Former Director of Studies at the Army War College says Israel did 911.

digme

Profile:
Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is a writer and consultant specializing in national and international security affairs.
In December 1988, he received the Superior Civilian Service Award after more than five years of service at the U.S. Army War College as Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research.
He is listed in WHO'S WHO IN THE EAST (23rd ed.).

A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Sabrosky's teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University; while in government service, he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Dr. Sabrosky has lectured widely on defense and foreign affairs in the United States and abroad.

Here's the video of the interview where he explains his position.

So what evidence does he provide of this?
Or does he just rely on his own authority?

digme

King Mob wrote: »

So what evidence does he provide of this?
Or does he just rely on his own authority?

Instead of asking 100 questions trying to trip posters up, why don't you watch the video so you're up to speed with the thread.

digme

digme wrote: »

Instead of asking 100 questions trying to trip posters up, why don't you watch the video so you're up to speed with the thread.

Because my internet is being painfully slow.
I am wondering if it is worth waiting for it to load.

I wasn't trying to trip anyone up I'm just wondering if he offers anything more than a list of claimed credentials and his word.

So what evidence does he produce in the video?

digme

King Mob wrote: »

Because my internet is being painfully slow.
I am wondering if it is worth waiting for it to load.

I wasn't trying to trip anyone up I'm just wondering if he offers anything more than a list of claimed credentials and his word.

So what evidence does he produce in the video?

Perhaps you're too quick for the internet.Load it up and come back to it later and we can have a chat.

Watched the video.
He offers nothing at all to support his assertion beyond old debunked stories and his own personal incredulity.

Just goes to show, you can still have a paragraph of credentials and still be suckered in by nonsense on the internet.

digme

King Mob wrote: »

Watched the video.
He offers nothing at all to support his assertion beyond old debunked stories and his own personal incredulity.

Just goes to show, you can still have a paragraph of credentials and still be suckered in by nonsense on the internet.

Who and what was debunked exactly?

digme

digme wrote: »

Who and what was debunked exactly?

Well pretty much everything he said about 9/11 is the usual truther party line.
"The hijackers couldn't pilot planes"
"No one knows about WTC7"
"There's no explanation why it fell"
"Dancing Israelis"
And so on.

Now digme, why do you think his opinion is any more valid than mine or yours?

digme

King Mob wrote: »

Well pretty much everything he said about 9/11 is the usual truther party line.
"The hijackers couldn't pilot planes" which is true
"No one knows about WTC7" is not a fact
"There's no explanation why it fell" he gave one
"Dancing Israelis" they were
And so on.

Now digme, why do you think his opinion is any more valid than mine or yours?

Looking at his credentials I'd have to say yes.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Well pretty much everything he said about 9/11 is the usual truther party line.
"The hijackers couldn't pilot planes"
"No one knows about WTC7"
"There's no explanation why it fell"
"Dancing Israelis"
And so on.

Now digme, why do you think his opinion is any more valid than mine or yours?

The dancing Israelis has been debunked?

digme

digme wrote: »

Looking at his credentials I'd have to say yes.

But nothing about his credentials means he had any more insight than you or I into any of the things he thinks show Israel are involved.

So is the only reason I should trust this guy is because of his credentials?

What evidence does he offer that isn't offered by others who don't have the credentials?

Brown Bomber

He talks a lot of sense for me. There is a massive question mark over the "Arabs did 9-11" conspiracy theory. Most roads lead to Israel and their sub-ordinates in the US. I would expect that anyone with an open mind who does some digging into 9-11 would conclude this.

Here is a list of Dr Sabrosky's articles http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/sabrosky/

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The dancing Israelis has been debunked?

Well as according to the guy in the video, "acting strangely" at least in someone's objective opinion is enough to absolve them from blame.
He claims that since the hijackers' behaviour didn't make sense to him, they couldn't possibly be involved.
I see no rational reason why this logic shouldn't apply to the Israelis he's accusing of being involved.

Now would you like to address my central point about this guy being no more informed than you or I?

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He talks a lot of sense for me. There is a massive question mark over the "Arabs did 9-11" conspiracy theory. Most roads lead to Israel and their sub-ordinates in the US. I would expect that anyone with an open mind who does some digging into 9-11 would conclude this.

Here is a list of Dr Sabrosky's articles http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/sabrosky/

And yet you've not approached my thread in the correct forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056323484

digme

King Mob wrote: »

But nothing about his credentials means he had any more insight than you or I into any of the things he thinks show Israel are involved.

So is the only reason I should trust this guy is because of his credentials?

What evidence does he offer that isn't offered by others who don't have the credentials?

Nothing about his credentials?Are you serious? Come off it now,you said his facts were debunked,which they were not.Everything he says is true.

digme

digme wrote: »

Nothing about his credentials?Are you serious?

I am being serious.
Please point out which of his credentials allows him more insight into any of the stuff he claims than you or I have.
What evidence would he have access to that we don't, and why doesn't he supply it?

digme wrote: »

Come off it now,you said his facts were debunked,which they were not.Everything he says is true.

Well best not get into that as those are topics for other threads.
But regardless, nothing he says is any different to what others claim or does he offer anything besides his own authority to make them more believable.

robtri

digme wrote: »

Looking at his credentials I'd have to say yes.

so if i find somebody with more credentials than this guy who says israel didnt do it.. you will believe him and agree israel didnt do it

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

And yet you've not approached my thread in the correct forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056323484

a) Not your thread
b) I'll post where I choose
c) Quit trying to take the thread off-topic as per usual on any Israel related thread.

digme

King Mob wrote: »

I am being serious.
Please point out which of his credentials allows him more insight into any of the stuff he claims than you or I have.
What evidence would he have access to that we don't, and why doesn't he supply it?


Well best not get into that as those are topics for other threads.
But regardless, nothing he says is any different to what others claim or does he offer anything besides his own authority to make them more believable.

Surely the man has a far better insight into the subject matter than we do?
How can you say otherwise? What makes you feel that you or me have the same insight as he would?

digme

robtri wrote: »

so if i find somebody with more credentials than this guy who says israel didnt do it.. you will believe him and agree israel didnt do it

You'd have to show why and deal with the facts of the matter.
I look at all sides.Do you?

digme

digme wrote: »

Surely the man has a far better insight into the subject matter than we do?

Why surely? I asked you to point out the specifics of his credentials that allow him to know more about any of the stuff he claims than we do, you apparently can't do that.
Does he claim to have some inside information about those things?
Does he supply this information or any other evidence?

digme wrote: »

How can you say otherwise? What makes you feel that you or me have the same insight as he would?

Because so far I've not seen him produce any evidence or information that separates him from other truthers or me, and if he does have such things, he's being awful coy about them.
Pointing to his credentials alone does not make him infallible. Relying on his credentials alone is an appeal to authority: a logical fallacy.

digme

King Mob wrote: »

Why surely? I asked you to point out the specifics of his credentials that allow him to know more about any of the stuff he claims than we do, you apparently can't do that.
Does he claim to have some inside information about those things?
Does he supply this information or any other evidence?


Because so far I've not seen him produce any evidence or information that separates him from other truthers or me, and if he does have such things, he's being awful coy about them.
Pointing to his credentials alone does not make him infallible. Relying on his credentials alone is an appeal to authority: a logical fallacy.

He would be in a better position to judge what happened and how it happened.I truly believe that.Why does he have to produce new facts? Aren't the ones already produced enough for the stance he takes on this?
He seems like a fairly knowledgeable man when it comes to these matters.
His credentials are a product of what he has achieved,I won't hold that against him.You seem to though.
If you have a degree in computer science I would surely take your opinion on matters relating to computers and i wouldn't expect someone who hasn't that degree to have the same insight as yourself.That's just idiotic.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Why surely? I asked you to point out the specifics of his credentials that allow him to know more about any of the stuff he claims than we do, you apparently can't do that.
Does he claim to have some inside information about those things?
Does he supply this information or any other evidence?


Because so far I've not seen him produce any evidence or information that separates him from other truthers or me, and if he does have such things, he's being awful coy about them.
Pointing to his credentials alone does not make him infallible. Relying on his credentials alone is an appeal to authority: a logical fallacy.

It's not relying on his credentials alone. Dr Sabrosky presents a viable alternative to the official conspiracy theory. He is a trained military analyst,

Who do you send your car too when it needs repairs? Who would you call if you thought you were having a heart attack? If your dog gets run over who do you take him too? Who cuts your hair? If you were getting a piece of valuable jewellery engraved who would you trust with it? When you have problems with your mobile phone do you call customer service or a random number from your phone book to get help?

digme

digme wrote: »

He would be in a better position to judge what happened and how it happened.I truly believe that.

So you think that because he has a long list of credentials he's more trustworthy?

digme wrote: »

Why does he have to produce new facts? Aren't the ones already produced enough for the stance he takes on this?

Because if he's not producing more facts or offering any new evidence or reasoning, then he's just repeating what other people have claimed making him no different than other truthers, which is my point.

digme wrote: »

He seems like a fairly knowledgeable man when it comes to these matters.
His credentials are a product of what he has achieved,I won't hold that against him.You seem to though.

That's not what I'm arguing.
I've been very clear on the fact that his credentials have no baring on his claims.
Pretending I've suggested otherwise is false.

digme wrote: »

If you have a degree in computer science I would surely take your opinion on matters relating to computers and i wouldn't expect someone who hasn't that degree to have the same insight as yourself.That's just idiotic.

And which of his credentials qualifies him to make any of the claims he made?
This is the 3rd time I've asked you this and despite how you're saying it's so obvious, you've yet to actually answer it.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not relying on his credentials alone. Dr Sabrosky presents a viable alternative to the official conspiracy theory. He is a trained military analyst,

But he really doesn't provide anything that differentiates his claims form other conspiracy theorists.
He doesn't offer any new insights or reasoning, produces or claims to have any inside information and doesn't show any evidence new or otherwise.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who do you send your car too when it needs repairs? Who would you call if you thought you were having a heart attack? If your dog gets run over who do you take him too? Who cuts your hair? If you were getting a piece of valuable jewellery engraved who would you trust with it? When you have problems with your mobile phone do you call customer service or a random number from your phone book to get help?

Not the one mad heart surgeon/vet/barber/jeweller who claims the exact opposite of what most other surgeons/vets/barbers/jewellers say for one.

But I've not been saying that he's not to be trusted, I'm just asking for you guys to back up his claims with something more than "He's an expert."
So far, that's all he seems to have going for him. Well that and reasons why I'm being ridiculous for daring to not believe what I'm told by an expert....

digme

I'm going to leaba, I'll be back to chat with you tomorrow.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

c) Quit trying to take the thread off-topic as per usual on any Israel related thread.

THE IRONZZZ IT BURNZZZZ

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

But he really doesn't provide anything that differentiates his claims form other conspiracy theorists.
He doesn't offer any new insights or reasoning, produces or claims to have any inside information and doesn't show any evidence new or otherwise.


Not the one mad heart surgeon/vet/barber/jeweller who claims the exact opposite of what most other surgeons/vets/barbers/jewellers say for one.

But I've not been saying that he's not to be trusted, I'm just asking for you guys to back up his claims with something more than "He's an expert."
So far, that's all he seems to have going for him. Well that and reasons why I'm being ridiculous for daring to not believe what I'm told by an expert....

You miss point. He speaks with authority. His opinion should be considered by you, not brushed aside labelling him a "mad" conspiracy theorist and a "truther". You say he is "debunked". Well let's see shall we? Let's take the interview point-by-point and debunk them. Remembering debunk = To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:


OK, so first he raises the interview with Controlled Demolitons expert Danny Jowenko (below).


Please debunk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM

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

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You miss point. He speaks with authority. His opinion should be considered by you, not brushed aside labelling him a "mad" conspiracy theorist and a "truther".

And you seem to not actually be reading what I've written.
I did not brush him aside, or label him mad.
I am considering his point and asking for something that backs up what he says. But all you're giving me is "He's an expert, therefore unquestionable."

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You say he is "debunked". Well let's see shall we? Let's take the interview point-by-point and debunk them. Remembering debunk = To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:

No, I'm not going to do that on this thread as it's not my actual point.

Though that said this seems to be another case of "expert agrees with conspiracy, therefore is unquestionable."
So I'll ask the same question you've yet to answer for the other guy: what special evidence, inside information, expert reasoning or other insight does this guy actually provide?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And you seem to not actually be reading what I've written.
I did not brush him aside, or label him mad.
I am considering his point and asking for something that backs up what he says. But all you're giving me is "He's an expert, therefore unquestionable."


No, I'm not going to do that on this thread as it's not my actual point.

Though that said this seems to be another case of "expert agrees with conspiracy, therefore is unquestionable."
So I'll ask the same question you've yet to answer for the other guy: what special evidence, inside information, expert reasoning or other insight does this guy actually provide?

Haha! So according to you everything that Dr Sabrosky has said has been debunked ..........................

AS long as we don't ask any further questions

btw "mad", "truther" and "conspiracy theorists" are all labels that have been applied by you. He is not a conspiracy theorist. He is an independent expert in a related field who has come to an independent conclusion. Conspiracy theorist is just a cheap shot.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You miss point. He speaks with authority. His opinion should be considered by you, not brushed aside labelling him a "mad" conspiracy theorist and a "truther". You say he is "debunked". Well let's see shall we? Let's take the interview point-by-point and debunk them. Remembering debunk = To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:


OK, so first he raises the interview with Controlled Demolitons expert Danny Jowenko (below).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdEtxFFx-Q4




And that's Danny pointing out that the controlled demolition of the WTC towers would be impossible.

So if Danny's right the WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then he must be right and then the WTC 1&2 weren't demolished by controlled demolition.


Out of curiosity BB, what do you think happened on 9/11?