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

Who the hell is Barry Jennings?

Options
123457

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    It was the brown foreigners from the cave.

    Actually it was mostly a bunch of well to do Saudis who had been living in the US for some time, but utimately there could have been a cave involved - is that the problem or the brown skinned thing?
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    They couldn't fly jets but they did anyway.
    They demonstrabaly could fly the planes well enough to do the job - if you'd asked them to take off or land I suspect, they'd not have been up to the job.
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    They flew them into 2 buildings in New York, 3 buildings pancaked to the ground due to fire.
    And associated impact damage - yep.
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    There were explosions in building 7 prior to the towers collapsing though, but ignore that.
    There was? Was it recorded by anyone? Did the scores of emergency workers at the building give evidence of these explosions?
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    The hole in the pentagon was to small to have been made by a large plane, even one with no wings.
    No - it was (like Goldilocks porridge) just the right size - and the biggest clue was the plane inside the building.

    Soveriegn wrote: »
    The other "plane" went nose first into the ground and vanished.
    Not really - as you notice yourself...
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Apparently the plane was found deep underground, yet debris was found scattered for miles.
    So not vanished then?
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Good old NORAD were on a training mission that day,
    Yep.
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    they were practicing for just such an event, planes hitting skyscrapers in NY city, 1,000,000,000/1 coincidence ?
    No - they were practising for a soviet bomber incursion - which is why most planes were over ocean. A separate training exercise that had nothing to do with NORAD (or any planes for that matter) related to a light aircraft crashing into the HQ of the National Reconnaissance Office in Virginia. It was a purely internal exercise for that building.
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Funny the exact same scenario happened on 7/7, London (they were training for several bombs in the underground) another 1,000,000,000/1 coincidence. Anyhow....
    The exact same scenario? Nope - and yes it's a coincidence that there was a training drill the same day, but there were training drills other days too.
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    First time in history jet liners are flown into skyscrapers, first time in history that skyscrapers collapsed due to fire, but 3 times in one day !!!! :eek: Another 1,000,000,000/1 coincidence ?
    It wasn't exactly an accident that all three happened on the same day now was it?
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Oh and the terrorists were not on the flight manifests (that's weird).
    It would be, if it was true, but it isn't.
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    The pentagon wont release pictures or video footage of the "plane" hitting it because of "national security" reasons, why wouldn't they just put this to bed (if they could)....
    They did release what they had after a freedom of information request - you just don't like what shows.

    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Wasn't bush caught bullsh!tting about what he saw on the tv that day ?
    Was he, is he caught bull****ting any other days? Do you think he was involved beyond looking like a paniced flailing leader who didn't know what to do?
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Then there is all that steel that was illegally removed from the crime scene immediately after the collapses, to be melted down.
    Nothing was illegally removed.
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Then there is Bin Laden's poster on the FBI website which states noting of 911 (because they have not enough evidence linking him to it)
    He's wanted for other previous accused crimes. That's all that is required.
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Incidentally didn't Bin Laden's family construction help build the twin towers ? yeah, that's another weird coincidence...
    No they didn't.
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Wasn't there some incredible phone calls made from the planes when it was not possible to make calls at those altitudes, yup.
    Phone calls only made at altitudes that allowed calls. Nothing incredible there.
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Wasn't Jed Bush head of security at the towers at the time of 911 ? That's a weird coincidence inst it..
    Jeb Bush or Jed Clampett? Neither were - weird eh?
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Didn't many important figures call in sick that day, cancel flights etc etc... Some people got mysterious warnings etc etc almost like some people (aside from bin and the guys) knew of a pending attack.
    Important figures? Some people took the day off - as they might any other day.
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Didn't the BBC predict the collapse of building 7 ??? 20 or so minutes before it collapsed :eek:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky90eEIzStw
    Lots of people on the scene predicted the collapse of wtc7 - well before the 20 minute mark. It was obvious that it was likely to fall with the damage sustained.
    Soveriegn wrote: »
    The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

    (don't reffer me to your debunking911 or 911myths bible please, I don't buy that sh!t)

    Ah well.


