The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

I have had enough of you and bonkey with your blatant disinfo tactics,

Why not go the whole hog and accuse us of being government plants, thus adding to your theory that you were led to believe Flight 77 didn't smack into the Pentagon by the gubment, assisted by shady characters like us.

so here is a list of some of the rules of disinformation they live by, so everybody can see the incredibly dishonest tactics you use...

Lets indeed have a look at these.

2. Become incredulous and indignant.
3. Create rumor mongers.
4. Use a straw man.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
7. Question motives.
17. Change the subject.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.

Every item on this list applies 100% to the post I'm currently responding to.

6. Hit and Run.
9. Play Dumb.

I don't believe I can (honestly) be accused of either of these....but I'm open to correction.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.
12. Enigmas have no solution.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
14. Demand complete solutions.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.

I believe these are a more accurate description of what you've been doing than what OB, myself, or any other critics of the alternate theories have been doing.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses.

Arguably applicable to both sides.

There is no evidence I'm unwilling to discuss, as long as I have the freedom to introduce other evidence that I believe is relevant.

You, however, want the majority of eyewitnesses to be ignored, while the likes of myself suggest that no eyewitness accounts should be considered definitive, but that the majority opinion is the most likely to be approximately accurate.

8. Invoke authority.

Guilty as charged, if the authority in question is logic, mathematics, or various fields of science. I will stand by the assertion that there is a minimum level of authority in these fields that is necessary to credibly argue either side.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news.

I can't figure out what this one even means, but if it means I accuse you of reintroducing old arguments with no new evidence and ignoring the previously-made criticisms, then guilty as charged again.

So, now that you've highlighted how dirty and sneaky I and others are....can we get back on topic and see you deal with the questions being asked of you?

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

The reason this thread is so tricky is because of their avoidance tactics...

I have wasted enough time trying to have an honest discussion with them, so it's time they were exposed.

Tell you what....

I've asked you to explain why you misrepresented NISTs comment about the measured temperatuires. I've offered (twice now) to answer the question about why a lack of direct measurement isn't an issue once you've done that.

You answer, then I answer.

Then we'll start again. This time, you get to ask the first question, and I'll ask the second. So basically, I ask question 1 (why did you mis-represent the temperature information) and you get to ask 2 in return (one after the other), then I ask 2, then you ask 2 and so on.

We'll continue until one of us refuses to answer a question, dodges it, attempts to change the subject, or whatever else indicates that they're engaging in these "disinfo" tactics that you've latched on to (and so soon after accusing the governemtn of active disinformation....what a coincidence). Or we can have a jury and can point out to them where we think the other person is using these tactics and they can keep score. First to 10 loses, maybe?

Pointing out that a question is loaded instead of answernig is fair enough, as long as you're willing to propose a non-loaded version of the question and answer it. If we go with the jury idea, we agree in advance if a loaded question constitutes a "disinfo point" or not.

<edit>Arguably, asking why you misrepresented something could be said to be a loaded question, except that it is abundantly clear NIST said the information should not be interpreted to mean exactly what you interpreted it to mean.

Thus, establishing the basis for a question must also be allowed within reason.
</edit>

So...are you up for it? Willing to show that you're the honest player here and that I'm the one using underhanded tactics to try and undermine your position?

Gordon

Fantastic idea, please do this!

Jocksereire

Hi People what are your opinions on this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqmCOC04VCk&mode=related&search=

Ciaran500

Jocksereire wrote:

Hi People what are your opinions on this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqmCOC04VCk&mode=related&search=

Everything in there was brought up many times through out this thread and the few others around the site.

bonkey

Ciaran500 wrote:

Everything in there was brought up many times through out this thread and the few others around the site.

Indeed.

I'm going to break slightly with my established practice of not commenting on something if the person posting it won't say more than an effective "what about this then".

The first issue commented on is the put options on the two airline stocks and how these weren't investigated. Whilst it may be true that never before had so many options been made on both, it is not true that so many options have never been made on either. Indeed, both had trading spikes earlier that year. United stocks twice (in March and April) had twice as many put options traded as on the date in question.

Indeed, the March/April figures for United alone are in-and-around the combined figures for the two airlines on the alleged suspicious trading day.

Which brings us to the second point. Ms. Kleinberg asks why the suspicious transactions weren't investigated. Well, firstly, one must assume that were they to have been investigated, then all activity of all companies above a certain threshold should be always investigated. Considering that there were already numerous spikes of just these two stocks during the year, is there any indication that such measures are practical? Is there any reason to believe that such investigations would take place in a matter of days, thus allowing something useful to have been done prior to September 11th?

