it any more or any less acceptable that people are thrown in jail for questioning historical accuracy on one particular part of history while this is pretty much common practice in ANY other part of history?

MCalavera wrote:
Oh, and why aren't you in jail yourself? Is it because you live in a country that treats disrespectful deniers like you in a civilized manner? Which country do you live in? Don't tell me it's the USA, the country allegedly controlled by the Jews! ;)


First of all, the US doesn't officially lock up people for their views. The first ammendment protects people from that although there are other ways to silence a person. However, there are many other countries where people can and have been charged, persecuted and locked up for no other reason but questioning a particular aspect of history. I live in one of those countries, but I'm simply not influential enough for my government to care. One of my countrymen did actually manage to reach quite a few people worldwide with his website and the books he sells and he has been sent to jail several times because of that. Of course there are many others with viewpoints just like him, but few have the balls to face a prison sentence just to stand up for what they know to be true.

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
How do you distinguish the first from the latter? What is in your opinion valid scepticism and what is in your opinion denial? What is in your opinion reasonable to question and what isn't? What evidence do you consider valid and what evidence do you not? Have you ever read any article or book from the people you accuse of "denial" or do you know all you know about them from their opposition? If you know all you know about them from their opposition, how can you possibly make up your mind objectively on whether or not they have any solid arguments?


The historical evidence is there ... just as there is evidence ofr the theory of evolution. If you deny all the documents and witnesses as evidence, then obviously you're a denier. A skeptic would look at all these evidence and accept them as evidence because they are conclusive and because there is no evidence that shows otherwise. All you have is denial on the other side.


Holocaust revisionists (or as you call them : deniers) do look into all the documents and witnesses. They don't deny any of the evidence at all. That's why the label "denier" itself is already a distortion of what they're actually doing. What they ACTUALLY do, is look at all the evidence from a sceptic perspective and their conclusions differ from the official story. Considering the controversial and off-topic nature of the issue I do not wish to go into any greater detail in this thread. If you want more details, let me know and I can send them via PM.

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
Just for the record, I've read quite a lot of material from BOTH sides and whereas imo the revisionist side (whom you call deniers) have a pretty strong case, the official position is as full of holes as swiss cheese.


You're like the typical creationist who thinks the theory of evolution is ridiculous and full of holes while his belief makes more sense, lol.


I don't believe in anything. I check for evidence, I analyse it and draw my conclusions. That's how rational people are supposed to act and that's a method I consistently apply.

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
So you know for a fact that it's physically possible for the airplanes alone to have caused the collapse of the WTC towers, without having any knowledge of structuring engineering? Well, I'm not a structural engineer either but imo this is physically impossible by any standards. Don't you think we need experts to sort out who's right? Isn't it arrogant to assume you're right without even looking into the arguments against your position?


I already have. The peer-reviewed scientific papers say that it's physically possible. Any "expert" who says otherwise is a liar.


So it's impossible for two different experts to agree, right? It's impossible for those experts publishing in peer-reviewed scientific papers to have an agenda, right? By the way, what peer-reviewed scientific papers are you referring to and can I find the articles as well as their reviews online?

MCalavera wrote:
I didn't even know about the claims that it was physically impossible until I watched some conspiracy theory videos.


Actually, when I saw the towers crumble my instant reaction was that something just didn't fit and the more I thought about it the more I realised it was just physically impossible for the towers to have collapsed the way they did without the use of explosives. It was only after I came to that conclusion that I started doing research and came to realise I was far from the only one who had come to that conclusion... some of whom have a degree in engineering and this more scientific data to back then up.

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
I don't accept them as either true or false as long as I haven't been able to verify them, however they do provide an answer to some of the questions those defending the official theory often have.


Just out of curiosity, what are the claims that you have yet to verify for yourself?


For example, I simply don't know how to verify whether or not the WTC towers were in fact operating at a loss or what exactly Silverstein's insurance payment was.

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
So then what is the truth?


The planes alone were enough to cause the damage.


Just keep telling that to yourself :wink:

Quote:
Where are the so-called conspiract theorists wrong?


MCalavera wrote:
They're wrong by dismissing the evidence and listening to liars like Steven Jones (who happens to be a Mormon).


So because someone believes in a silly religion, he can't know anything about engineering? What about all the other experts? What evidence are so-called "conspiracy theorists" dismissing? IMO, it's precisely your side that's dismissing most of the evidence.

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
Do you deny that the WTC towers were running at a loss and if so on what data do you base that denial?