  • Options
    #183
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,389 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    The buildings did not collapse as a result of fire. They collapsed as a result of fire and damage to the structure which would also have compromised the fireproofing on other structural members. Seriously, of all the things constantly thrown about with regards 9/11, this one annoys me the most.


  • Options
    #184
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    If I wanted to get away with something in a modern 'free' democracy where the press and internet are powerful forces; this is exactly what I would do. This thread is a microsm of what i would attempt to achieve on a worldwide scale. That is; create a huge smokescreen of doubt and myth, I would deliberately create doubt, plant evidence that CTers would have wet dreams about in the hope that in the hysteria and endless debate I could avoid answering the real questions. That's what seems to be happening to me. The Sceptics have been set against the Believers, divide and conquer.

    I would ask the naysayers and those who say that the case is closed these questions;

    Do you think Woodward and Bernstein where believed from the start, would Nixon have retired unimpeached if it wasn't for the persisent efforts of a few? Do you think you would have been conned by Nixon's protestations of innocence?

    In Ireland; Do you think that 95% of people at one time believed that a priest couldn't abuse a child and that that figure has now swung the other way? Do you think you might have been one of those who tragically swallowed the official line and turned a blind eye to the pleadings of those children?

    What I am trying to say is, that those who accept the official line and don't see the need of Governments to answer again and again to sceptics are actually undermining the only way that what is loosely called ''Democracy' can be maintained and kept in check..
    As is so evident in the modern day, it only takes one or two pieces of the 'right' information to come out for the whole conspiracy to come tumbling down (apologies for the dodgy metaphor)
    It has happened often enough. I don't know what happened on 9-11 but I do think there are questions and I want the questioning to continue however crazy and ludicrious it might get at times. Far too many people stood to gain from the aftermath of an event of that scale to blithely ignore the possibility of a conspiracy.


  • Options
    #185
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Do you think Woodward and Bernstein where believed from the start, would Nixon have retired unimpeached if it wasn't for the persisent efforts of a few? Do you think you would have been conned by Nixon's protestations of innocence?

    Woodward and Bernstein employed actual evidence in making and proving their case. I'll listen to evidence from any source - and judge it on it's own merits. All the 'divide and conquer' argument presupposes that there's a viable alternative presented - which there isn't to date.


  • Options
    #186
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Woodward and Bernstein employed actual evidence in making and proving their case. I'll listen to evidence from any source - and judge it on it's own merits. All the 'divide and conquer' argument presupposes that there's a viable alternative presented - which there isn't to date.

    That wasn't my question. Once more:

    Do you think Woodward and Bernstein where believed from the start, would Nixon have retired unimpeached if it wasn't for the persisent efforts of a few? Do you think you would have been conned by Nixon's protestations of innocence?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    alastair wrote: »
    And we're back to the faith-based foundation of the CT. I'll put my stake behind logic and science before the fairy stories. Not one of the 911 theories actually makes an ounce of sense when you put the patchwork together (ignoring the reality that most of the patches don't either). That's where the real blinkers come into play.

    I'm sure you've put your stake behind many a thing ;)

    Serious question though, if that is how you really feel what in the world complels you to post here?

    Your hatred is clear, so why not leave people alone to discuss the topics who don't consider it "fairy stories"? What harm is it too you? Why not discuss the "blinkers" and the faith based fairy stories in the skeptics forum? I'm not questioning your right to post here, just can't see the motivation for you, unless you enjoy the arguments that your attitude has and is inevetibaly going to cause.


  • Options
    #188
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That wasn't my question. Once more:

    Do you think Woodward and Bernstein where believed from the start, would Nixon have retired unimpeached if it wasn't for the persisent efforts of a few? Do you think you would have been conned by Nixon's protestations of innocence?

    Maybe, maybe not - keep in mind that it was an insider who actually exposed the watergate conspiracy - once again undermining the notion that grand conspiracies can survive the complexities of human interaction. Nixon couldn't keep the lid on a small scale conspiracy. And you can't simply ignore the fact that Woodward and Bernstein had the persuasiveness of actual evidence behind their expose - not faith-based theories.


