Jim Corr is a legend for having the courage to present a completely alternative view

Diogenes

Pixel8 wrote: »

Iranian Coup d'état 1953 by America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

Venezuelan Coup d'état 2002 by America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_coup_attempt_of_2002

Okay you understand the difference between usurping a foreign power, by aiding and abetting popular revolutionaries, and using covert operations to murder your own people to justify invading another country, don't you?

One is common behaviour of a superpower since the middle ages, and the other is the figment of conspiracy theorists' imagination.

Ron Paul warns of possible False Flag Operation on Iran by Bush:

http://suitcaseman.gnn.tv/blogs/21029/Congressman_Warns_False_Flag_Operation_May_Be_Coming

Oh fecking hell, we're into Ron Nutjob Paul territory are we? Ron Paul is a delusional fantasist, you're using baseless unsupported claims to bolster your lurid claims about False Flag terrorism. Give me prove of actual events, not just conspiracy theorist drum beatings. CTers have been making this claim about imminent "false flag" attacks against Iran for years now, they've call come to nought.

Diogenes, the Gulf of Tonkin incident is a conspiracy fact, admitted:



That attack (which didnt actually happen) gave Lyndon Johnson the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; the reason America needed, to enter the Vietnam war.

Again you are exposing your basic ignorance of the facts. The US government received patchy and confusing reports that their ships had been fired upon, the Johnson administration took the strongest interpretation that they had been fired upon because it suited them. I suggest you watch the excellent documentary featuring the then US defense secretary, Robert McNamara, "The Fog of War".

this is not the same as claiming the US government would happily commit convert attacks of terrorism murdering thousands of civilians to justify their own foreign policy.

They did it once before, what are they capable of now? (They did it a lot more than once before...)

Argument from incredibility.

America is in bed with Israel, they both benefitted from the Iraq war...:

Mossad Controls US Government:
http://www.nogw.com/mossad.html

If you feel happy to lie down in bed with racists and their baseless arguments feel free, I hold myself to a higher standard

American and Israeli War Crimes:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/02/8679/

I suggest you watch this documentary to get a glimpse of the real side of America that not many are aware of:

War Made Easy:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8383084962209910782&hl=en

Yes and I'm sure it lets you know how Al Qaeda are a mossad assist and the US government staged 911? No? Didn't think so. :rolleyes:

Pixel8

Okay you understand the difference between usurping a foreign power, by aiding and abetting popular revolutionaries, and using covert operations to murder your own people to justify invading another country, don't you?

One is common behaviour of a superpower since the middle ages, and the other is the figment of conspiracy theorists' imagination.

Whatever you wanna call it, its still not acceptable behaviour.

American False Flag Attacks:
http://corleonebrother.blogspot.com/2008/01/130-american-false-flag-attacks.html

Zionist Crimes:
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/zionist%20crimes%20history.htm

Im not racist at all, not religious, not anything, im completely neutral but i still believe the American and Israeli presidents conspired to carry out 911.

Oh fecking hell, we're into Ron Nutjob Paul territory are we? Ron Paul is a delusional fantasist, you're using baseless unsupported claims to bolster your lurid claims about False Flag terrorism.

Wow, you really think that about Ron Paul? You must be blind and deaf, he's the most articulate and knowledgeable candidate running for the US presidency. He's the only candidate worth even considering. He is the only candidate NOT in the pocket of the globalists and to me he sounds like a man of real truth, not bullsh'it.:

Ron Paul Courageously Speaks the Truth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

Al Qaeda means "The Database":

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3836

"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism."

Wakey wakey.

R0C0

Diogenes wrote: »

In order to be listed on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive list, the suspect must have been indicted for the crime. To indict Bin Laden formally for the 9/11 attacks would require presenting evidence in a court of law; such evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 would include intelligence sources, and Al-Qaeda detainees. Making such sources (and methods) publicly known, perhaps isn't advised.

Thats absurd. Do you think that when an undercover agent testifies in a court, that his identity must become publicly known?? Thats not how it works at all you know. The FBI couldn't last if it had to publicly reveal its methods and sources every time it wanted to formally indict someone. Sources don't have to be revealed publicly to be used in a case. And what you just detailed above is not common practice. If there was enough evidence to indict Bin Laden for 9/11, they would. There's not, as the FBI have said, so they cannot.

Oh goody something tells me you're going to combine the words "Operation" with "North" and "Woods".

You mean that kind of history of False Flag terrorism? Or would you like to talk about the Gulf of Tonkin?

They're interesting topics to say the least, but if thats the limit of what you know about American history of False Flags and America's heavy dependance on war as a tool of foreign policy, then I suggest you look into it more.

I can recommend a good book to you, 'Hegemony or Survival' by Noam Chomsky, he does a decent job in that. Whether you read it or not is up to you.

JIMSTARK

Well done Jim lad.

That takes a bit of guts, not like Pat Kenny, or that Tubridy fool who have been bought and paid for.

Everyone knows this information.

bonkey

tunaman wrote: »

The claim made by the US military that the airliners were invisible to them, as their radar was supposedly pointing the wrong way.

I believe you're misrepresenting not only what was actually said, but a number of issues together.

The point I think you're referring to is the fact that the United States does not have full-coverage primary radar. There are areas of the US where ATC monitor airtraffic only via responder-coverage. This is, I believe, as true today as it was in 2001.

When flight 77 was initially hijacked (it was not the first plane to be hijacked), its transponder was turned off. From the perspective of the local ATC, the plane disappeared. There was no primary radar to find it, and its transponder (i.e. secondary radar coverage) was not giving a signal.

It is also worth noting that - at least up until September 2001, the US military did not routinely watch the skies inside the borders of the continental United States. WHy would they? Doctrine was that any military airborne threat would come from a foreign country, and there were none of those inside the US borders.

Within minutes of the north tower being hit, news helicopters were up in the air in plenty of time for the impact of the south tower.

This is to be expected. Over any large American city, there will always be a number of news helicopters in the air.

The US military with a $500 billion a year budget were still nowhere to be seen an hour later...

Firstly, this is inaccurate. The first tower was struck at approximately 08:46. The second, at 09:02. NORAD's official statement had them 8 minutes away when the second tower was struck. That would put it 22 minutes away from when the first tower was struck.

Secondly, the US military, unlike news stations with their helicopters, didn't routinely keep aircraft up in the skies just waiting for something to do. They did have a small number of 'planes which were "ready to scramble", and in each case, those jets were in the air 6 minutes after receiving a "scramble" order.

This is the one of the most extraordinary claims ever made by the US military and yet, yourself, a self-proclaimed skeptic doesn't even question it.

Thank you for telling me what I do and do not question. As it happens, this comment is as inaccurate as the other details in your post so far.

So I assumed you checked out their story and it proved correct?

Which story? The lack of primary radar coverage? The response times? The sequence of events, in general? I've found as many seperate sources as I can to corroborate the various claims, yes.

Otherwise you just read what they say and presented it here as the truth, despite the fact that it has been proved they lied and changed their story many times about their so called response to multiple hijackings.

It has not been proven that they lied. I think you may be mistaking "being incorrect" with "lying".

You, for example, have changed you mind on which parts of the various conspiracy theories you believe to be true over the time we've discussed the topic. Does this mean that previously, you were lying? Or does it mean that you may have believed something to be correct, only to find further evidence which made you question it, and ultimately change you belief on what is true?

I also note that you're quick to claim that the idea of the military not watching all of the skies inside Continental United States is problematic...but I don't see you presenting any evidence to show that this is a lie, or even that it is false. You are simply appealing to incredulity...you want people to believe that its wrong, and that I'm somehow gullible for believing it, but you're not producing any relevant evidence. All you've done is mention the annual budget of the military, as though this is somehow relevant.

You've asked if all I've done is read it and believe it. Have you done more than read it and decide its a lie, Or read some conspiracy theory site claiming its a lie, and believe that?

Can you reference one radar station in the Continental United States that gives primary radar coverage in an area the FTC claim has no coverage? Can you reference one military radar station giving coverage where the military claim there is none? If not, then what, exactly, are you basing your argument on?