The criticism that the Intelligence agencies through to the administration should have done better is unquestionably true. Then again, its the classic situation where critics have been saying as much for years, and been drowned out by people saying "but sure nothing has happened". We saw the same with Katrina. Experts said for years that the levees were at risk of failure, yet nothing was done because nothing had ever failed.

The criticism that the Intelligence agencies still haven't corrected much of the wrongs that led to their failure on Sep11 is also valid. There is no question about this. The only people who will disagree are diehard supporters of the Bush administration.

However, the following must be borne in mind:

Incompetence - even gross incompetence - does not imply malice. Indeed, its more likely to suggest the opposite. If the FBI, the CIA and the rest of them ran like well-oiled machines and had no resourcing issues, then there would be far more serious questions to ask about any failure than if they had already been known to be stumbling around in the under-resourced dark with an Administration who didn't listen to them unless it suited their agenda.

So thats the first issue on the video. Much or all of what Ms. Weinberg says is entirely factually correct, but its far from being the complete story. It poses questions, some of which I've put forward here. It is the answers to these questions that would lead closer to the resolution of the malice/incompetence question.

None of this is new. This is old testimony that has raised these issues a long time ago, and the answers remain the same. Anyone just pointing at the video hasn't done their homework.

Anyone pointing at the video, looking at existing critiques of what Ms. Feingold says, answering some of those and posing new questions....has done their homework and is deserving of both time and respect.

I believe I've done enough at this point to be able to say "do your homework and come back" as a response to the rest of the video.

Jocksereire

Ciaran500 wrote:

Everything in there was brought up many times through out this thread and the few others around the site.

Thats fair enough im just asking people opinion

Jocksereire

bonkey wrote:

Indeed.
Well, firstly, one must assume that were they to have been investigated, then all activity of all companies above a certain threshold should be always investigated. .

Ah but they were investigated
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ESjwuoGHg&mode=related&search=

Diogenes

Jocksereire wrote:

Thats fair enough im just asking people opinion

read the thread then.

Jocksereire

Great to see David Ray Griffin interviewed on BBC1 this morning about the truth and lies of 9/11. The fact that people like David are finally getting airtime this side of the Atlantic is great to see

Squaddy

Hey, im just posting to tell everyone that there is a new 911 documentary. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=press+for+truth

lol bush and rice gets roasted! everyone watch this NOW!!

oscarBravo

Squaddy wrote:

everyone watch this NOW!!

Why?

billy the squid

Is anyone going to be watching "path to 9/11" on BBC2 this evening. Have been reading all over the place that the people that made it, did so in such a way as to blame the Clinton Administration for it. etc.

It is being flogged outside the US as being the "official story" even though it contains many inaccuracies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHgbeJu1WGk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecrooksandliars%2Ecom%2F

Jocksereire

oscarBravo wrote:

Why?

It is an excellent film showing CIA's connections to Al Queda. How the head of ISI wired Mohamed Atta(one of the hijakers)100,000$ the day before 911 and then spent the next 3 days with US government officials discussing partnerships with pakistan. How Bin Laden was followed all the way to Pakistan by the US intellegence and allowed him to escape afghanistan. It shows as Squaddy says Bush sh*t himself anytime he is asked about these issues. It shows how the 911 commission team were all replublicans or bushes mates. Its just a great production and i urge everyone no matter what you believe happened on 911 to watch it. Its great stuff!!!
here is the link again
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=press+for+truth

or totally ignore it and all the other evidence if you choose to.......

Squaddy

oscarBravo wrote:

Why?

Well you dont have to if you dont want it. Its very good though, no mickey mouse conspiracy theories or lies like loose change.

billy the squid wrote:

Is anyone going to be watching "path to 9/11" on BBC2 this evening. Have been reading all over the place that the people that made it, did so in such a way as to blame the Clinton Administration for it. etc.

It is being flogged outside the US as being the "official story" even though it contains many inaccuracies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHgbeJu1WGk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecrooksandliars%2Ecom%2F

Ah sh!t i missed it, but like wtf? lol. Everyone seems to be blaming Clinton lately!!!

bonkey

I see BYU University have put Dr. Jones on paid leave, pending some sort of review-board.

He's also taken down / been made to take down his "paper" postulating the use of thermite/thermate from the campus-hosted site.