  • Options
    #189
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'm sure you've put your stake behind many a thing ;)

    Serious question though, if that is how you really feel what in the world complels you to post here?

    Your hatred is clear, so why not leave people alone to discuss the topics who don't consider it "fairy stories"? What harm is it too you? Why not discuss the "blinkers" and the faith based fairy stories in the skeptics forum? I'm not questioning your right to post here, just can't see the motivation for you, unless you enjoy the arguments that your attitude has and is inevetibaly going to cause.

    The obvious question is why do you let it bother you.

    Or do you prefer that these theories are not scrutinised robustly and their flaws exposed. Or would you rather everyone agree with everyone else, and nothing gets done about anything.


  • Options
    #190
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That wasn't my question. Once more:

    Do you think Woodward and Bernstein where believed from the start, would Nixon have retired unimpeached if it wasn't for the persisent efforts of a few? Do you think you would have been conned by Nixon's protestations of innocence?

    As Alaister pointed out, you really shouldn't be comparing 9/11 with Woodward and Bernstein, if anything it exposes how flawed these theories are. Watergate was a small conspiracy, which was still exposed. For 9/11 to have happened thousands of people would have been involved, yet this has been covered up for more than a decade.

    Woodward and Bernstein among others investigated the break in, found an immediate money trail back to CREEP.

    No one here is saying "well the US government said they didn't carry out 9/11 and thats good enough me". So your argument is a essentially a strawman. What we are saying however is that in the near decade since 9/11 conspiracy theorists have repeatedly claimed the US government/NWO carried out 9/11 but the evidence they present to support this allegation is deficient/spurious or non existent.


  • Options
    #191
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Serious question though, if that is how you really feel what in the world complels you to post here?

    What compells you to post on this subject when you can't/won't commit to a singular and non-contradictory alternative to the documented facts of the events? It's like specifics are kryponite to the various 'theories'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Maybe, maybe not - keep in mind that it was an insider who actually exposed the watergate conspiracy - once again undermining the notion that grand conspiracies can survive the complexities of human interaction. Nixon couldn't keep the lid on a small scale conspiracy. And you can't simply ignore the fact that Woodward and Bernstein had the persuasiveness of actual evidence behind their expose - not faith-based theories.

    They 'eventually' had the persuasiveness of actual evidence, what they started with was a hunch and nose for bull**** and a vocation to do their jobs.
    I agree with you though about keeping a lid on things, but lids have been blown off many many things in the past. But I have faith in the fact that if this was a conspiracy that the truth will eventually come out, but that faith also has a responsibility. That is why I get nervous when people who should know better (and who should look to history) try to supress, ridicule or otherwise impede genuine sceptics. Let them do the questioning if your moral imperatives are skewed, at it's most ludicrious it's at least entertaining and at it's honest best it is doing us all a service.


  • Options
    #193
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Let them do the questioning if your moral imperatives are skewed, at it's most ludicrious it's at least entertaining and at it's honest best it is doing us all a service.

    Do you see anyone stopping the questioning? Nor do I. My moral imperatives are in grand working order, cheers.

    What I see are, yes, ludicrous and half-baked theories repeatedly produced despite the hard facts that disprove them. Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have lasted long at the Washington Post with that approach. Entertainment value? Significant first time out - subsequently very boring.


  • Options
    #194
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    They 'eventually' had the persuasiveness of actual evidence, what they started with was a hunch and nose for bull**** and a vocation to do their jobs.

    No actually what started them off, was the watergate break into the democratic party headquarters before the election, and soon afterwards a cheque which linked one of the burglars to CREEP.

    Hey don't let facts get in the way of your analogy.


  • Options
    #195
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have lasted long at the Washington Post with that approach.