I cannot prove the absence of radar coverage. If your claims are correct, on the other hand, then that can be clearly established by showing that the "no coverage" claim is false, by referencing the radar station supplying the coverage that you say exists. Stop appealing to incredulity, when you should be supplying evidence which would clearly establish the claims to be false

bonkey

curiousn wrote: »

The pentagon controlls a trillion dollar airforce!! Surely the most advanced war machine in history of mankind has a plan to have aircraft defend it from surprise attack!

They had several...all for surprise attacks from foreign air-forces, which are - unsurprisingly - all based outside the continental United States.

If you dispute this do you think that I could just charter a private jet, fill it with exploxives and have it flown into the white house or pentagon? Not a chance.

White house...you're right. Not a chance. It has a "no fly" zone around it, and there are ground-to-air defence capabilities in place.

Pentagon...you're wrong (at least, as of September 2001, you were wrong).

The Pentagon is based right beside a major international airport...it simply couldn't shoot down any plane which got inside "reaction time range" because, well, they were there pretty-much all the time.

bonkey

superweld wrote: »

tell me who is in a position to pull of the better fake videos, plant more experts, cover up information and fake information, the US government or some conspiracy theory nuts as you might call them????

But its not about better.

Perhaps the most popular Conspiracy Theory video to date has been the second version of Loose Change. It is, to be polite, utter garbage...but the amount of people who were swayed by how convincing they found it was, for me, unbelievable.

Today, of course, with the exception of die-hard Dylan fans, its generally accepted to be poor...but you know...Dylan has made - and continue to make - his money. He's had his 15 minutes of fame.

Why is this relevant...

Well, lets just assume for a moment that there is no cover-up - that the official version of events is broadly-speaking correct, that the US Administration didn't plan on any of this, but merely capitalised. Now...why would there be all of these conspiracy theories?

Lets look at just two verifiable facts:

- Most of the major theories have been championed by people who make money out of Conspiracy Theories.
- Most of the major theories have been around since before the investigations that they have subsequently been applied as criticisms to.

Wouldn't this support the idea that the sort of "Truth Movement" that would make up lies are those who would capitalise on a tragedy to their own benefit?

If we then take a step back, we would see a remarkable symmetry....that if there was no cover-up, then both the US Administration and those selling cover-up conspiracy theories are all acting by the same basic principle....that you use major events as best you can to personal gain...to further your own personal goals.

So what sort of Truth Movement would it require? One just-about as honest as the US Administration.

and haven't we agreed that the US goverment will do whatever it takes to get their way?

I would guess that Diogenes will agree that to the limit of their ability this would be more-or-less correct. He may, however, point out that neither he, you, I, nor anyone else here really knows what their way is, or how they see them getting from here to there.

JIMSTARK

You are earning your money today Bonkey. Do you get double time at the weekends?

oscarBravo

In other words, "I can't refute anything you've said, so I'll just throw out a silly remark to try to look big and clever."

Slow. Clap.

Fighting Irish

curiousn wrote: »

Jim Corr went on The Last Word this evening expressing his belief that the official version of 911 doesn't make sense. A lot of people texted in agreeing with his point of view, a lot of people texted to say he should stick to the music.

Before you knock him watch the Google video "911 Mysteries" and THEN DECIDE FOR YOURSELF. But don't just knock the whole notion without seeing a second side of the story.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911+mysteries&sitesearch=#

Fair play to you Jim, I applaud you for having the courage to present some information so far from what most people believe that you know it's going to get you ridiculed. Politicians and those in the mainstream media don't have 1/100th of his courage.

Not really, he's probably just one of them celebs who just got around to watching loose change and now he knows everything

Note to Jim: hay we all watched loose change 11ty brazilion years ago kthxbye

Mahatma coat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF_NvzSe0to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvzSe0to

the youtubery cuts both ways

bonkey

JIMSTARK wrote: »

You are earning your money today Bonkey. Do you get double time at the weekends?

Do the sales-and-marketing guys for the conspiracy theorists you represent pay you extra?

ETA:

I don't believe that you are a paid representative of the conspiracy theory business, of course. Then again, I seriously doubt that you honestly believe I'm a paid representative of anyone either.