Were they running at a loss? I have no clue. I just don't care, really.


It matters, because if they were there's a financial motive as well.

MCalavera wrote:
Quote:
Do you deny that Silverstein made quite a profit from the insurance policy he had on the WTC towers? If not, on what data do you base that denial?


If he did, then good for him. Do you have a problem with him making profit?

I make quite a profit from customers sending me their computers infected with viruses and malware. It doesn't mean that I put the viruses in those systems myself.

So you see what I mean by conclusive evidence?


No, it doesn't. But it does provide motive.

MCalavera wrote:
Looking forward to your next deceptive post. :)


Look who's talking :D



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

20 Jan 2011, 1:17 pm

Salonfilosoof wrote:
http://www.journalof911studies.com


Cheers for posting that!

By the way, I do not know if you are familiar with the theory but there is a theory with some supporting evidence that it may not have been planes involved with the WTC's at all.

Somebody did a video analysis and has come to the the conclusion that the manner in which the planes in the videos moved was not possible. That it also looks as if the planes were doctored onto the videos which made the news.

People do claim to have seen the claims for themselves, but studies have shown in the past that if you show somebody something, they can believe to have seen it themselves when what they saw was in fact slightly different. NOT that this has to be the case, but it is possible.

2 part video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R41kiEq0sBw[/youtube]


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


Salonfilosoof
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,184

20 Jan 2011, 1:41 pm

PatrickNeville wrote:
By the way, I do not know if you are familiar with the theory but there is a theory with some supporting evidence that it may not have been planes involved with the WTC's at all.

Somebody did a video analysis and has come to the the conclusion that the manner in which the planes in the videos moved was not possible. That it also looks as if the planes were doctored onto the videos which made the news.

People do claim to have seen the claims for themselves, but studies have shown in the past that if you show somebody something, they can believe to have seen it themselves when what they saw was in fact slightly different. NOT that this has to be the case, but it is possible.


I heard this claim years ago but I don't think it's credible. It's not just possible but in fact probable that a missile rather than an airplane hit the pentagon, but it seems pretty obvious to me that it were two airplanes that hit the WTC. After the first plane hit the first tower, numerous cameras were pointed at the WTC both by professionals and amateurs alike. I suspect this was actually planned just so EVERYONE watching TV at that time would see the second plane fly into the other tower LIVE. What better way to shock the entire world than showing the footage of a plane flying into one of the towers LIVE?!

I'm far from convinced that any of the footage we've all seen from different camera angles was doctored and I don't know why they would do that. Also, unlike with the Pentagon the WTC towers show a point of entry that's consistent with the shape of a plane and I've heard of no witnesses who question having seen a plane.

IMO, the whole "no plane at the WTC" theory is disinformation intended to discredit the truth movement.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,327
Location: Montreal

20 Jan 2011, 1:46 pm

My aunt happened to be in NYC during 9/11 and saw the 2nd plane hit.. ah, the internet, you glorious jewel of misinformation.



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

20 Jan 2011, 1:59 pm

PatrickNeville wrote:
Salonfilosoof wrote:
http://www.journalof911studies.com


Cheers for posting that!

By the way, I do not know if you are familiar with the theory but there is a theory with some supporting evidence that it may not have been planes involved with the WTC's at all.

Somebody did a video analysis and has come to the the conclusion that the manner in which the planes in the videos moved was not possible. That it also looks as if the planes were doctored onto the videos which made the news.

People do claim to have seen the claims for themselves, but studies have shown in the past that if you show somebody something, they can believe to have seen it themselves when what they saw was in fact slightly different. NOT that this has to be the case, but it is possible.

2 part video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R41kiEq0sBw[/youtube]


I did not say it was fact, just said that it seemed possible.


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

20 Jan 2011, 2:01 pm

Salonfilosoof wrote:
IMO, the whole "no plane at the WTC" theory is disinformation intended to discredit the truth movement.


I think you might be right you know.


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


Salonfilosoof
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,184

20 Jan 2011, 2:02 pm

Vigilans wrote:
My aunt happened to be in NYC during 9/11 and saw the 2nd plane hit.


She and a few million others I guess...

Vigilans wrote:
ah, the internet, you glorious jewel of misinformation.


Indeed. This doesn't mean there's no valid reason to question the official story, though :wink:



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,327
Location: Montreal

20 Jan 2011, 2:04 pm

I agree :)



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

21 Jan 2011, 11:33 am

Came across some interesting stuff on FB relating to 9/11

Quote:
Evidence was destroyed at the Pentagon,

in Building 1,

in Building 2,

in Building 6

and in Building 7.

The events of 911 were perpetrated to conceal vast crimes.

The overwhelming evidence is incontrovertible.

It can no longer be argued against.


"... George Tabeek, who was the Trade Center's security manager... got a call that three Port Authority

workers were trapped in a command center on the 22nd floor. He informed a fire battalion chief that

he was going up to rescue them. The chief assigned a group of firefighters, led by Lt. Andy Desperito.

The men walked up to the 22nd floor. Tabeek didn’t know that a second jet had just struck Tower 2.

When they reached the 22d floor of Tower 1, Desperito and his men tunneled through the debris and

opened up a path for those trapped inside. ..."



Tunneled through debris on a floor 70 floors BELOW where the plane struck the building.



This corroborates that bombs were placed in the building to destroy evidence stored on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors. This evidence and the evidence in Tower 2 and the evidence at the Pentagon would have exposed vast financial crimes perpetrated under the guise of National Security by the President of the United States, Alan Greenspan, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve. Everyone at the upper levels of government was involved. Elected officials and appointed administrators.



This is why THERE WILL NOT BE a new investigation.



It's up to YOU to investigate 911 and share the data with everyone you know.



The first book below describes the QRS11 Gyro Chip, Smacsonic®Smactane, the Controlled Impact Demonstration, the 7 dead Raytheon employees linked to drone aircraft technology, Metastable Intermolecular Nano Composite Sol Gels, the connections to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve and the Bank of New York and it uses 100s of pages of photostatic copies of SEC emergency legislation issued on 911, Federal Reserve Working Papers, depositions, contracts, bank records and more. It also contains over 50 rarely seen and very high quality ground zero images.

Book 1 Link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/911%20 ... edited.pdf

Book 2 Link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/Book%2 ... mplete.pdf

Book 3 Link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/Book%2 ... mplete.pdf

Book 4 Link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/Book%204.pdf

Book 5 Link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/Book%205.pdf


Here is a 5th book the same guy just uploaded.

Quote:
We found a woman in the rubble of the Twin Towers, strapped to her seat, her hands bound... Read about it...
Book 6 Link:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/Book%206.pdf


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,602

21 Jan 2011, 6:07 pm

Quote:
I don't know about the Lebanese government, but the British government and the Australian government PRETEND to care about their populations. I don't know how pretending to care is actually better than showing you don't care.


I take it you've never been to Australia. The Australian governnment actually helps with its citizens' financial needs.

Just so you know, I'm an Australian citizen ...

Quote:
Which ones? Can you name some papers that were NOT published by a federal agency like the NIST?


How about a paper posted in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics? A lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists have tried to have their theories accepted by this journal but in vain. In fact, while I do know of one "paper" by a James Gourley that was published in the journal, it was not actually accepted by the experts as a scientific paper on its own. It was added for experts to respond to with corrections. So it was really more of a "discussion paper".

As for the paper that was fully accepted by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, go to the following link:
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/

And follow the relevant link(s) from there.

Quote:
Check out the Journal of 9/11 Studies and let me know if you can find any papers that aactually ddresses their arguments and succesfully manages to debunk them..


I don't trust journals that easily accepts unscientific papers. I want an actual peer-reviewed paper that supports your theories. The ones you linked me to don't sound like they were heavily reviewed by anonymous experts in the relevant scientific fields and such before being accepted.

Please check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Quote:
To my knowledge there's no direct evidence but a lot of circumstancial evidence that can only lead to the conclusion that either the CIA, Mossad or both were involved.


So in other words, no actual evidence. Just you speculating and talking out of your ass as always. :)

Quote:
Anyway, let me reverse the argument here. Where's the evidence that muslem fundamentalists had anything to do with it?


So you want to attack a straw man, eh?

I told you to make sure you know what my exact position is before asking me irrelevant questions.

Quote:
It's been a while. I should take a look at the footage again before I can comment on that.


Lack of witnesses for a missile hitting the Pentagon NOTED.

Quote:
You're unfamiliar with this? This is pretty old news actually.

Anyway, here's what Wikipedia tells us :
Quote:
On September 11, 2001, a team of five al-Qaeda affiliated hijackers took control of American Airlines Flight 77, en route from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport, and deliberately crashed into the Western side of the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. EDT as part of the September 11 attacks. All 64 people on the airliner were killed as were 125 people who were in the building. The impact of the plane severely damaged the structure of the building and caused its partial collapse.[35] At the time of the attacks, the Pentagon was under renovation and several offices were unoccupied, resulting in fewer casualties. Only 800 of 4,500 people who would have been in the area were there because of the work. Furthermore the area hit, on the side of the Heliport Entrance facade, was the section best prepared for such an attack. The renovation there, improvements which resulted from the Oklahoma City bombing, had nearly been completed.


So it would make sense for terrorists to hit that section. What better way to piss the American officials off other than to target the section that had almost been done renovated after all those years? It sounds like a move done out of hatred for America.

Thanks for quoting that.

Quote:
You'll find some more info on the renovation program, the flight path and other issues with the Pentagon attack at the
Quote:


No, thanks. I don't trust the liar Steven Jones and the likes.

Quote:
Also very interesting is this infamous video which is probably the first source most people think of when they think of the anomalies regarding the Pentagon strike.


I might be mistaken, but isn't that a video by the Zeitgeist Movement? Judging from the editing style and the kind of music that's in the background, it must be.

Anyway, videos like that one have been debunked from a long time ago. And, once again, I notice the quotes taken out of context in that video. Such a shame that people like you continue to resort to lies as if it's a normally acceptable thing to do.

Allow me to post some videos that debunk the claims made in that silly video above. Don't worry, they're not as long as the ones you previously posted.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8v8ai2-S0Q[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is_qBXqObes[/youtube]

I wanted to post more, but I don't want to exhaust you with too many videos. The videos above are not long, so do watch all three of them. If you can't be bothered watching them all, then at least watch the last one.

Quote:
True. That's precisely why the sceptics of the official side don't need to :wink:


Yet, the video you posted did a lot of quote-mining, dummy. LOL!

Quote:
First of all, I have been sceptical about the whole issue from the very start and back then I barely even contemplated about Jewish culture. Second, I have a problem with Jewish culture because of its corrosive influence on other cultures that has been well documented throughout history. I do not have any problem with Jews who do not engage in such behavior and condemn it, like eg. professor Norman Finkelstein or professor Israel Shahak.


Just as I thought, you have a bias that's affecting the way you think and that's leading you to resort to dishonesty instead of accepting the truth as it is.

Quote:
I'm a former member of Mensa, used to be a maths whiz in high school, I'm currently a programmer by profession and in my spare time I've been doing research on psychology, history, political science and various other human sciences for more than 10 years now.


Yet, you're not a scientist, aren't you?

Quote:
Is it really that hard to believe that I just might know more about some of these issues than scientists who might be biased by any agenda?


Ok, let's see you write a paper for one of the trusted scientific journals out there (the neutral and impartial ones)!

Come on, tough boy! Get to work!

Quote:
Ever heard of COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program)? Ever heard of Operation Northwoods? If not, look it up. US intelligence agencies have a long history of aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting organizations and individuals, whether domestic or abroad, by any means possible.


You really think a fool like Texe Marrs may be on the CIA payroll? Is the Zeitgeist Movement also part of the conspiracy?

What about you? Aren't you a CIA secret agent out there to spread disinformation?

I bet that's what Texe Marrs thinks about you!

Hey, where's our fellow member, Patrick? Somebody (other than me) doesn't like your Texe Marrs!

Quote:
:roll:

Actually, I probably spent most of that bandwidth enjoying myself watching creationists make a fool of themselves at YouTube and downloading ebooks on programming.


Oh, the irony! Creationists are not the only ones making fools out of themselves on YouTube. Look at yourselves first.

Quote:
So a genuine sceptic cannot criticise Jews without losing credibility? Is that what you're saying? Also, how does my opinion on Jewish culture make it any more or any less acceptable that people are thrown in jail for questioning historical accuracy on one particular part of history while this is pretty much common practice in ANY other part of history?


Stop deluding yourself. You are NOT merely questioning. You are DENYING the experiences of those who went through the Holocaust. I can see how some countries would consider this a crime as such denial actually harms the victims of the Holocaust. You do realize that most survivors, if not all of them, suffer from PTSD because of such horrifying events. Denying what they went through only adds more harm instead of good.

Show some f*****g empathy, dammit! The world doesn't revolve around your shitty theories!

Quote:
First of all, the US doesn't officially lock up people for their views. The first ammendment protects people from that although there are other ways to silence a person. However, there are many other countries where people can and have been charged, persecuted and locked up for no other reason but questioning a particular aspect of history. I live in one of those countries, but I'm simply not influential enough for my government to care. One of my countrymen did actually manage to reach quite a few people worldwide with his website and the books he sells and he has been sent to jail several times because of that. Of course there are many others with viewpoints just like him, but few have the balls to face a prison sentence just to stand up for what they know to be true.


Martyr complex, anyone?

You know who the real victims are here? No, not you and your stupid friend. It's the Holocaust surviviors!

Your friend should've learned what shame is by being put in jail so many times. But it sounds like he has a very big ego that's only interested in attracting people with wild theories instead of being interested in facts alone.

Quote:
Holocaust revisionists (or as you call them : deniers) do look into all the documents and witnesses. They don't deny any of the evidence at all. That's why the label "denier" itself is already a distortion of what they're actually doing. What they ACTUALLY do, is look at all the evidence from a sceptic perspective and their conclusions differ from the official story. Considering the controversial and off-topic nature of the issue I do not wish to go into any greater detail in this thread. If you want more details, let me know and I can send them via PM.


Stop lying to me. You are not a Holocaust revisionist. You are exactly what a Holocaust denier would sound like.

Otherwise, you wouldn't DENY what witnesses say about Hitler's men using gas chambers to kill groups of Jews. You wouldn't DENY the documents written by witnesses themselves. You wouldn't DENY what documents written by Hitler and his men say.

In short, you are a D-E-N-I-E-R. If you talk like a duck, and you walk like a duck, you are a duck.

Quote:
I don't believe in anything. I check for evidence, I analyse it and draw my conclusions. That's how rational people are supposed to act and that's a method I consistently apply.


L-I-A-R! :)

Quote:
So it's impossible for two different experts to agree, right? It's impossible for those experts publishing in peer-reviewed scientific papers to have an agenda, right? By the way, what peer-reviewed scientific papers are you referring to and can I find the articles as well as their reviews online?


I already linked you to one of the papers. As I said previously, I now need you to show me one PEER-REVIEWED paper that supports your wild theories and that has been published as a fully accepted scientific paper of its own in a trusted scientific journal.

Note what Wikipedia says about PEER REVIEW.

Quote:
Actually, when I saw the towers crumble my instant reaction was that something just didn't fit and the more I thought about it the more I realised it was just physically impossible for the towers to have collapsed the way they did without the use of explosives.


You thought that way because you WANTED to think that way. You were already a fan of conspiracy theories at the time, weren't you?

Quote:
It was only after I came to that conclusion that I started doing research and came to realise I was far from the only one who had come to that conclusion... some of whom have a degree in engineering and this more scientific data to back then up.


Is that why I can't find one single peer-reviewed scientific paper supporting your wild views?

By the way, it's not enough to have a degree in engineering, lol.

Quote:
For example, I simply don't know how to verify whether or not the WTC towers were in fact operating at a loss or what exactly Silverstein's insurance payment was.


Oh, so you're only unsure of the things that wouldn't really change your mind about the 9/11 events. How convenient.

Quote:
Just keep telling that to yourself :wink:


I don't need to. The evidence itself keeps telling me.

Quote:
So because someone believes in a silly religion, he can't know anything about engineering?


Steven Jones is the same "expert" who "has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith's belief that Jesus Christ visited America", lol. Look it up on Wikipedia.

How can you trust someone like him if that's how he interprets evidence?

Quote:
What about all the other experts?


Who are those "experts"? Why don't they have papers published in trusted journals?

Quote:
What evidence are so-called "conspiracy theorists" dismissing?


The evidence demonstrated by scientific papers, videos, and witnesses.

Quote:
IMO, it's precisely your side that's dismissing most of the evidence.


Nothing but vain words.

Quote:
It matters, because if they were there's a financial motive as well.


Motive to have the buildings go down, you mean? If so, we need actual evidence, not baseless words.

Quote:
No, it doesn't. But it does provide motive.


Motive for what? I don't want any more speculations wrongly perceived as evidence, got it?

Quote:
Look who's talking :D


The fact that you posted a deceptive video means that I had a point. You're not a fan of honest research, are you?



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,602

21 Jan 2011, 6:12 pm

PatrickNeville wrote:
Came across some interesting stuff on FB relating to 9/11

Quote:
Evidence was destroyed at the Pentagon,

in Building 1,

in Building 2,

in Building 6

and in Building 7.