    Correct....you and your like would have sacked them. Nobody knew the whole story at the begning of their investigation. W&B didn't know it would lead to the Oval Office nor did their editor, there was a leap of faith.
    You believe you know the whole story of 9-11, you are saying again and again 'Stop with the conspiracy theories'.
    I believe the Bush administration was in bed with the defence industry, therefore it is entirely possible that situations were exploited and that mercenary tactics were employed to create benefits.

    Watergate was a conspiracy perpretrated in the highest echelons of the US Government, that imo is not minor. Nixon was believed and indeed protected by his cabinet and a huge majority of the American public also believed him until the truth came out.
    Is the US government capable of something like this? I think it's possible. There are certainly those within government and benefiting from their tenure in office capable of it.
    Are there facts that might emerge as a result of persistent digging? That's possible too, so keep digging.
    As I said, it only takes one or two facts to emerge (supplied by insiders who can't continue with the conspiracy, as was the case with Woodward and Bernstein -Deepthroat, The Money Trail etc etc.) for the whole story to change.
    I stress the word 'possible' throughout this reply.


  • Options
    #196
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Correct....you and your like would have sacked them.

    Any editor would have sacked them if they continually presented unfounded theories - their entire investigation was based on the evidence, not groundless abstract theories. The fact is that they followed and tested actual evidence - and that's what, A. Kept them in their jobs, and B. distinguishes them from the world of CT'ers and their faith-based constructs.

    Watergate may well have been important, but it was also small - the numbers of people involved were limited and certainly far far below the notional numbers required for any (take your pick) 9/11 CT. If you as president can't contain a small scale conspiracy, how do you expect to contain one that requires the ongoing complicity of thousands?


  • Options
    #197
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    alastair wrote: »
    Any editor would have sacked them if they continually presented unfounded theories - their entire investigation was based on the evidence, not groundless abstract theories. The fact is that they followed and tested actual evidence - and that's what, A. Kept them in their jobs, and B. distinguishes them from the world of CT'ers and their faith-based constructs.

    Watergate may well have been important, but it was also small - the numbers of people involved were limited and certainly far far below the notional numbers required for any (take your pick) 9/11 CT. If you as president can't contain a small scale conspiracy, how do you expect to contain one that requires the ongoing complicity of thousands?

    This is it exactly. A small scale conspiracy and the president of the united states couldn't keep it secret or himself in a job. But somehow in 911 many thousands of people are involved but still manage to keep it secret. So utterly unlikely as to be impossible.

    Sorry to be clear about this I don't rule out some sort of conspiracy but it would need to have way less people involved.


  • Options
    #198
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Correct....you and your like would have sacked them. Nobody knew the whole story at the begning of their investigation. W&B didn't know it would lead to the Oval Office nor did their editor, there was a leap of faith.

    No again sorry. It was break in at the campaign headquarters of the democratic party. It was dramatic story from the get go.

    It took months of persistence, investigation and research to trace it back to the president.

    Meanwhile 9/11 conspiracy theorists have had 8 years and 361 days to explain how 9/11 was an inside job, and all they have to show for it is well nothing.


  • Options
    #199
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,389 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I agree in a sense with what you're saying Happyman42. Persistent digging may lead to some new evidence. But the majority of CTs about 9/11 have largely been disproven, yet are still being produced as 'evidence' or 'proof'. And how much longer should we keep digging for new evidence? Its been almost 9 years, and with the technology available, and the number of people who would have had to have been involved for half the theories to be true, the fact that no solid proof has been shown speaks volumes.


  • Options
    #200
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Any editor would have sacked them if they continually presented unfounded theories

    At what point was the story 'founded'? Nobody knew where the buck was gonna stop. (The investigations and reporting went on for 2 and a half years?)
    During this time the reluctance of the American public to believe their president could be involved in the conspiracy allowed him to stay in office. You would have been one of those people, you would have rubbished the veracity of Deepthroat and W&B because you need sources (W&B never revealed who he was) You would have accepted the official line because all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed, a huge majority of the American public believed their president. There was plenty of ridicule bestowed on the sceptics then too. That tide quickly turned when Nixon was forced to release the tapes.

    I didn't mean to hijack the thread with the Watergate analogy....my essential point is that governments have and are involved in unsavory practice for varied reasons. Therefore they cannot ever be trusted. I believe that the Bush Administration was more criminally corrupt than previous administrations and that a conspiracy was possible and that it is far too early and conveinient for some to stop digging.


  • Options
    #201
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    At what point was the story 'founded'? Nobody knew where the buck was gonna stop. (The investigations and reporting went on for 2 and a half years?)
    During this time the reluctance of the American public to believe their president could be involved in the conspiracy allowed him to stay in office. You would have been one of those people, you would have rubbished the veracity of Deepthroat and W&B because you need sources (W&B never revealed who he was) You would have accepted the official line because all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed, a huge majority of the American public believed their president. There was plenty of ridicule bestowed on the sceptics then too. That tide quickly turned when Nixon was forced to release the tapes.

    I didn't mean to hijack the thread with the Watergate analogy....my essential point is that governments have and are involved in unsavory practice for varied reasons. Therefore they cannot ever be trusted. I believe that the Bush Administration was more criminally corrupt than previous administrations and that a conspiracy was possible and that it is far too early and conveinient for some to stop digging.

    The point of the Deep Throat evidence was not the veracity of the informer - it was the veracity of the evidence he pointed them towards. It's that absent veracity if evidence that distinguishes their approach to the Truthers. The Washington Post took two years to piece together the information and draw logical connections between the players and events - unlike the truthers. The issue isn't about trusting in government, or stopping digging - it's in filtering out the dross from what you dig up, and not presenting it time and time again as a foundation for a nebulous and unverified theory.

    I don't have to believe that the Bush administration wasn't tainted with corruption to call bull**** on absurd truther contentions - and so far that's all that been produced.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Actually reading what is being said on this thread would be a great help.

    So the minute Deepthroat was quoted that was it, Nixon put his hands up and Alistair and the great unwashed said, 'right on Deepthroat, you did good fella!'?
    The fact is that The Post didn't reveal all in one article, Deepthroat drip fed his information, it took time, it took reams upon reams of ridicule from those who didn't believe Deepthroat or W&B, it took arrests, it took acres of depositions, it took the impeachment of 7 to 10? members of goverment, it took FBI investigations and a Senate committee to finally uphold the veracity of what Deepthroat had to say and it took a Supreme court action demanding the release of the tapes before Nixon decided to go.
    You can't depend on hindsight here if you are going to get the point I'm making, you have go back to that time and decide how you would have behaved as the info came out. I suspect that for a while anyways you would have suspected W&B where talking rubbish.


    It is no accident that a biography of Nixon was titled 'The Arrogance Of Power'. That arrogance can and has allowed American governments to engage in crimminal misuse of power, even endangering or hurting their own for a percieved 'greater good' and as has been said by wiser than me 'bombing people into the acceptance of gifts'.
    Hypotetically: what if it came out that Jennings had indeed been offed because somebody got nervous about what he might say at some future cross examination? Wouldn't that change an awful lot of things.....that is what I mean by some unknown fact yet to emerge and the neccessity to keep digging.
    The Bush administration should be investigated for a very long time to come because of what it got involved in as a result of that day.
    If you believe the 9-11 case is closed then you have nothing to fear from CTers, leave them to it.


  • Options
    #203
    Podman
    Registered Users Posts: 887 ✭✭✭Podman


    With regard to the official 911 "story"...
    Di0genes wrote: »
    ..do you prefer that these theories are not scrutinised robustly and their flaws exposed. Or would you rather everyone agree with everyone else, and nothing gets done about anything.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    For 9/11 to have happened thousands of people would have been involved, yet this has been covered up for more than a decade.

    How can certain people call themselves sceptics, when they won't ask the same questions of the official version, as they will of alternative theories?


  • Options
    #204
    Podman
    Registered Users Posts: 887 ✭✭✭Podman


    Di0genes wrote: »
    No one here is saying "well the US government said they didn't carry out 9/11 and thats good enough me".

    That's exactly what certain people are saying.


  • Options
    #205
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Podman wrote: »
    That's exactly what certain people are saying.

    No I think you'll find people are saying show me the evidence. Show me the consistent story... show me the logic. Silly stuff like that.

    A lot of the logic appears to be US government = Bad, ergo 911 carried out by US Government.


  • Options
    #206
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Podman wrote: »
    With regard to the official 911 "story"...




    How can certain people call themselves sceptics, when they won't ask the same questions of the official version, as they will of alternative theories?

    Okay, please point out some aspect of the "official" version you think I should have a problem with? Please don't come with some pithy rebuttal like "all of it, duh"
    That's exactly what certain people are saying.

    Certain people here are saying "the US government say they didn't carry out 911, and that's good enough for me?" Here? On this forum?

    Usernames and Quotes please.


  • Options
    #207
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Actually reading what is being said on this thread would be a great help.

    So the minute Deepthroat was quoted that was it, Nixon put his hands up and Alistair and the great unwashed said, 'right on Deepthroat, you did good fella!'?

    Nope - who said that? I think (given that you're all about 'Actually reading what is being said') you'll find that the clue to what I'm suggesting lies in this quote:
    The Washington Post took two years to piece together the information and draw logical connections between the players and events - unlike the truthers.

    The difference between the evidence that Deep Throat directed the journalists towards, and the investigation process that they undertook is that it was evidential-driven. If they hadn't been sure about their facts they didn't publish, for the very good reason that they were vulnerable to litigation - not skepticism. Again - that's the essential difference between following the evidence, and plucking illogical theories out of the ether (the truther process).


  • Options
    #208
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Podman wrote: »
    How can certain people call themselves sceptics, when they won't ask the same questions of the official version, as they will of alternative theories?

    I'm no skeptic - just looking for some logic to people's positions, but what gives you the idea that I haven't reviewed the NIST documents, 9/11 Commission report etc with exactly the same critique? Ever consider the possibility that there's plausibility to the 'official' narrative, and none to the alternatives, once you actually weigh the evidence?

    Case in point - my initial reaction to flight 93 was that it had been shot down - an embarrassing admission if true, and likely to be subject to a cover-up if they thought they could get away with it. That'd be my gut response, but it's a response that simply isn't supported by the evidence once you look. My view changed with the logic of the evidence.


  • Options
    #209
    Podman
    Registered Users Posts: 887 ✭✭✭Podman


    meglome wrote: »
    No I think you'll find people are saying show me the evidence. Show me the consistent story... show me the logic. Silly stuff like that.

    The thing is, people are only saying that to the "CTers", not to the governments.

    True sceptics would be as inquiring of the official versions as they claim to be of the alternatives.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    Certain people here are saying "the US government say they didn't carry out 911, and that's good enough for me?" Here? On this forum?

    Usernames and Quotes please.

    Who do you know who's brave enough to say that on boards?

    Instead what we have are replies to alternative theories, full of dismissals, blind denials and the "prove it" chant.

    Show me any thread where a CTer asks a question of the official story, or proposes a new theory, and doesn't have someone jump down their throat about it?

    Show me another thread where someone states their belief in the official story, and have their claims come under scrutiny?


  • Options
    #210
    Podman
    Registered Users Posts: 887 ✭✭✭Podman


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Okay, please point out some aspect of the "official" version you think I should have a problem with?

    You don't need me to tell you what to think, make up your own mind.

    Is there some aspect of the "official" version you have ever questioned?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Podman wrote: »
    Who do you know who's brave enough to say that on boards?

    So, it's pretty much just a 'feeling' you have then? Nothing solid to support that contention.
    Podman wrote: »
    Show me another thread where someone states their belief in the official story, and have their claims come under scrutiny?

    I posted on a previous thread that I subscribe to the truth of the 9/11 commission report as to the events of the day. If anyone has an issue with the details, I'm more than happy to provide specifics as to why it's based on actual evidence as opposed to imagination.


Advertisement