I do wonder, though, why it is that you seek to stifle dissent...why it is that so many supporters of conspiracy theories seem to get annoyed or frustrated when people engage in discussion with them. As I noted elsewhere recently, its almost as though you have no problem at all with the public being fed a one-sided version of the events, as long as its your side.

JIMSTARK

oscarBravo wrote: »

In other words, "I can't refute anything you've said, so I'll just throw out a silly remark to try to look big and clever."

Slow. Clap.

Well for a start there is no point arguing about the events of September 11th. Too much propaganda, however I do believe it was a false flag event used as a starting point for the totalitarian state when is enclosing further as each day passes.

bonkey wrote: »

Then again, I seriously doubt that you honestly believe I'm a paid representative of anyone either.

I would wager everything I have on the fact that you are paid to post here.

Mahatma coat

JIMSTARK wrote: »

I would wager everything I have on the fact that you are paid to post here.

I'll see your Stack of Pornos, downloads, clapped out datsun, and wardrobe full of anoraks.

and I raise you 3 cattle and a shiny new Telly, that he's not

seriously tho lad ya have to expect, nay relish the fact that there are people out there who feel as passionatley and believe in the other side of the argument.

it keeps the thing interestin

tunaman

bonkey wrote: »

I believe you're misrepresenting not only what was actually said, but a number of issues together.

The point I think you're referring to is the fact that the United States does not have full-coverage primary radar. There are areas of the US where ATC monitor airtraffic only via responder-coverage. This is, I believe, as true today as it was in 2001.

I was talking about military radar, which has nothing to do with ATC radar.

You have repeatedly claimed you simply want a chance to put over your point of view on the subject, yet when you are presented with an ideal opportunity, such as right now in the after hours thread, you fail to stand up.

I notice you have since posted in that thread, but have failed to answer any of the questions I posed on page 17. Nobody else has even attempted to answer any of my questions, but I thought you would relish the challenge.

So in a thread with over 10,000 views you have strangely decided not to engage...

Seeing as you have so far failed to even try to answer my questions, then I can only assume you are only interested in a discussion on your terms, yet now is your chance to put over your views to a much wider audience.

So why the silence?

If you fail to take up the mantle in that thread I see no point in replying to you anymore, as it will be obvious you don't want a proper discussion.

oscarBravo

JIMSTARK wrote: »

Well for a start there is no point arguing about the events of September 11th. Too much propaganda, however I do believe it was a false flag event used as a starting point for the totalitarian state when is enclosing further as each day passes.

Funny how there's no point arguing when you're presented with straightforward arguments that you don't have answers to.

I would wager everything I have on the fact that you are paid to post here.

I'd strongly encourage bonkey to take you up on this, but for two things: one, you'd refuse to believe any evidence he offered to the contrary, and two, if faced with incontrovertible evidence you'd just quietly disappear - as always seems to happen when truthers are faced with facts they'd rather not deal with.

Diogenes

Pixel8 wrote: »

Whatever you wanna call it, its still not acceptable behaviour.

No sorry, it's immoral, but it is acceptable, you're trying to to suggest that there is something sinister and different in the US doing it.

American False Flag Attacks:
http://corleonebrother.blogspot.com/2008/01/130-american-false-flag-attacks.html

There are just basic factual errors in that blog. The RMS Lusitania wasn't sunk in "German controlled waters", but off the coast of Ireland. And it was carrying weapons and ammo for the Allied forces. Furthermore while the sinking of the Lusitania caused the US to severe diplomatic ties with Germany, it was the sinking of the passenger ferry the Sussex that caused widespread US public opinion to favour intervention in the war.

As to Pearl Harbor, this is again a classic CTer epimetheus behaviour, looking at the the events after the fact, and saying what they should or shouldn't have seen.

Zionist Crimes:
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/zionist%20crimes%20history.htm

Im not racist at all, not religious, not anything, im completely neutral but i still believe the American and Israeli presidents conspired to carry out 911.

Based on....

Wow, you really think that about Ron Paul? You must be blind and deaf, he's the most articulate and knowledgeable candidate running for the US presidency. He's the only candidate worth even considering. He is the only candidate NOT in the pocket of the globalists and to me he sounds like a man of real truth, not bullsh'it.:

He's a huskster and shyster who'd duping gullible fools into providing him with a war chest for his congressional re election campaign. His economic policies are witless and bare no relation to reality.

Ron Paul Courageously Speaks the Truth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

Heres a funny one for you Pixel.

Q. What do Ron Paul and Noamh Chomsky have in common?

One is a former medical doctor and a congressman. The other is a professor of linguistics and political writer.

So what do they have in common?

They have both explicitly denounced 911 conspiracy theories.

Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul does not believe that 9/11 was an "inside job" and his campaign distanced itself from a raucous pro-Paul demonstration on a Mackinac Island ferry Friday night, a Paul spokesman said Monday.

In the incident, Paul's supporters taunted former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for alleged complicity in the attacks.

Spokesman Jesse Benton said the campaign was aware of Internet reports about the demonstration, which occurred late Friday when Giuliani boarded a ferry loaded with Paul supporters leaving a Michigan GOP conference. No Paul campaign officials were involved, Benton said.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/0ron_paul_supporters_taunt_rudy.html

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

http://www.rense.com/general74/dismiss.htm

Al Qaeda means "The Database":

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3836

Your point is?

ROCO wrote:

Thats absurd. Do you think that when an undercover agent testifies in a court, that his identity must become publicly known?? Thats not how it works at all you know. The FBI couldn't last if it had to publicly reveal its methods and sources every time it wanted to formally indict someone. Sources don't have to be revealed publicly to be used in a case. And what you just detailed above is not common practice. If there was enough evidence to indict Bin Laden for 9/11, they would. There's not, as the FBI have said, so they cannot.

You really think the FBI have an uncover agent in Al Qaeda? Incredible and inanely simplistic. The FBI have plenty of indictable evidence of other crimes carried out by Bin Laden, why go to the trouble and expense of indicting him on further charges, when they can be added after (if and when) he is captured.

Secondly you ignore the main thrust of the point. You claim the US government staged 911 but did not provide evidence to convict Bin Laden. The men who investigated the crash sites were FBI agents, why haven't they come forward with their claims that there was "no wreckage" or "no evidence" at any site. Unless they are controlled by the "US government", but hang on, your own logic means that these same government controlled FBI agents haven't got the evidence to charge Bin Laden.

See if they can control them enough to ensure their silence over the crash sites, why don't they use the same influence to get the FBI to charge Bin Laden?

There's no rhyme or reason to your conspiracy theory R0C0.

They're interesting topics to say the least, but if thats the limit of what you know about American history of False Flags and America's heavy dependance on war as a tool of foreign policy, then I suggest you look into it more.

I did Pixel listed off a load of factual inaccurate ones I linked to the post.

1. Lusitania. Basic factual errors.

2. Pearl Harbor. Basic factual errors, and cherry picking the evidence.

3. Gulf of Tonkin. Misrepresentation of what occured.

4. Operation Northwoods. Never happened.

Missing any?

I can recommend a good book to you, 'Hegemony or Survival' by Noam Chomsky, he does a decent job in that. Whether you read it or not is up to you.

Whether you read what I posted about Chomsky's low opinion of 911 conspiracy theories is up to you, as well.

JIMSTARK

oscarBravo wrote: »

if faced with incontrovertible evidence you'd just quietly disappear - as always seems to happen when truthers are faced with facts they'd rather not deal with.

Funny Mate, I seem to remember that you are the one that disappears anyone not speaking the government line.

And what is it with your use of labels, "truthers" "conspiracy theorist" and so on.

oscarBravo

JIMSTARK wrote: »

Funny Mate, I seem to remember that you are the one that disappears anyone not speaking the government line.

You've a good memory, for someone who's only been here since May.

And what is it with your use of labels, "truthers" "conspiracy theorist" and so on.

What is it with your unwillingness to discuss things you disagree with?

JIMSTARK

Point proved.

And another thing, don't ban me with 33 posts, people will think I'm a Mason.

Diogenes

JIMSTARK wrote: »

Point proved.

And another thing, don't ban me with 33 posts, people will think I'm a Mason.

casey! How the divil are you?

Mahatma coat

hang on a mo, when did the Lusitania enter the discussion?

Chomsky is on the right trail there, look at the things that were in the news at the time before it, particularly Enron and the missin govt moneys, they were being dealt with in building 7.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

hang on a mo, when did the Lusitania enter the discussion?

Chomsky is on the right trail there,

What? Honestly how could you have gotten things so ass backwards? He's saying that there are enough legitimate and real crimes committed by the current US administration that there is no need to invite delusional conspiracy theories to blame on this administration.

How can you take a sentence by someone who utterly contradicts CTers and claim that he's on your side. It's utterly mind boggling.

look at the things that were in the news at the time before it, particularly Enron and the missin govt moneys, they were being dealt with in building 7.

I've bolded the bits in your sentence that are just flat out wrong. Just because you stopped following the story doesn't mean the rest of the world did as well.

Lay and Skilling (president and CEO) were both convicted of fraud, Lay is dead and Skilling is serving a 24 year prison sentence.

How earth did that happen if all the paperwork was buried in building 7?

Oh and the "missin govt moneys?" I assume you're using that inane $2.3 trillion claim? Rumsfeld mentioned it in a speech at the Pentagon on Sept 11th and it's taken out of context he was referring to improving accountancy practices in the DoD. Which didn't have any offices in WTC7.

Mahatma coat

Diogenes wrote: »

What? Honestly how could you have gotten things so ass backwards? He's saying that there are enough legitimate and real crimes committed by the current US administration that there is no need to invite delusional conspiracy theories to blame on this administration.

I think you may have things 'ass backwards'

re read yer own synopsis again

How can you take a sentence by someone who utterly contradicts CTers and claim that he's on your side. It's utterly mind boggling.

I'm not claimin any sides

I've bolded the bits in your sentence that are just flat out wrong. Just because you stopped following the story doesn't mean the rest of the world did as well.

Lay and Skilling (president and CEO) were both convicted of fraud, Lay is dead and Skilling is serving a 24 year prison sentence.

How earth did that happen if all the paperwork was buried in building 7?

Oh and the "missin govt moneys?" I assume you're using that inane $2.3 trillion claim? Rumsfeld mentioned it in a speech at the Pentagon on Sept 11th and it's taken out of context he was referring to improving accountancy practices in the DoD. Which didn't have any offices in WTC7.

[/quote]

how much more evidence was in the SEC offices? care to hazzard a guess, who might benefit?

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I think you may have things 'ass backwards'

re read yer own synopsis again

It's not a synopsis it's a an actual quote

Noam Chomsky wrote:

I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis

He's saying that there is no credibility to claims of a controlled demolition to any of the WTC collapses.

[/quote]

how much more evidence was in the SEC offices? care to hazzard a guess, who might benefit?

Hey lets speculate again! There's no basis for facts or reality lets just guess!

Fact the SEC was investigating Enron for massive fraud. Fact a federal court found the President and CEO guilty. Is there any evidence that any investigation was permanently damaged or halted by the collapse?

Sqaull20

Fair enough Jim Corr might have been a bit too frank on his account of 9/11, but what really pisses me off is **** heads like Amanda Brunker who think their word is gospel.

She basically called Jim a nutjob, an idiot, a sad little man who has wasted his life, in her Sunday World column,when Jim had perfectly good cause to doubt the offical story.

I dont agree with alot of what Jim Corr said, but his interview did reinforce the fact to me that you should do your own research and open your mind. Everybody can benefit from that.

bonkey

JIMSTARK wrote: »

Well for a start there is no point arguing about the events of September 11th.

Then stop arguing about the events of September 11th.

Stop joining in discussions about the events of September 11th, and leave them to those who believe there is a point in discussing opposing points of view.

however I do believe it was a false flag event used as a starting point for the totalitarian state when is enclosing further as each day passes.

There's no point discussing it...but you still want to offer your opinion.

Same old tactic, of wanting to offer your side, whilst complaining that people have the audacity to respond and offer an alternate perspective....all the while, complaining about how the public are misled by being denied both sides.

I would wager everything I have on the fact that you are paid to post here.

Somehow, I very much doubt you would.

I also doubt you're even willing to present the reasoning that has led you to this conclusion...but I would love for you to prove me wrong on that one.

I suspect you're just engaging in a spot of good ol' ad hominem to try and get a rise out of me. Whether that be from frustration that you can't shut me up, or because you feel the need to change subject, or for some other reason...I couldn't care less, frankly.

One way or another, all you are doing is further demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to engage in a discussion where your point of view is meaningfully challenged. Whatever the reason for that, it only undermines your credibility, so please...continue.

bonkey

tunaman wrote: »

I was talking about military radar, which has nothing to do with ATC radar.

Fine. Then show me evidence for the military radar coverage that leads you to believe the claims are a lie.

You have repeatedly claimed you simply want a chance to put over your point of view on the subject, yet when you are presented with an ideal opportunity, such as right now in the after hours thread, you fail to stand up.

My point of view, tunaman, is that the claims of the Conspiracy Theorists are empty - that they are based on assumption rather than evidence, that they are based on faulty application of logic. That is what I have done, and am doing.

You made the claim that the military said they were blind, and that this is a lie. The onus is on you, not me, to show firstly that the military made this claim, and then to provide the evidence that it is a lie. My position is, and has always been on such topics, to show that you will do pretty-much anything to avoid meeting this "burden of proof".

I expect, at most, that you can supply a reference to someone else making the same claims, which is ironic because you will criticise all and sundry for believing what they are told, but when it comes to showing that you have researched the details of the claims that you are making...you just don't and won't do it. All you can do is show that someone said the stuff that you are parroting.

I notice you have since posted in that thread, but have failed to answer any of the questions I posed on page 17. Nobody else has even attempted to answer any of my questions, but I thought you would relish the challenge.

I did, however, comment on the fact that whenever I don't answer every single point, someone invariably comes back with exactly this argument. Interestingly, in response to the post where I made that, you complained that I wasn't being concise enough.

So it seems you want me both to say more, and less. How does that make sense?

I have, though, responded to your complaint on the thread in question. I'd like to know specifically what claims I've made that this cut-and-paste job is supposed to refute....so I don't waste my tiem writing up a response only to be told that its not what you were really asking.

So why the silence?

Coming from the man who complained about the length of my replies, that argument is laughable.

If you fail to take up the mantle in that thread I see no point in replying to you anymore, as it will be obvious you don't want a proper discussion.

AS I've already said...I've responded to it on AH. If you want to specify what claims I made, and what exactly that cut-and-paste article is supposed to refute, I'll be more than happy to deal with it.

Alternately, take one point and bring it here.

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd strongly encourage bonkey to take you up on this, but for two things: one, you'd refuse to believe any evidence he offered to the contrary,

You'd be wasting your time. I won't take him up on this because he's offered nothing to refute.

I have no more inclination to prove that there isn't a teacup orbiting Pluto than I have to try and disprove that I'm some sort of shill.

For those who don't get the reference...one should only ever try and disprove the existence or truth of something where an argument has been offered to establish said existence or truth.

JIMSTARK has offered no proof, no argument, no reasoning. He's offered an empty claim, and until he's willing to put his reasoning up for scrutiny, it deserves no more than simple dismissal.

Trying to refute claims is a fools game. Refuting arguments is worthwhile, but JIMSTARK has offered none.

To be honest, OB, I'm surprised you fell for that one.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the youtubery cuts both ways

Agreed. The ability of loons to create rubbish on youTube is certainly independant of their perspective on anything.

I just find it disappointing that where I'm quite willing to say that there are all sorts who'll defend the official findings (from those who are well-informed, well-intentioned, through blind Administration-following fanboyz, to plain-old nutjobs), it seems that those who believe in Conspiracy Theories seem to believe there are "truth seekers" and "disinfo agents" on their side, and thats about it.

Seriously...its hard to find someone who believes there's a conspiracy and who'll tell you that Killjoy or Judy Wood has lost it, or that Dylan Avery is a piece of despicable trash. Why is that?