Jim Corr is talking about the New World Order right now!

suspectdevice · 05-06-2008 5:27pm

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

So you don't even have to read the article before you draw your conclusions about it? Brilliant. Well done.

i know, being dismissive of the facts makes it easy to get by in these threads.

like i said earlier in the thread. i have no issues with how the towers were taken down. it adds nothing to the overall debate since it is once again dragging people into the detail. fact of the matter is that they were hit by passenger planes, planes that were hijacked in some way, and the towers did come crashing down. maybe with the help of explosives, maybe not, who cares? i just get a little interested when i hear reports that rumsfeld told his military to prepare for invading iraq just 4 or 5 hours after the wtc horror show. thats where i pick up the trail.

reading the popular mechanics article and looking at the arrogant language that they use leads me to believe that they are overstepping the mark from being a technical publication based on engineering knowledge to taking sides and so i dismiss their work. easy.

just adding a link i forgot that i had for those who are looking at whether or not oil is the issue in iraq

http://www.lastoilshock.com/map.html

Gegerty · 06-06-2008 8:28am

suspectdevice wrote: »

don't bother, we'll take bin laden's word for it. and if we can't trust that then we'll ask that slime bag georgie bush to give us a run down.

Read the link to the NY times article it explains the cascade effect. You simply do not understand the physics, thats ok. Whats not ok is basing your conclusion on your ignorance of the facts.

suspectdevice wrote: »

israel reported the plot by saddam to kill george bush snr. "he tried to kill my pappy" has been disproven. iraq was all about oil, why else would anyone go in there? sand? death? trillions of dollars that would better support an already failing economy?

To free a country from a dictator. I know Iraq was a balls up, but the original intention was simply to rid the world of Saddam. So according to you America is now in control of Iraq and all of its oil? The Iraqi leaders are nothing but a smoke screen? Tell me way we now have an oil crisis.

suspectdevice wrote: »

you will have to explain further how you can call a single superpower forcing its will on other countries "friendly democratic countries". do you consider the partriot act and its impending globalisation to friendly countries to be democratic? do you consider ireland voting in the lisbon treaty democratic?

What single superpower is forcing its will on us? You're dillusional. Yes Ireland voting on Lisbon is democratic, explain to me how it is not?

suspectdevice wrote: »

do you consider the rights of the palestinians in israel democratic?

you can't lob missiles at a country and blow up innocent people and expect to get treated fairly. War is ugly.

suspectdevice wrote: »

do you think that deporting jim corr for expressing an opinion, one that is strongly held here and elsewhere, a function of a democracy? do you know what a democracy is?

No, and it would never happen unless he's been involved in illegal activity in which case deporting someone is on no way a breach of their democratic rights.

suspectdevice · 06-06-2008 12:36pm

Gegerty wrote: »

Read the link to the NY times article it explains the cascade effect. You simply do not understand the physics, thats ok. Whats not ok is basing your conclusion on your ignorance of the facts.

i have explained already, i have no interest in the physics. it really doesn't matter who done it. don't call me ignorant of the facts. there are arguments for both sides, but to me the only issue is the fact that the towers came tumbling down and that this incident was seized upon. if anything, america should have went into isolation where they belong but they had to go flex their muscle.

Gegerty wrote:

To free a country from a dictator. I know Iraq was a balls up, but the original intention was simply to rid the world of Saddam. So according to you America is now in control of Iraq and all of its oil? The Iraqi leaders are nothing but a smoke screen? Tell me way we now have an oil crisis.

they felt they had to knock out the training camps and sanctuaries for terror groups in afghanistan but why, 4 or 5 hours after 911 did rumsfeld say prepare to invade iraq? they had no reason except for their own gain. so why aren't they going in to china, or north korea or saudi arabia? or any one of the other muslim countries? they have dictators.

some say the reason we have an oil crisis is because the reserves are being bought to raise the price, some say its because the quotas have been manipulated and reserves have been overestimated, whatever the reason the effect is that someone somewhere is making some serious money out of it. the iraqi leaders are not a smokescreen but you can be pretty sure that they are paying the americans for their new found freedom, and so are we at the petrol stations across ireland

Gegerty wrote:

What single superpower is forcing its will on us?

america is the single superpower, and they have forced their will on us. why did we contradict our position on neutrality by allowing them to use shannon airport?

Gegerty wrote:

You're dillusional.

sticks and stones mate. you don't even fu'cking know me so please refrain from making personal comments

Gegerty wrote:

Yes Ireland voting on Lisbon is democratic, explain to me how it is not?

france and the netherlands have voted no to this and had it forced through. we now get to ratify that by voting here. as eu citizens, i can't see how we should have a democratic right to ratify something that others were denied their democratic rights on.

Gegerty wrote:

you can't lob missiles at a country and blow up innocent people and expect to get treated fairly. War is ugly.

you can't just walk in to a land in 1947 under the british mandate and establish apartheid, there and then, and spend the next 60 years eroding the lesser citizens rights and land until you are happy with your lot. zionists are ugly, war is sometimes necessary. why do you think the united nations have sanctioned israel some 90 times and never once the palestinians? the palestinian civilian deaths outweigh the israel ones by factors of 10-1. go read up about and comeback when you feel that you can make a legitimate case for israel. i suggest that you first get circumcised, join the world zionist organisation and get brainwashed in a jerusalem university and then come back. i'll be waiting.

Gegerty wrote:

No, and it would never happen unless he's been involved in illegal activity in which case deporting someone is on no way a breach of their democratic rights.

tell me, where would you deport an irish citizen to? is elba or st. helena still open for business?

Gegerty · 06-06-2008 1:29pm

suspectdevice wrote: »

i have explained already, i have no interest in the physics. it really doesn't matter who done it. don't call me ignorant of the facts. there are arguments for both sides, but to me the only issue is the fact that the towers came tumbling down and that this incident was seized upon. if anything, america should have went into isolation where they belong but they had to go flex their muscle.

they felt they had to knock out the training camps and sanctuaries for terror groups in afghanistan but why, 4 or 5 hours after 911 did rumsfeld say prepare to invade iraq? they had no reason except for their own gain. so why aren't they going in to china, or north korea or saudi arabia? or any one of the other muslim countries? they have dictators.

some say the reason we have an oil crisis is because the reserves are being bought to raise the price, some say its because the quotas have been manipulated and reserves have been overestimated, whatever the reason the effect is that someone somewhere is making some serious money out of it. the iraqi leaders are not a smokescreen but you can be pretty sure that they are paying the americans for their new found freedom, and so are we at the petrol stations across ireland

america is the single superpower, and they have forced their will on us. why did we contradict our position on neutrality by allowing them to use shannon airport?

sticks and stones mate. you don't even fu'cking know me so please refrain from making personal comments

france and the netherlands have voted no to this and had it forced through. we now get to ratify that by voting here. as eu citizens, i can't see how we should have a democratic right to ratify something that others were denied their democratic rights on.

you can't just walk in to a land in 1947 under the british mandate and establish apartheid, there and then, and spend the next 60 years eroding the lesser citizens rights and land until you are happy with your lot. zionists are ugly, war is sometimes necessary. why do you think the united nations have sanctioned israel some 90 times and never once the palestinians? the palestinian civilian deaths outweigh the israel ones by factors of 10-1. go read up about and comeback when you feel that you can make a legitimate case for israel. i suggest that you first get circumcised, join the world zionist organisation and get brainwashed in a jerusalem university and then come back. i'll be waiting.

tell me, where would you deport an irish citizen to? is elba or st. helena still open for business?

You're showing clear signs of blatant anti-Americanism. Why should anti-Americanism be an acceptable form of racism?

suspectdevice · 06-06-2008 1:40pm

Gegerty wrote: »

You're showing clear signs of blatant anti-Americanism. Why should anti-Americanism be an acceptable form of racism?

where? i'm not racist, nor am i anti american. however, i am not in favour of their foreign policies. there is a difference

hey, and by the way, this is not about me, stick with the thread

justcallmetex · 06-06-2008 3:21pm

Suspect makes the most important point that the power that be took the siuation and turned it into a licence to do what ever the f**k they want.

Maybe there is no conspiracy but the reation of the US far far far out weighs the origional attack itself. What did Saddam have to do with the attack??? Y invade Iraq???? I freedoms the cause then I can think of a lot more nations with a he'll of a lot less freedom that wont be considered for freedom via invasion.

suspectdevice · 08-06-2008 12:00am

helloooooooo, is there anybody out there?

Pixel8 · 08-06-2008 7:22am

Well Suspectdevice, looks like they may have seen the light... but for any of you who still havent, watch these to find out what this is all about, watch them in order:

1. The Naked Truth:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8251447278663885234&hl=en

2. Zeitgeist:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197&hl=en

3. Esoteric Agenda:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6030443037963555139&hl=en

4. The Empire Of The City:
Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549&hl=en
Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4430543376785758889&hl=en

If these documentaries don't inspire you to research this information more, then i don't know what will. They are the most interesting to see out of all the documentaries ive seen on these subjects, even if you don't believe them. Very much worth everybody's consideration before voting.

Wibbs · 08-06-2008 9:03am

Gegerty wrote: »

Why should anti-Americanism be an acceptable form of racism?

Oh FFS americans aren't a race. If you want to get snippy at least use the correct terms as so far suspectdevice is making far more points than you.

davyjose · 08-06-2008 9:15am

suspectdevice wrote: »

tell me, where would you deport an irish citizen to?

Leitrim

Lirange · 08-06-2008 9:29am

justcallmetex wrote: »

Maybe there is no conspiracy but the reation of the US far far far out weighs the origional attack itself. What did Saddam have to do with the attack??? Y invade Iraq???? I freedoms the cause then I can think of a lot more nations with a he'll of a lot less freedom that wont be considered for freedom via invasion.