Jocksereire

Yeah pity that about Prof Steven Jones but his papers are still at http://www.journalof911studies.com
He realeased 2 new papers in the last week that are on the site above. Excellent work i must say!!

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

Excellent work i must say!!

I'm always suspicious when I read comments like this.

Why is it excellent stuff?

Jones' famous thermite/thermate paper is far from excellent stuff if viewed from any scientific or objcetive perspective.

Its excellent for someone who believes it was a demolition job to have a scientist agree with them. Its excellent that the scientist has written something with scienciness and truthiness which backs up their pre-formed ideas. But thats about it.

So why is it excellent stuff? Seriously, I'd love to know, because I read "Excellent stuff" with about credulity as I take exhortation that I HAVE to watch some video.

jc

Gordon

I can't remember if this has been covered in this rather large thread or not but I have a question.

If the twin towers were actually blown up with thermate/mite then why did they need the aeroplanes to crash into them also? Could they not have just bombed the towers and fabricated evidence to prove it was some Al-Quaida people?

civdef

Hopw would it all have matched with Nostradamus if they didn't?

Like, duh!

Diogenes

Jocksereire wrote:

It is an excellent film showing CIA's connections to Al Queda. How the head of ISI wired Mohamed Atta(one of the hijakers)100,000$ the day before 911

What was he supposed to spend it on? Coke and hookers?

Its great stuff!!
ly ignore it and all the other evidence if you choose to.......

Hmmm I'm constantly in awe of the fact that the conspiracy theorists prefered argument is a mash up of video taken from mainstream media, and their dislike of the written word.

civdef

Don't think I posted this before:

NIST responds to the conspiracy theories:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

bonkey

Diogenes wrote:

Hmmm I'm constantly in awe of the fact that the conspiracy theorists prefered argument is a mash up of video taken from mainstream media, and their dislike of the written word.

Everyone knows a picture is worth a thousand words. Its a proven scientific fact.

It is the disinfo-peddling skeptics who should be ashamed, with their dishonest and outrageous claims that any such video is in any way inferior as a source to mere written words.

And so on and so forth.

Tar.Aldarion

civdef wrote:

Don't think I posted this before:

NIST responds to the conspiracy theories:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Conspiracy people argue with their answers please.
I am intereseted in seeing if you disagree.

I have never looked at the facts etcetera, that seems a good place to start.

Ciaran500

Squaddy wrote:

Hey, im just posting to tell everyone that there is a new 911 documentary. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=press+for+truth

lol bush and rice gets roasted! everyone watch this NOW!!

So this is the big video now? I remeber when Loose Change was posted by everyone taking it as gospel. That turned out well. ¬_¬

Jocksereire

bonkey wrote:

I'm always suspicious when I read comments like this.

Why is it excellent stuff?

Jones' famous thermite/thermate paper is far from excellent stuff if viewed from any scientific or objcetive perspective.

Its excellent for someone who believes it was a demolition job to have a scientist agree with them. Its excellent that the scientist has written something with scienciness and truthiness which backs up their pre-formed ideas. But thats about it.

So why is it excellent stuff? Seriously, I'd love to know, because I read "Excellent stuff" with about credulity as I take exhortation that I HAVE to watch some video.

jc

Its excellent because his experiments are relevant to the towers coming down and show the chemical remains of explosive at the WTC sites. Have you even read the articles!?!? Nah doubt you have.
That is why it is excellent work.:rolleyes:

Jocksereire

Ciaran500 wrote:

So this is the big video now? I remeber when Loose Change was posted by everyone taking it as gospel. That turned out well. ¬_¬

So are you going to watch it or not :rolleyes:

Jocksereire

civdef wrote:

Don't think I posted this before:

NIST responds to the conspiracy theories:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

People seeking the truth respond to NIST
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Gordon

Jocksereire, can you link to the exact article that answers civdef's article from NIST, pointing to a previously linked website is pointless.

Have you read that link that civdef posted? I did, seems pretty airtight now imo.

Jocksereire

Diogenes wrote:

What was he supposed to spend it on? Coke and hookers?

Are you saying this transaction didnt take place??? LOL:D

Hmmm I'm constantly in awe of the fact that the conspiracy theorists prefered argument is a mash up of video taken from mainstream media, and their dislike of the written word.

Im contantly in awe of the fact that people who believe the governments conspiracy refuse to ackowledge information shown to them such as in the link above. But hey lets all be in awe of the amazing coincedences of what happened on that day :eek: