Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

911 - Points to discuss

1…910121415…18

Comments

  • #332
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    bonkey wrote: »
    It would certainly destract from any points which were not independantly verifiable.

    The logic of a poster is independant of who they are. Similarly, whether Diogenes really has worked in broadcasting or not is irrelevant, as the arguments in that area which he is making (e.g. regarding behaviour to libel claims, D orders, etc.) are all independantly verifiable.

    He is making no claim which is tied directly to his involvement, which means that his anonymity is irrelevant.

    On the other hand, this radiologist-in-training is making claims that are very specific to their direct experience. Even if they were not anonymous, it would still boil down to a question of whether or not you trust the individual to be honest. Add in anonymity, and it boils down to a question of whether or not you accept the honesty and integrity of a stranger on the internet, who is claiming to have information which you cannot independantly verify.

    I'm willing to bet that if the story this person was telling was about how the 911 Comission really were honest guys, and they witnessed them having struggles of conscience over how to ensure that they told only the truth as far as they could ascertain it, then we'd see a differnet story.

    Me...I'd still argue it was an unverifiable claim from an anonymous stranger on the internet and therefore worthless.

    Would you maintain your position that their anonymity is not an issue? That their lack of established trustworthiness is not an issue? Would your stance on the relevance or admissibility of such unverifiable stories change if it went against beliefs you hold (or lean towards), rather than supporting them?

    It is was it is or it isn't what it is and I wouldn't bet my house on it either way, the main reason I posted it was I found it interesting and I thought others perhaps may do also.

    Unfortunately hostility begets hostility and it wasn't discussed (until now) but aggresively criticised (the response suggests the time wasn't even taken to read it porperly) which by extension criticises me leading to non-discussion on the subject and a defence to the unneccesary aggression which is just a waste of everyones time.

    Edit: Just read that back...was gonna put in a cmiley of crying, none tho.


  • #333
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    It is was it is or it isn't what it is and I wouldn't bet my house on it either way, the main reason I posted it was I found it interesting and I thought others perhaps may do also.

    Unfortunately hostility begets hostility and it wasn't discussed (until now) but aggresively criticised (the response suggests the time wasn't even taken to read it porperly) which by extension criticises me leading to non-discussion on the subject and a defence to the unneccesary aggression which is just a waste of everyones time.

    Edit: Just read that back...was gonna put in a cmiley of crying, none tho.

    Oh I didn't realise that's what I did... No wait I didn't.
    meglome wrote: »
    What has the flight 93 which crashed into a field got to do with the Pentagon? You do realise she is supporting that the planes did crash into the twin towers which she says is why they agreed to shoot down Flight 93?

    All this evidence shows is that flight 93 might well have been shot down. Which I've personally never argued about in the first place, I think it might well have been shot down. I don't have a problem believing you could cover up shooting one plane down which you knew would be used as a flying bomb.

    However if I'm not mistaken she says they agreed to shoot it down but doesn't know for a fact they they actually did. Given the recording from the passengers on the plane itself that they were going to rush the hijackers, it still 50/50 for me.

    Now I'm completely ignoring the interviewer keeps literally putting words in her mouth, he's telling her things as fact when they are very much disputed, and she says some stuff that I personally find a bit crazy.

    I also ignored the fact we can't verify what she says whatsoever.


  • #334
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    Sorry Meglome for the misunderstanding. I was refering to the third of Diogenes "two points".
    Diogenes wrote: »
    That story is ****ing bull****.


  • #335
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    the main reason I posted it was I found it interesting and I thought others perhaps may do also.

    Fair enough.
    Unfortunately hostility begets hostility and it wasn't discussed (until now) but aggresively criticised (the response suggests the time wasn't even taken to read it porperly) which by extension criticises me leading to non-discussion on the subject and a defence to the unneccesary aggression which is just a waste of everyones time.

    While I disagree with your assessment (see meglome's post immediately before this) I would note the following...

    If I wanted to post something mainly on the grounds that I found it interesting, and would like to avoid the situation where people criticise it, then I would probably post it with a comment that I found it interesting and would clarify that finding it interesting did not mean I found it credible, or tended to believe it was true.

    What I wouldn't do, is comment that "this for me strengthens the argument of" something. Such a comment might lead people to believe that I tended towards finding it credible, which in turn might lead them to offer an argument as to why one should be careful about the credibility of such an article.

    Now, clearly we seem to have misunderstood you. At the same time, I would suggest that you may have misunderstood the responses. With one exception, they don't appear remotely hostile to me. I know my response certainly wasn't intended to be hosile. The responses (including my own, so I'm clearly biased here) appear to me to be arguments based on the misinterpretation that when you said this article strengthened an argument, you were implying that you tended towards believing it. I certainly did, and I apologise for that, given that you've clarified that this is not what you meant.

    May I ask what you did mean by that comment, though? How did it strengthen an argument of low numbers of involvement, if you don't tend to believe it to be true?

    As a mod, I would also point out that the one post which did get aggressive in tone resulted in a caution being issued. If you feel that's not a sufficient response from the moderators, please PM us to discuss the issue, or use the "Report post" function on the moderator's response to explain why you object to it.


  • #336
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Sorry Meglome for the misunderstanding. I was refering to the third of Diogenes "two points".

    Hey no problem at all. But I'd very be interested to hear what you've got to say based on the overall feedback you received.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    bonkey wrote: »
    If I wanted to post something mainly on the grounds that I found it interesting, and would like to avoid the situation where people criticise it,

    I have no problems with anyone criticising it/questioning it/doubting it/debating it or anything else - just the hostile tone, not because its offensive (to me) but because I get dragged down with it and its tiresome.

    Here is the full post with comments of how I read it .
    Diogenes wrote: »
    Heres two points.

    1) It's anonymous.

    2) She's claims she's radiologist. You're planning a massive military operation, and you drag in an X-Ray technication, a highly trained specialist and they decide just on whimsy to make her fetch coffee in the ready room that day.
    (so it becomes clear that the transcript was not read properly)

    That story is ****ing bull****.

    (Summarises and firmly establishes the tone.)
    bonkey wrote: »
    then I would probably post it with a comment that I found it interesting and would clarify that finding it interesting did not mean I found it credible, or tended to believe it was true.

    I have no problems with anyone criticising it/questioning it/doubting it/debating it or whatever. This is a discussion forum after all. I do agree though that my initial post was lacking in information and gave the wrong impression.

    bonkey wrote: »
    What I wouldn't do, is comment that "this for me strengthens the argument of" something.
    Agree for the same reasons as above.
    bonkey wrote: »
    Such a comment might lead people to believe that I tended towards finding it credible, which in turn might lead them to offer an argument as to why one should be careful about the credibility of such an article.
    Which is totally fine with me, I'd encourage it.

    bonkey wrote: »
    Now, clearly we seem to have misunderstood you. At the same time, I would suggest that you may have misunderstood the responses. With one exception, they don't appear remotely hostile to me.

    I don't believe I misunderstood, I do believe I have caused a lot of uneccessary confusion. I'd like to point out and offer further apologies to Meglome at this point that I actually didn't see your first reply. So that leaves two 1) Diogenes' and 2) Your's. Reply 1) I think we can agree carried a hostile tone? and your reply (IMO) was as much a response to my reply to Diogenes taunt which to my own fault and regret I took the bait.
    bonkey wrote: »
    I know my response certainly wasn't intended to be hosile. The responses (including my own, so I'm clearly biased here) appear to me to be arguments based on the misinterpretation that when you said this article strengthened an argument, you were implying that you tended towards believing it. I certainly did, and I apologise for that, given that you've clarified that this is not what you meant.

    I never for a second took your response as hostile, nor Meglome's (which I will get to.). No need to apologise as I hope I have made clear that all confusion is due to me.

    bonkey wrote: »
    May I ask what you did mean by that comment, though? How did it strengthen an argument of low numbers of involvement, if you don't tend to believe it to be true?

    I really should have added for anyone interested assuming it's true...which potentially it is. Its a much better ice-breaker than assuming this is not true.
    bonkey wrote: »
    As a mod, I would also point out that the one post which did get aggressive in tone resulted in a caution being issued. If you feel that's not a sufficient response from the moderators, please PM us to discuss the issue, or use the "Report post" function on the moderator's response to explain why you object to it
    .

    As I mentioned the problem for me was not the tone in itself as there was no offence caused; just the conversational dead-end it causes. To be honest I'd prefer it if there were no caution at all.


  • #338
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    meglome wrote: »
    Hey no problem at all. But I'd very be interested to hear what you've got to say based on the overall feedback you received.

    well...I took it with a pinch of salt and I would expect no less from anyone else.

    What I took from it is to see how it fits in with other more established evidence that the plane was shot down.


  • #339
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    well...I took it with a pinch of salt and I would expect no less from anyone else.

    What I took from it is to see how it fits in with other more established evidence that the plane was shot down.

    Personally I didn't have any great issue believing they could have shot it down (it being basically a flying bomb at the time) so I've not done too much research into it. Could you tell me what the other established evidence is? And maybe how it being shot down or not makes any difference to the overall view of 911?


  • #340
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    meglome wrote: »
    Personally I didn't have any great issue believing they could have shot it down (it being basically a flying bomb at the time) so I've not done too much research into it. Could you tell me what the other established evidence is? And maybe how it being shot down or not makes any difference to the overall view of 911?

    I said "more established";). We are talking baby steps here. To the overall view it makes little difference. If shot down it would be hard to stomach but understandable to a degree. To be honest I'm on the fence on 9/11 - There is motive, means, and I don't think there would be a moral question of "could they really do it" when see how valuable human life is in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine etc and rendition, torture and other human rights abuses.

    What bugs me probably is that the stereotype CT guy seems to ignore possible Mossad involvement. All Alex Jones Bilderberg, Bush NWO stuff. Where inside job theory hit the mainstream for me was with Michael Moore who pointed the finger at Bush and his Oil Cronies. However, Moore's own agent is Rahm Emanuel's brother. Much like I think it was the Executive producer of Stone's JFK was a major Israeli arms dealer.

    Despite omissions like this from a former Italian PM:
    9/11 SOlved
    http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_solved118.html


  • #341
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    I said "more established";). We are talking baby steps here. To the overall view it makes little difference. If shot down it would be hard to stomach but understandable to a degree. To be honest I'm on the fence on 9/11 - There is motive, means, and I don't think there would be a moral question of "could they really do it" when see how valuable human life is in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine etc and rendition, torture and other human rights abuses.

    Ah okay, post whatever you've got then.

    You don't think there would be a moral question but I disagree. How did we find out about human rights abuses? If you have few people involved like the number it would take to possibly shoot down Flight 93 (the lesser of two evils) then I'd agree it's very possible to cover that up. But when you start adding the numbers up for a big conspiracy it's extremely unlikely that people wouldn't talk. And literally no one has.
    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    What bugs me probably is that the stereotype CT guy seems to ignore possible Mossad involvement. All Alex Jones Bilderberg, Bush NWO stuff. Where inside job theory hit the mainstream for me was with Michael Moore who pointed the finger at Bush and his Oil Cronies. However, Moore's own agent is Rahm Emanuel's brother. Much like I think it was the Executive producer of Stone's JFK was a major Israeli arms dealer.

    There as much evidence of Mickey Mouse's involvement when you look at the fine detail. Moore and his wife are Catholics so why would it matter if his agent is Jewish or who he related to. How many agents in Hollywood are Jewish? A lot if I had to guess. If I own a Persian cat and a Persian rug, am I then likely to be an Iranian spy? You seem to be a very rational person and here we are again having the conversation that the Jews/Israelis/Zionists are involved with only the most tenuous of connections and zero evidence. Why is that I wonder.
    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Despite omissions like this from a former Italian PM:
    9/11 SOlved
    http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_solved118.html

    I'd like to see a proper translation for this, since I'm seeing the usual snipped stuff that's on all the CT sites. That said the guy is known for the crap he comes out with so...

    You'd think with all this common knowledge that there would be some proof, you'd think.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    hello_there_jim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 173 ✭✭hello_there_jim


    hey just wonderin people say it was an insde job, what does this mean? that the us government planned this? why would they do this?


  • #343
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    meglome wrote: »
    Personally I didn't have any great issue believing they could have shot it down

    I'd argue that the "great issue" with the notion that it was shot down would be that the evidence doesn't support same.

    There may have been a decision to shoot it down. There was no intercept.
    And maybe how it being shot down or not makes any difference to the overall view of 911?

    Indeed. Had the US shot it down, they could have come out and said "we shot it down, unfortunately sacrificing the lives of those innocents on board". They would have been hailed as heroes for doing so.


  • #344
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    bonkey wrote: »
    I'd argue that the "great issue" with the notion that it was shot down would be that the evidence doesn't support same.

    There may have been a decision to shoot it down. There was no intercept.

    Indeed. Had the US shot it down, they could have come out and said "we shot it down, unfortunately sacrificing the lives of those innocents on board". They would have been hailed as heroes for doing so.

    Nail on the head as always Bonkey.

    I don't actually think they did shoot it down. I am saying it's more likely than most of the other CT's surrounding 911. Also easier to cover up given the lesser of two evil situation but I still don't think it actually happened.


  • #345
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    King Mob wrote: »
    But no such footage of a missile exists. Why do you believe it was a missile that hit?

    because, as CTers have dismissed that its a plane, we have to consider what else could have done it......yup a very high possibilty of it being a missile!


  • #346
    BertrandMeyer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭BertrandMeyer


    If the pillars cracked and gave way wouldn't this explain why the towers and the weight crumbled what was under it until it hit bottom?


  • #347
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    Diogenes wrote: »
    You do realise you posted a link to a piece of video that directly refutes your assertion?

    Also if planes cannot fly at that height and speed, how on earth do you expect missiles to pull off that trick?


    Boeing 777 and 747 travel at Mach 0.85

    there are missiles that can go between mach 4 and mach 6, and there is the SLAM, supersonic low altitude missle etc etc etc

    which would you say is faster?


  • #348
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    because, as CTers have dismissed that its a plane, we have to consider what else could have done it......yup a very high possibilty of it being a missile!

    No they claim it wasn't a plane, even though that's where all the evidence points.
    Even if it wasn't a plane there is absolutely nothing to show it was a missile.
    It's kind of a false dichotomy.


  • #349
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    King Mob wrote: »
    No they claim it wasn't a plane, even though that's where all the evidence points.
    Even if it wasn't a plane there is absolutely nothing to show it was a missile.
    It's kind of a false dichotomy.


    thats just it, we are not satisfied that there is evidence of a plane at all, *the complete lack of believable wreckage* being just one reason

    however! none of us can say 100% for sure that it was in fact a missile, its just that from the damage we can see and the 3 videos (dont forget them!), a missile, to us, is the most plausible


  • #350
    BertrandMeyer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭BertrandMeyer


    In case you haven’t heard yet, the scientific analysis of these materials is now introduced to the ground in a controlled demolition. So we can tell the information didn't get passed along until it hit bottom. If it was an inside job, it would be not to say I just don't go along with the same design as the WTC has ever been hit by a big jet before, so any of those structures would necessarily have slowed down the collapse. Funnily this to me is where the real conspiracy might lie.


  • #351
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    because, as CTers have dismissed that its a plane, we have to consider what else could have done it......yup a very high possibilty of it being a missile!

    Look believe it or not I'm not stuck on any version of what happened on 911, only on what we can prove within reason.

    Now if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck well I'll be happy to say it's a duck and I would hope that other people would feel the same. Now we have numerous eye-witnesses that are very clear they saw a plane, we have damage up to the building completely consistent with that plane and we have about as many plane pieces as you can expect from such a crash (see air France plane pictures previously posted). On the other hand we have pretty much nothing that supports a missile. Lads it a ****ing duck.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    thats just it, we are not satisfied that there is evidence of a plane at, *the complete lack of believable wreckage* being just one reason

    however! none of us can say 100% for sure that it was in fact a missile, its just that from the damage we can see and the 3 videos (dont forget them!), a missile, to us, is the most plausible

    Well there is believable wreckage it's just dismissed as a cover up.

    Perhaps you can provide evidence of a missile independent from "a plane shouldn't have left this damage" or "a plane could go that fast" type of arguments? Positive evidence of a missile rather than negative evidence of a plane?


  • #353
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    thats just it, we are not satisfied that there is evidence of a plane at all, *the complete lack of believable wreckage* being just one reason

    however! none of us can say 100% for sure that it was in fact a missile, its just that from the damage we can see and the 3 videos (dont forget them!), a missile, to us, is the most plausible

    Flight_358_a.jpg
    Flight_358_b.jpg

    Just from a fairly brief fire. So is this unbelievable too?

    Or how about this one from a fire... unbelievable?
    Flight_1482.jpg

    So these planes are disintegrated just from fire, what would be left after a big impact? a relatively small number of scattered pieces perhaps?

    You guys keep saying it's unbelievable but we are showing you in pictures it isn't.


  • #354
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    @ bonkey *post 152*

    "At least we agree that is an assumption, which means that the entire argument of there being cameras which would capture this event is based on an assumption, rather than on evidence."

    here you are picking on the word assumption itself. the same way a creationist when speaking about evolution would say " ah but its just a theory of evolution" as if the word theory made it any less real.

    or how the media would have the word conspiracy associated with crazy, when that is not at all what the word means.

    my assumption is based on observable evidence, again, while there is a teeny tiny possiblity that for some really really odd really really strange reason they dont have cctv, it is still the least likely, and least believable.

    my assumption has weight


  • #355
    BertrandMeyer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 124 ✭✭BertrandMeyer


    Those pictures were photoshopped. I can tell by the pixels.


  • #356
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    meglome wrote: »
    Flight_358_a.jpg
    Flight_358_b.jpg

    Just from a fairly brief fire. So is this unbelievable too?

    Or how about this one from a fire... unbelievable?
    Flight_1482.jpg

    So these planes are disintegrated from fire what would be left after a big impact, a relatively small number of scattered pieces perhaps?

    You guys keep saying it's unbelievable but we are showing you in pictures it isn't.


    you see the top pic you posted there, do you see the amount of wreckage, and large area it covers,? something akin to this would be expected logically at the pentagon site

    not there tho...

    funny that eh?.......


  • #357
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    you see the top pic you posted there, do you see the amount of wreckage, and large area it covers,? something akin to this would be expected logically at the pentagon site

    not there tho...

    funny that eh?.......

    Both planes just sat there and burned, then within minutes the fire engines came and put them out. What do you think would happen if you took one of those planes and also rammed it into a big concrete fronted building at high speed and it then burned. What I'm guessing is some smaller bits of wreckage would get blasted out and pretty much everything else would get incinerated. Except maybe some large steel objects which would be found in the wreckage of the building, all of which the pictures show.


  • #358
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    you see the top pic you posted there, do you see the amount of wreckage, and large area it covers,? something akin to this would be expected logically at the pentagon site

    not there tho...

    funny that eh?.......
    Have actually seen the pictures from the pentagon site?
    You do know that most of the plane was inside the hole?

    You say large area and it's really only where the plane touched the ground and a little bit around the fuselage.


  • #359
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    my assumption is based on observable evidence, again, while there is a teeny tiny possiblity that for some really really odd really really strange reason they dont have cctv, it is still the least likely, and least believable.

    my assumption has weight[/B]

    I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, really. There is no observable evidence that the Pentagon has cameras all around as you suggest. You think it should, a complete assumption based on other assumptions. It's up to you and anyone who believes these cameras are there to prove they exist but no one has. It's like groundhog day, you can keep saying must, should, etc but can't offer any proof.

    And the funny thing is even if these cameras existed and there was footage it is highly unlikely they'd show a damn thing. The cameras would cover the perimeter and point at the ground and in 2001 would be low frame rate vhs. This whole camera conversation is an utter red herring.


  • #360
    Bubba HoTep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭Bubba HoTep


    meglome wrote: »
    Both planes just sat there and burned, then within minutes the fire engines came and put them out. What do you think would happen if you took one of those planes and also rammed it into a big concrete fronted building at high speed and it then burned. What I'm guessing is some smaller bits of wreckage would get blasted out and pretty much everything else would get incinerated. Except maybe some large steel objects which would be found in the wreckage of the building, all of which the pictures show.

    they were repotedly there within minutes for the pentagon also....


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Bubba HoTep wrote: »
    they were repotedly there within minutes for the pentagon also....

    So any witnesses or evidence to show the wreckage was placed?


Advertisement