Exactly.

You don't need to believe there was a 9/11 conspiracy to realise that the invasion of Iraq was dishonest and completely unjustified. You don't need to have the opinion that 9/11 was an inside job to accept that the Bush Administration abused it's position in the world and destroyed what little faith the world had in America's leadership in global affairs.

bonkey · 08-06-2008 9:50am

Lirange wrote: »

You don't need to believe there was a 9/11 conspiracy to realise that the invasion of Iraq was dishonest and completely unjustified.

But who, here, has suggested otherwise?

You don't need to have the opinion that 9/11 was an inside job to accept that the Bush Administration abused it's position in the world and destroyed what little faith the world had in America's leadership in global affairs.

Again I would ask who, here, has suggested otherwise?

suspectdevice · 08-06-2008 1:10pm

bonkey wrote: »

But who, here, has suggested otherwise?

Again I would ask who, here, has suggested otherwise?

we are agreed then, the popular mechanics propaganda has nothing to do with this thread

bonkey · 08-06-2008 4:49pm

suspectdevice wrote: »

we are agreed then, the popular mechanics propaganda has nothing to do with this thread

How do you draw that conclusion from what I said?

The Popular Mechanics article doesn't say that the invasion of Iraq was honest or justified. It doesn't say that the Bush Administration did not abuse its position, nor that it did not destroy what faith the world had in American leadership. It is also (obviously) not a poster here.

I think I can see where your misunderstanding is coming from. The authors of the Popular Mechanics article included highly negative comments about those who they believe did commit the attacks. You seem to be equating "The terrorists who did this are scum" with "our government is wonderful".

It is, of course, possible that one can be of the opinion that the foreign, Islamic extremist perpetrators of the attacks were scum and that the response of the US government was unreasonable, dishonest, despicable and so forth. It is possible to be critical of the actions of multiple sets of players.

I would go further and say that to implicitly suggest that such positions are not valid (as your interpretation of my comment would seem to do) indicates a bias of perspective. If you see condemnation of one group as support of the other, it would go a long way to explaining why - having identified that the reactions of the US Administration to the events of September 11th, 2001 were unreasonable, you then conclude that they must have had a hand in the occurrence of said events.

bonkey · 08-06-2008 5:59pm

tunaman wrote: »

So how about we just focus on some of the additional commentary for now?

OK...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GDa-L4hHHo

Hmm. I thought you said we'd focus on additional commentary? I'm 56 seconds in, and there hasn't been any commentary from anyone. There's been some text on screen telling me what questions to ask when I hear commentary, and what answers I'll reach by asking those questions.

I'm now 2:30 in. Its taken over 90 seconds to give me a 14-second piece of commentary. I've been, again, told what questions to ask....but to be honest...none of the questions are really relevant. How did a guy on the street correctly guess what had happened? Hmm...he say planes hit buildings. He saw buildings on fire. He saw buildings collapse. He commented that the damage plus the subsequent failure caused structural failure. How unreasonable...coming up with the most logical explanation.

Is it suspicious that they picked him? Well, if he was the only person interviewed on all channels...it might be. If the producers of this video trawled through all the footage from all the major channels, looking for the one "off the street" interview that the could spin...then no, there's nothing suspicious about it at all.

On to "cover story 2"....a guy commenting that the damage from the planes, and the subsequent fires was probably enough to make the buildings collapse.

Now, before we look at this, lets remind ourselves that Conspiracy Theorists like yourself have previously made big noise about Van Romero, and how he on the very day of the collapses said that it could not have been what this guy just said it was. So...lets bear in mind that this youTube video is selecting one comment from a multitiude, some of which were from experts who said the exact opposite. With such a range of opinions on the day, is it that surprising that someone got it right? Will this video draw reference to Van Romero? Will it mention that there were all sorts of opinions broadcast that day? I think its a safe bet to say that no, it won't.

So were these well placed people simply psychic?

I'm 3:23 in. The commentary is just over, and the question is being asked how this guy got the "right" conclusion before any studies were done. How about we ask the same of the conspiracy theories? I bet tunaman can't offer us one "alternate" explanation of the events of the day who's origins are after the studies, as opposed to before. Why doesn't he find it suspicious that the very conspiracy theories that he puts his faith in also came out before the studies??? Is it because conspiracy theorists are psychic?

3:45 and we're being told, again, what to find suspicious. Incidentally, we're being told that the interviewee is going to change the subject. Its accompanied by a change of picture, but obviously we shouldn't consider it at all possible that he's just commentating on the pictures that are being fed to him (which are also those being broadcast). No...its "obviously" a concerted effort from both the news channel and the guy being interviewed to mislead us. Not only that, but we don't see a seamless cutover from one to the other...we just have to trust that they were contiguous pieces and that there was a rapid change of topic. Maybe we'll see it later...this video replays stuff a lot.

4:05, and we're told to "watch the emotion-laden buzzwords".

Lets just stop a second here and consider that. Read it again:

Watch the emotion-laden buzzwords.

We are being asked to believe that there is something suspicious about an American expression emotion on September 11th, 2001, regarding the events of that day.

That is suspicious?

I've just unpaused, and the first of those "emotion-laden buzzwords" presented to me rescue workers. The next one? Heroes. This video wants us to believe there is something wrong with describing the people who went into a building which has just collapsed in order to help anyone they could to get out as rescue workers or heroes....that there is something wrong with describing those who died in this attempt to save lives as heroes. I refuse to comment further on this point.

It gets worse.

The next "emotion laden buzzwords we're presented with are...."Policemen and firemen", followed by "incalculable loss".

In a video telling us that people knew stuff they shouldn't have known, we're now expected to find something sinister in someone describing the loss as incalculable? Why is that sinister? He's saying he doesn't know how many died and this is suggesting he knows things that he shouldn't????

I should point out that having been told to note all of these "emotion-laden buzzwords"...we've been presented them only as words on screen. This is noteworthy because the next slide says the following:

The Method:

- sell the lie with authority
- then change the subject to something emotional

Sounds exactly like whats being done in this video.

Now we're asked to watch it one more time....only it doesn't show the full piece. It only shows him talking about the collapse and then the changes topic. First time round, it cut the commentary about the collapse and the commentary about the firemen with a comment that we need to watch for the subject being changed. Nowhere have seen this change of subject. First time round, we're told it happened, but we're not shown it. Second time round, we're told to watch it again, but not shown it.

Then what do we get? You've guessed it...a change of subject to something emotional. We're moving on to talking about bin Laden. Only we don't. We get to him saying it "has the fingerprints of somebody like bin Laden", and then we cut to more text to tell us who this guy is. He's a "Bush Administration Insider", amongst other things.

So...there's now apparently something suspicious about a news channel having had someone with political connections in to offer comment on a day when America had suffered arguably the worst terrorist attacks any nation in history had ever suffered. Oh...wait...there's more. Dan Rather didn't introduce him using references to these connections that this video dug up...rather he introduced him with reference to a different part of his history. The guy served as the Comissioner for Mayor Rudi Juliani's Office of Emergency Management. Wow. So on a day that New York was attacked, we're supposed to find something suspicious that a news network contacted an ex-Comissioner of the Office for Emergency Management of that city, and introduced him as such, rather than referencing all sorts of other information about him. Well...actually...I don't know if thats how he was introduced. Its clear that the clip was cut both immediately before and after Rather said those words, so he may well have said other stuff, but we don't know. It may not have been the introduction...I can't verify that. All I know is that at some point, Dan Rather mentioned that this guy had held a position highly relevant to the events at hand. I'm told - and its probably true - that Rather didn't mention that someone who worked closely with Rudi Giuliani was also well in with teh Bush Adminstration (although, to be honest, I'd take that as a given, what with the Rudi connection and all).

And now we're 6:09 in and onto "Cover Story #3". Maybe finally I'll get to whatever it was that Tunaman thought was worthwhile in here. So far, its been exactly the type of material that leads me to be so critical of conspiracy theory videos.

OK...we get 30 seconds of someone telling us about bin Laden and now we're asked to note the time...33 minutes after the second tower was hit. This would be almost an hour after the first tower was hit, but why am I not surprised that we're offered the shorter timeline. I'm betting I'm about to be told to wonder whether or not there's something suspicious about a major news agency being able to find a detailed profile of someone in so short a time.

They play the clip a second time and then ask the question:

Who wrote this elaborate story and got it on the air so quickly".

I dunno about you, and I certainly don't know about tunaman, but I would be more shocked if they were saying that bin Laden was suspected but we don't really know much about him at the minute, despite him having been a mid-to-high-profile news story over previous years. I mean...seriously...are we expected to believe that in 2001, news companies had neither filing systems nor computers, and simply couldn't pull already-collaborated information? Or maybe we're not supposed to remember that Bin Laden was known before September 2001.

We're now at 8:26. and it looks like I'm going to get no more content. We're back to words-on-screen, telling me what to think about what I've just been just shown. Its almost as though they're changing subject again, having authoritatively told me the lie they want me to believe.

Yup. I'm told what to ask, to think about it, and I'm being given a replay of some of the content again.

So in total, there's less than 2 minutes of footage, spanning almost 10 minutes of video. I'm told what to think. I'm told what to ask. The exact tactics that I'm told are suspicious about the footage are used. I don't have references to the original material to see what was edited out. There isn't a single reference to the myriad of confusing and conflicting reports of the day...just three cherry-picked and possibly carefully-edited (in at least one of the three cases) snippets, which are supposed to lead me to believe that there's something sinister.

tunaman...you asked me to conentrate on this. I've done so. I've invested a bit more than half an hour of my life, watching and writing commentary. The only reason I can see that I don't consider it a total waste is because you've given me the chance to offer a comprehensive explanation of why I find material like this so worthless. It takes selective, cherry-picked evidence, ignores the rest, tells us what to think about it, and doesn't supply the references necessary that we can go and verify that what they've given us is accurate and complete.

You, on the other hand, felt that we should concentrate on it. You felt that it was worthwhile.

For anyone who's read this far, I'm willing to bet that tunaman won't defend the article to anywhere near the level that I've criticised on it, despite asking that we concentrate on "additional commentary".

Well I did post a link to an interview with a former air traffic controller, but you made no comment. Here are a few statements he made...

And so we return to that old game...the conspiracy believer posts links, and the skeptic is expected to write a response to all of the content in all of the links in detail.

You get to watch a 10-minute video and post a link. I get to watch the same thing, and spend - in this case - twice as long, writing a detailed response. Its not even that detailed...and I've no doubt that someone can watch the clip and spend 30 seconds writing a post saying "but you ignored this bit where....", which will require another half hour (or more) to respond to.

I've made an exception to illustrate a point, mostly because this topic has been quite for so long, but thats as far as I go. If you want to discuss something, then offer me more than "here's a copy-and-paste of what someone else said" or "here's a video where someone else makes an argument", and I'll happily engage with you.

However, when all you offer is "this is good...read/watch it", then why should I engage? Such behavious indicates that you're not interested in discussion, merely in "spreading the word"...in propagandising.

cronndiesel · 08-06-2008 9:04pm

can a nation who spent trillions yes trillions of dollars most of which when the dollar was the currancy to have, be attacked by a couple of airliners??
its a fact that long before, if an air lingus plane:pac: left its flight path over the US in the 60s never mind the 21st century it would have been shot down in a few minutes there is a ring of sams for shooting down missiles from the old ussr for yonks their manned 24 hrs around major US urban conurbations

as well, all those camreas capturing it all on film/video who ''just happened to be there''

the suspension of programming on national radio and tv all over this is very strange when other sudden sporadic news breaks theres a while of confusion while the facts are established and then they go on air but all this was- boom here it is!! never seen it before or since

i dunno

its all a bit weird

in this lay persons opinion there is more to this the question is why and what is the end goal??

MooseJam · 08-06-2008 9:10pm

the buildings collapsed exactly where the planes struck them, end of story

suspectdevice · 08-06-2008 11:13pm

bonkey wrote: »

How do you draw that conclusion from what I said?

lots of people got hung up on the question of who carried out the 911 attacks. i don't beleive it has any influence on what is being discussed. however, the language of popular mechanics is plainly wrong. they have no right to express such a view. they should, for the sake of the anoraks that could be bothered reading such a rag, stick to the mechanics and stay out of the politics. we are agreed on this.

bonkey wrote:

The Popular Mechanics article doesn't say that the invasion of Iraq was honest or justified. It doesn't say that the Bush Administration did not abuse its position, nor that it did not destroy what faith the world had in American leadership. It is also (obviously) not a poster here.

not sure where you are coming from. i can see that the popular mechanics article sets out to undo all the myths that surround the events of 911 but they went way to far in their opinion. it seriously weakens their explanation when it is peppered with so many vicious comments about possible perpetrators. if i've got it wrong then please explain.

bonkey wrote:

I think I can see where your misunderstanding is coming from. The authors of the Popular Mechanics article included highly negative comments about those who they believe did commit the attacks. You seem to be equating "The terrorists who did this are scum" with "our government is wonderful".

i don't have a misunderstanding, none whatsoever. they have no right to talk about who they believe committed the attacks. it is unreaasonable to expect anyone to accept their "facts" when they pepper it with so many totally biased views of what happened. its propaganda and as such should be dismissed. there are plenty of non propaganda laden articles that explain the physics of what happened without being insulting to its readers or their perceptions. and no, that equation does not exist, for me anyways

bonkey wrote:

It is, of course, possible that one can be of the opinion that the foreign, Islamic extremist perpetrators of the attacks were scum and that the response of the US government was unreasonable, dishonest, despicable and so forth. It is possible to be critical of the actions of multiple sets of players.

sure it is. just there is some serious imbalance to the amount of air time one side gets compared to the others when it comes to putting their justification across. ever heard any tv stations broadcasting convincing stories that foreign policy is to blame. when was the last time that so called terrorist groups were in the top 100 lobby companies? it doesn't happen. unfair

bonkey wrote:

I would go further and say that to implicitly suggest that such positions are not valid (as your interpretation of my comment would seem to do) indicates a bias of perspective. If you see condemnation of one group as support of the other, it would go a long way to explaining why - having identified that the reactions of the US Administration to the events of September 11th, 2001 were unreasonable, you then conclude that they must have had a hand in the occurrence of said events.

haven't got a clue where you got this from. sounds just a little like a conspiracy in your mind to me. i don't do conspiracy theories, genuinely. i do however look at events and put them logically together. the fact that they make sense to me and millions of others leads me to believe that i am not alone in my interpretation of events. never once have i or would i suggest that america flew the planes into the twin towers and sent them crashing down. but they should have reacted a lot quicker. looks to me like they let it happen because they saw the upside of finishing their pipeline in afghanistan. i also go back to my question that remains unanswered in all this - why would rumsfeld, within hours of 911, tell his military to prepare for the invasion of iraq. excellent piece of opportunism perhaps. was hearing about the impending attack on 911, reacting in the way the americans did, also an excellent piece of opportunism.

Lirange · 08-06-2008 11:46pm

bonkey wrote: »

But who, here, has suggested otherwise?

Again I would ask who, here, has suggested otherwise?

tetchy tetchy.

I wasn't addressing you Bonkeyman. I replied to JustcallmeTex.

My comments only address the possibility that some might feel drawn to the conspiracy because of their disdain for the Bush administration. It's too tempting for some and I think there's a tendency to be more easily seduced as a result. There are countless justified reasons to excoriate the Bush circus. A conspiracy isn't required.

tunaman · 09-06-2008 2:23am

bonkey wrote: »

How did a guy on the street correctly guess what had happened?

I know you like to obfuscate, so can you try to be a bit more concise from now on?

Here you are resorting to a logical fallacy, by begging the question. Your question is loaded with a conclusion, which has never been proven.

Hmm...he say planes hit buildings. He saw buildings on fire. He saw buildings collapse. He commented that the damage plus the subsequent failure caused structural failure.

Did you ever ask yourself if he was simply some random bloke, who knew more than any firefighters and engineers, who were surprised the buildings came down at all?

So what he said doesn't seem strange, so what about the way he said it?

"I witnessed both towers collapsing...mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."

Do you believe it's even possible what he said was scripted?

How unreasonable...coming up with the most logical explanation.

What exactly makes it the most logical conclusion?

On to "cover story 2"....a guy commenting that the damage from the planes, and the subsequent fires was probably enough to make the buildings collapse.

When the "guy" happened to be a bush insider, who was telling millions of people what to think, then it has a significant impact on people, especially when the vast majority were in a state of shock.

Will this video draw reference to Van Romero? Will it mention that there were all sorts of opinions broadcast that day? I think its a safe bet to say that no, it won't.

You just watched the video...

Was the opinion of Van Romero broadcast?

Then what do we get? You've guessed it...a change of subject to something emotional. We're moving on to talking about bin Laden. Only we don't. We get to him saying it "has the fingerprints of somebody like bin Laden"

Bin Laden is central to the official story.

And now we're 6:09 in and onto "Cover Story #3". Maybe finally I'll get to whatever it was that Tunaman thought was worthwhile in here. So far, its been exactly the type of material that leads me to be so critical of conspiracy theory videos.

I posted it to focus on the additional commentary, which as you know is designed to tell people how to think. So what effect do you think that very definite news commentary on the day itself, had on people?

Within hours people watching had already been told exactly what caused the towers to come down and exactly who was behind it.

I think it was a day later when they supposedly found a hijacker's passport on the street...

The twin towers were completely destroyed, the black boxes were apparently nowhere to be seen, but they found a passport?

It must have been laminated...that explains it. :rolleyes:

tunaman...you asked me to conentrate on this. I've done so. I've invested a bit more than half an hour of my life, watching and writing commentary. For anyone who's read this far, I'm willing to bet that tunaman won't defend the article to anywhere near the level that I've criticised on it, despite asking that we concentrate on "additional commentary".

The reason I posted the link was to have a look at how the myth was sold, within the first few hours, to the hypnotized public, who couldn't believe what they had just seen.

People simply accepted what they were told without question.

And so we return to that old game...the conspiracy believer posts links, and the skeptic is expected to write a response to all of the content in all of the links in detail.

The official story is a conspiracy, so whatever happened everybody rightly believes that it was a conspiracy. It's simply a matter of who was involved.

However, when all you offer is "this is good...read/watch it", then why should I engage? Such behavious indicates that you're not interested in discussion, merely in "spreading the word"...in propagandising.

I posted a link to a youtube video :eek: called 9/11 whistleblowers, which I assumed you and others interested in this topic, may want to hear what they had to say. So you respond by dismissing it out of hand, for your own reasons, one of which was there was no transcript, therefore you claimed there was no way of knowing if it was accurate.

So I then went to the trouble of finding an interview with a former air traffic controller, during which he made many statements which directly contradict claims you have made, about the non-appearance of fighter jets that day.

So all you are doing is continuing to dismiss any whistleblowers and the statements they have made, without a credible reason...

tunaman · 09-06-2008 2:46am

MooseJam wrote: »

the buildings collapsed exactly where the planes struck them, end of story

So why does this building, which we know was demolished, come down in virtually the exact same manner as the south tower?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d77E0E46c2k&feature=related

The biggest difference was probably just how much explosive force was observed.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

What about building 7?

http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/reprehensor/wtc7-demolitionlg.gif

Is that an example of an excellent demolition job, or a building collapsing, due to unseen asymmetrical damage and a few small fires?

bonkey · 09-06-2008 5:42am

cronndiesel wrote: »

its a fact that long before, if an air lingus plane:pac: left its flight path over the US in the 60s never mind the 21st century it would have been shot down in a few minutes there is a ring of sams for shooting down missiles from the old ussr for yonks their manned 24 hrs around major US urban conurbations

If you know its a fact, then you'll have no problems providing evidence....a picture of one of these SAM installations, with enough background to make it unquestionable as to where it is.

as well, all those camreas capturing it all on film/video who ''just happened to be there''

There weren't "all those cameras" for the first crash. There were cameras for the second crash, but its hardly surprising that people had cameras trained on the Twin Towers after someone crashed an airplane into one of them.

And lets not even mention how its considered so suspicious that there weren't "all those cameras" capturing the events at the Pentagon.

bonkey · 09-06-2008 5:45am

suspectdevice wrote: »

not sure where you are coming from.

I was coming from what I said, and what you concluded from it.

I said one thing, and you drew a conclusion from it that had nothing to do with what I said. You've gone on here to argue (againe) why your opinion regarding the Popular Mechanics article is correct, despite it being nothing to do with what I originally said, and nothing to with my response that you were quoting.

bonkey · 09-06-2008 6:23am

tunaman wrote: »

I know you like to obfuscate, so can you try to be a bit more concise from now on?

Oh, I'm sorry. When you asked that we concentrate on something, I didn't know you meant we should talk briefly about it. My bad.

Here you are resorting to a logical fallacy, by begging the question. Your question is loaded with a conclusion, which has never been proven.

The same tactic that is used in the video that you were "pushing" as worthwhile. Why do you not criticise it in the same way?

Did you ever ask yourself if he was simply some random bloke, who knew more than any firefighters and engineers, who were surprised the buildings came down at all?

Why didn't the video you were pushing ask whether he was just one of many interviewees, and who happened to make the correct assumptions?

So what he said doesn't seem strange, so what about the way he said it?

"I witnessed both towers collapsing...mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."

Do you believe it's even possible what he said was scripted?

Yes, I do. Do you believe its even possible that it wasn't scripted?

What exactly makes it the most logical conclusion?

Planes hit building. Building is damaged and on fire. Some time later, the building falls. THe simplest, and thus most logical, explanation in the absence of additional information is that the combination of structural damage and ensuing fire weakened the structure to the point of failure.

Any other conclusion requires either assumptions of something not witnessed, or additional knowledge.

When the "guy" happened to be a bush insider, who was telling millions of people what to think, then it has a significant impact on people, especially when the vast majority were in a state of shock.

Define "Bush insider". Expain, if you would, what his relationship was with the Bush Administration as of September 2001, and why was it more appropriate than his having previously held a key position in the group who would be directly responsible in dealing with exactly what he was being asked to comment on?

You just watched the video...

Was the opinion of Van Romero broadcast?

Yes, I just watched the video. I predicted while watching it that in the remainder of hte content, it wouldn't draw reference to any contradicting views which were broadcast. It didn't.

Was Van Romero broadcast? No, he was interviewed on the day, and his comments published shortly thereafter.

I posted it to focus on the additional commentary, which as you know is designed to tell people how to think.

The video is certainly designed to tell people what to think. The TV commentary of the day was typicaly of any breaking story...full of supposition, mistakes, inaccuracies, and a whole lot of accurate guess-work. Over time, the facts slowly emerged, and it became clearer what had happened in detail.

So what effect do you think that very definite news commentary on the day itself, had on people?

What very definite news commentary? I was on holidays on September 11, 2001, and spent most of the day switching between two or three news channels. There was no "definite" news commentary. There was all sorts of hedging of bets, getting interviews with anyone who'd make comment, and so forth. This video you present, with its 2-ish minutes of content, does not offer any sort of balanced overview of what occurred on the day. It has cherry-picked its examples, and then tries to sell the idea that there was some clear message being sent that day.

Within hours people watching had already been told exactly what caused the towers to come down and exactly who was behind it.

Thats nothing but your conclusion, which seems to be based on taking a set of examples which fit your theory and ignoring the rest.

The reason I posted the link was to have a look at how the myth was sold, within the first few hours, to the hypnotized public, who couldn't believe what they had just seen.

You could fill hours of material with comments from the day which were inaccurate reports - the claims of a bomb on Capitol Hill is the one that has always stuck in my mind, as it lasted as an unconfirmed report for hours.

The video in the link presents an inaccurate picture, tells you what you should think about it, and - in places - why you should think it. It is built from cherry-picked information, with no links to the original material to verify some of the claims made about it (particularly with respect to the "topic changing" claims in the second part).

People simply accepted what they were told without question.

And yet, you don't address the point I made about how the conspiracy theories that you put your belief in were pushed out to the public almost as quickly, and certainly long before any investigation findings were made known.

If you applied your logic in a balanced manner you should be suspicious of those conspiracy theories. Only you're not. You avoid the issue by calling the various investigation findings "a conspiracy theory" and ignore the rest.

Indeed, if you applied that logic to the video itself, you'd have to reject the message that its giving you, because you should question its claims, and find that you're unable to actually verify them. It asks questions that you're unable to answer. That shouldn't mean you conclude a conspiracy...it means you should conclude that you can't answer the questions. You should then question how accurate a protrayal of the events of the day 2 minutes of selected video can be....or how inaccurate it could be made to be were someone to choose to do that.

You don't do that. You take the two minutes, claim that it shows the brainwashing, and leave it at that.

I assumed you and others interested in this topic, may want to hear what they had to say.

I was interested. I was interested enough to watch it and spend quite a bit of time writing a response on how god-awful it was.

So you respond by dismissing it out of hand, for your own reasons, one of which was there was no transcript, therefore you claimed there was no way of knowing if it was accurate.

Its not a transcript I want. I want a link to the original, unedited Dan Rather interview, so I can verify the claims made about his introduction, and the claims made about changing the subject, because in both cases, the editing of the video makes me suspicious that we're seeing the video-equivalent of selective quoting.

So I then went to the trouble of finding an interview with a former air traffic controller, during which he made many statements which directly contradict claims you have made, about the non-appearance of fighter jets that day.

What specific claims that I have made do they contradict?

So all you are doing is continuing to dismiss any whistleblowers and the statements they have made, without a credible reason...

No, tunaman...I'm not. I'm dismissing anything where you make general comments which basically say "this shows that some unspecified stuff you said earlier was wrong", regardless of whether the "this" in question is a video or a cut-and-paste job.

What exactly did I say that this person's opinion contradicts? Have you verified that his claims of official procedure are correct, and if so can you supply the link to an online version of the official procedure that he is referencing? After all, he claims that this is exactly how its in the manuals. I mean...I assume you're not just blindly believing what you've read as being correct, so you have verified his claims elsewhere, right?

Mahatma coat · 09-06-2008 7:36am

Just read that PM article,

so if yer condescending, patronising and up your own hole and make statements that start with the word FACT in favour of the official Story then yer an Expert

however if you think that some of it might be just a wee bit suspect they yer a crackpot

suspectdevice · 09-06-2008 9:50am

bonkey wrote: »

I was coming from what I said, and what you concluded from it.

I said one thing, and you drew a conclusion from it that had nothing to do with what I said. You've gone on here to argue (againe) why your opinion regarding the Popular Mechanics article is correct, despite it being nothing to do with what I originally said, and nothing to with my response that you were quoting.

its all just language really. this type of conversation is too abstract to keep my attention, and yours i am sure.

if you have any straightforward questions then feel free.

like if you were to ask "do you think the popular mechaincs article is correct?"

then i would answer "i don't really care if it is or not but i would note that the language leads me to think they have an agenda, one which may or may not distort their treatment of the facts. either way, i couldn't care less how the towers fell, its a non issue."

suspectdevice · 09-06-2008 9:52am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

however if you think that some of it might be just a wee bit suspect they yer a crackpot

suspect and crackpot, intentional?

sure you only short a device

darkman2 · 09-06-2008 12:21pm

lol just listened to a clip of this jim corr interview and he says 8 of the 9/11 hijackers 'turned up alive'...in some middle east country with their passports and all.

cuckoo

bonkey · 09-06-2008 8:25pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Just read that PM article,

so if yer condescending, patronising and up your own hole and make statements that start with the word FACT in favour of the official Story then yer an Expert

No. If you're an expert on the technical subjects that you comment on, then you're an expert on those subjects, regardless of what else you may say.

however if you think that some of it might be just a wee bit suspect they yer a crackpot

Again, no. Crackpots are the ones who show a constant inability to apply consistent logic, who cannot as much as explain what they argue is a conclusion they've reached based on sound reasoning, and who constantly fail to understand the simplest of criticism levelled at them.

MooseJam · 09-06-2008 9:13pm

tunaman wrote: »

So why does this building, which we know was demolished, come down in virtually the exact same manner as the south tower?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d77E0E46c2k&feature=related

because basically the same thing happened it , this building suffered structural failure because explosives were planted in it, the towers suffered structural failure because planes hit it and burned, the same thing happened to both but the method was different. Why do you think the twin towers both failed exactly where the planes hit, exactly ! it's very obvious from watching the vids, why do you think this is ?

Jim Corr is talking about the New World Order right now!

Comments