The events of 911 were perpetrated to conceal vast crimes.

The overwhelming evidence is incontrovertible.

It can no longer be argued against.


"... George Tabeek, who was the Trade Center's security manager... got a call that three Port Authority

workers were trapped in a command center on the 22nd floor. He informed a fire battalion chief that

he was going up to rescue them. The chief assigned a group of firefighters, led by Lt. Andy Desperito.

The men walked up to the 22nd floor. Tabeek didn’t know that a second jet had just struck Tower 2.

When they reached the 22d floor of Tower 1, Desperito and his men tunneled through the debris and

opened up a path for those trapped inside. ..."



Tunneled through debris on a floor 70 floors BELOW where the plane struck the building.



This corroborates that bombs were placed in the building to destroy evidence stored on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors. This evidence and the evidence in Tower 2 and the evidence at the Pentagon would have exposed vast financial crimes perpetrated under the guise of National Security by the President of the United States, Alan Greenspan, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve. Everyone at the upper levels of government was involved. Elected officials and appointed administrators.



This is why THERE WILL NOT BE a new investigation.



It's up to YOU to investigate 911 and share the data with everyone you know.



The first book below describes the QRS11 Gyro Chip, Smacsonic®Smactane, the Controlled Impact Demonstration, the 7 dead Raytheon employees linked to drone aircraft technology, Metastable Intermolecular Nano Composite Sol Gels, the connections to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve and the Bank of New York and it uses 100s of pages of photostatic copies of SEC emergency legislation issued on 911, Federal Reserve Working Papers, depositions, contracts, bank records and more. It also contains over 50 rarely seen and very high quality ground zero images.

Book 1 Link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/911%20 ... edited.pdf

Book 2 Link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/Book%2 ... mplete.pdf

Book 3 Link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/Book%2 ... mplete.pdf

Book 4 Link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/Book%204.pdf

Book 5 Link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/Book%205.pdf


Here is a 5th book the same guy just uploaded.

Quote:
We found a woman in the rubble of the Twin Towers, strapped to her seat, her hands bound... Read about it...
Book 6 Link:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16017306/Book%206.pdf


You never learn, do you?



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,200

21 Jan 2011, 6:33 pm

I watched the 2cd plane go into the WTC live. That would be quite a trick.

What's amazing is that Al Qaeda had been at war with the US for years beforehand. That before that related groups had been at war with the Algerian and Egyptian governments. This was no hoax. These people were serious.

It wasnt even the first time that Islamicists had attempted to fly a plane into a building. That was a French airliner in Algeria. Air France 8969 in 1994.



PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

21 Jan 2011, 8:31 pm

MCalavera wrote:
You never learn, do you?


Neither do you it seems.

You literally NEED to wake up and realise that all of our government are not on our sides and behind this.


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


PatrickNeville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,136
Location: Scotland

21 Jan 2011, 10:04 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMkXA6kqNsw[/youtube]


_________________
<Insert meaningful signature here> ;)


sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,766
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

21 Jan 2011, 11:43 pm

Selection of evidence topic

Those who rely on conspiracies as evidence and explanations for extraordinary events are relying on tautalogies as absolute proof. In this way they can deny that which does not fit a neat, easy and erroneous conclusion.

For example: Hijacked planes did not destroy the twin towers, damage the pentagon, or crash into a Pennsylvania field. It was a secret government plot using cleverly placed explosives, timed to explode when people thought they saw planes crash into the Twin towers, or the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania field was mined. Was any wreckage found? No? This means, of course, that the official government explanation and eyewitness accounts of planes used as bombs is a myth. Of course. :roll: Only explosives could cause such destruction. Many future terrorists are laughing at such explanations, and realize they could get away with murder. :evil:

So what can be done? How can we refute so called proof of conspiracies? If such paranoia continues, this will mean there are safety concerns that can be ignored. Mistrust of basic government structure means that further conspiracies will crop up. And some even think if conspiracy theory is ignored, it will also go away.

In order to prevent the proliferation of paranoid conspiracy nonsense, I think this means ongoing review of the evidence and not bundling the results into meaningless tautologies, as this is how conspiracies rear their useless heads. Eyewitness accounts must be recorded and reviewed and kept in the open so that deluded people with hate agendas do not crop up like bad weeds to deny credible evidence fostering mistrust. This is one way to stop Holocaust deniers from getting the upper hand. A similar approach cvould be used to prevent deniers of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo