9/11: What really happened on that day?

[rightwinger]

I am a conspiracy theorist, I do not need evidence

There are 2 types of conspiracy theorists. Those who don't care about the evidence (many official conspiracy theorists belong in this category) and those who do. You are clearly in the former category. Good luck with that.

You asked us to provide our theories of what REALLY happened and I did.

Come on rightwinger, do you honestly believe anyone believes you actually believe these "theories" you've put out? Furthermore, a good theory has to be backed up by evidence. Otherwise, it's just quackery.

My theories are the only ones that makes sense.

Sigh. Look, even if you actually believed your "theory", I'd -still- ask you to provide evidence for it. And if you couldn't, I'd leave it by the curb.

I knew you couldn't debunk my theory. Typical 9-11 truther

Why else would anyone jump a thousand feet to their death unless someone had told them the building was going to be controlled demo in a few minutes and they would die at freefall speeds

 

[LA RAM FAN]

it was jew job

So you think that Israel alone pulled off 9/11? If so, what draws you to this conclusion?

jew controlling media =

Personally, I think that judaism and christianity are not nearly as powerful in elite circles as other groups, such as freemasonry and others, such as the illuminati. The all seeing eye is not a judaic tradition, but it is certainly a freemasonry one. Here's a little story I just found concerning the 1 dollar bill:
The All-Seeing Eye, the President, the Secretary & the Guru

An article on the illuminati can be found here:
The Illuminati Symbol, the Great Seal and the One Dollar Bill

I think this is the reason why the U.S. and Israel get along well, because of these 'inner circle' groups that don't care what religion you have, so long as your first priority is to their group.

I once read a series of novels, which, together, were called "The Illuminatus". I found it very educational. It was fiction, but it many facts mixed in. It was very good because the truth when it comes to the illuminati and other groups of this nature is very hard to come by, with many conflicting theories. Not all of them can be true, but some certainly can be.

judaism people are actually good people thats why it pisses me off when people like that idiot troll divine when makes false accusations against me that I am anti semetic.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

You could probably mention the ones you know and refresh my memory. Sorry, but I don't dwell on those at all because I'm satisfied that the "official" story is pretty much correct and that we can never know the whole truth.

I see. Well, for starters, do you atleast agree that government agencies aren't always honest with the public about important events? I'm also curious as to whether you believe the government has ever covered anything up. Iran Contra, the JFK assassination, "Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq", those types of things, do you believe any of the original official stories concerning those events?

You misunderstand. I am not saying that the government is lying, I'm saying that an investigation after the fact cannot answer all of the questions and tell the whole story. We may never know the whole truth because it isn't possible to know.

You may be right on that one; the whole truth concerning 9/11 is quite a lot of information. But I certainly believe that many (including myself) can learn a lot more then we currently know of the event.

Of course the government has covered up things but in every case that you mention except for the JFK Assassination and WMDs, they have not been able to keep quiet. JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and Saddam Hussein definitely had WMDs.

So you don't find Howard Hunt's confession to be credible, I take it? As to your notion that Saddam Hussein definitely had WMDs, I know that this has been claimed, but I haven't seen any real evidence to back it up.

No, Hunt is grandstanding.
If you haven't seen any evidence that Saddam had WMDs then you haven't been looking. Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds with his WMDs, that is an easily proven fact. But this is off the point.

and this folks is the troll who says oswald killed JFK and ran off and put me on ignore years ago when i proved him wrong.

 

[phoenyx]

There are 2 types of conspiracy theorists. Those who don't care about the evidence (many official conspiracy theorists belong in this category) and those who do. You are clearly in the former category. Good luck with that.

You asked us to provide our theories of what REALLY happened and I did.

Come on rightwinger, do you honestly believe anyone believes you actually believe these "theories" you've put out? Furthermore, a good theory has to be backed up by evidence. Otherwise, it's just quackery.

My theories are the only ones that makes sense.

Sigh. Look, even if you actually believed your "theory", I'd -still- ask you to provide evidence for it. And if you couldn't, I'd leave it by the curb.

I knew you couldn't debunk my theory.

You don't believe in it anyway. But as I said, even if you -did- believe in a given theory, it's up to -you- to provide evidence that it's true. If you can't do that, people will generally just ignore you. Which I should probably get back to doing...

 

[rightwinger]

You asked us to provide our theories of what REALLY happened and I did.

Come on rightwinger, do you honestly believe anyone believes you actually believe these "theories" you've put out? Furthermore, a good theory has to be backed up by evidence. Otherwise, it's just quackery.

My theories are the only ones that makes sense.

Sigh. Look, even if you actually believed your "theory", I'd -still- ask you to provide evidence for it. And if you couldn't, I'd leave it by the curb.

I knew you couldn't debunk my theory.

You don't believe in it anyway. But as I said, even if you -did- believe in a given theory, it's up to -you- to provide evidence that it's true. If you can't do that, people will generally just ignore you. Which I should probably get back to doing...

Evidence?

Since when are conspiracy theories held to any standard of evidence? Name anyone else on this thread who provided actual evidence of an alternate theory?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Yes, I do. Evade NORAD? Do you even know what NORAD does and how the US air traffic control system works? It's not like they flew those planes from Russia.

Well, atleast you aren't assuming that I'm some villainous know it all that is hiding information to further his nefarious claims . I think the director of Zeitgeist did a pretty good job in his documentary, but he may have not been up to snuff on the fact that the FAA's ARTCCs handled air traffic within the U.S.

As for conspiracy theories, the problem with them is that most not only take hundreds, if not thousands of people to carry out, but for all of those people to never, ever speak of it.

Have you ever heard of information security compartmentalization? Just in case you haven't:
**
In matters concerning information security, whether public or private sector, compartmentalization is the limiting of access to information to persons or other entities who need to know it in order to perform certain tasks.

The concept originated in the handling of classified information in military and intelligence applications, though it dates back to antiquity, and was used to successfully keep the secret of Greek fire.[1]

The basis for compartmentalization is the idea that, if fewer people know the details of a mission or task, the risk or likelihood that such information will be compromised or fall into the hands of the opposition is decreased. Hence, varying levels of clearance within organizations exist. Yet, even if someone has the highest clearance, certain "compartmentalized" information, identified by codewordsreferring to particular types of secret information, may still be restricted to certain operators, even with a lower overall security clearance. Information marked this way is said to be codeword–classified. One famous example of this was the Ultra secret, where documents were marked "Top Secret Ultra": "Top Secret" marked its security level, and the "Ultra" keyword further restricted its readership to only those cleared to read "Ultra" documents.[2]
**
Source: Compartmentalization (information security) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Using compartmentalization, while many people may have unwittingly participated in 9/11, most of them didn't actually need to know what was truly happening. Of those who were likely to figure it out after the fact, they were probably killed. Some if not all of those killed may have later been said to have died as passengers on the doomed flights, or actually died at the Pentagon and WTC buildings. I definitely believe some near the very top had to have known what was going on. Here's a small clip from the pilot episode of an Xfiles spinoff that gets the gist of it:


One last thing: some witnesses on 9/11 may have been deemed to know 'too much' and thus killed off. There is evidence that this has occurred:

so much for the hilarious argument that someone would have talked theory.

I don't find it hilarious personally. But I do believe that some who -did- reveal things that didn't jive with the official story died in suspicious ways.

lol just as I got done proving,9/11 is the same as the JFK assassination where people who DID come forward and give explanations different than the governments version of events,endyed up paying the price getting murdererd off and having their deaths disguised as suicides,car crashs,heart attacks,ect,ect there was even one lady who came on alex jones show saying she heard explosions going off in the basements and if she died soon do not believe the official version of her death,that she would never take her own life. Guess how she died? an alleged suicide hanging.

yep no murder by the government there.

I know who you're referring to...
9/11 Conspiracy Connection To DC Madam Murder

Thank you,i could not remember her name.

Np

true enough that its not hilarious about the somebody would have talked lameass argument they come up with.

It definitely gets very tiring hearing this unsubstantiated argument over and over again -.-

You mentioned how Hunt did not spill the beans about the JFK assassination till his final days on his deathbed confession to his son. He kept quiet about it because if he talked and spilled the beans,he would meet the same fate that others did who knew too much.

You may well be right about that.

many reseachers believed that Hunt was in dallas that day and was one of the three tramps. what is interesting is Hunt denied he was in dallas that day most his life until his final days. Funny in his final days when he was dying he change tune and CONFESSED his involvement in it isnt it?

Hunt was going to die anyways so it would be too late for them to kill him so hew fessed up. and its interesting that he did not fes up because of being guilty,but because he was still proud of his actions is why.

This is what I was trying to point out to someone here, that different people have different ideas as to what patriotism means.

as I said,many decades from now,there will probably be CIA people like Hunt also come forward and spill the beans about their involvement.

It would certainly make the job of those trying to bring the truth to light a lot easier...

that fact seems to be a little too hard for the Israeli shills like that last jerk i got done with who made that false accusation against me that I am anti semitic just for saying Israel was behind it. pesky facts like that seem to go over the heads of people like that devine idiot.

You know me 9/11, I'm not really one to make accusations without having substantial evidence to back it up. Put another way, just as he was quick to jump to the notion that you were anti semetic, I think you are sometimes too quick too jump to the notion that people are shills (just a little bit ago, you were accusing -me- of being a shill, as you may recall -.-).

I really do hate to get into insults but they ALWAYS throw the first punch everytime so it's hard for me to refrain from hitting back.

I just remove the insults from what I quote them saying. Faun has shown some irritation to me doing it, but I think he's finally getting used to it. If you get to a certain point with people, they will appreciate sticking to the arguments, not insulting the person themselves... or atleast not with base insults. I can't resist insulting people -subtly- . You also do that at times, humour can be the best way to get people to think. I greatly appreciate comedians such as Jon Stewart, Colbert, and others. I may not agree with them on all things, but that doesn't matter, when we -do- agree, which is most of the time, it's awesome

This devine jerk being the latest calling me a coward and making that false accusation that I am anti semetic.

I get accused of things as well; I try to brush it off like water off a duck's back as much as I can. I've also started to think that those who don't believe the official story have to stick together a bit more. I think I've spent a bit too long only responding to those who believe it, it can get pretty demoralizing when you are only discussing things with people who don't agree with you on the most fundamental points in the discussion.

that was ONLY because i was confusing your user name with another Israel shill in the Israel section similiar to yours.His is Phonenail so i think you can see how i got him mixed up with you.

thats because it goes through one ear and out the other with you that its easy to tell,they make up LIES all the time when they cant refute the facts with bible length rants full of them, that is how i know predfan is not because he just comes back with one liner insults when he cant refute them and then adds people to ignore as he did with me years ago when i proved him wrong that oswald was innocent.

 

[phoenyx]

it was jew job

So you think that Israel alone pulled off 9/11? If so, what draws you to this conclusion?

jew controlling media =

Personally, I think that judaism and christianity are not nearly as powerful in elite circles as other groups, such as freemasonry and others, such as the illuminati. The all seeing eye is not a judaic tradition, but it is certainly a freemasonry one. Here's a little story I just found concerning the 1 dollar bill:
The All-Seeing Eye, the President, the Secretary & the Guru

An article on the illuminati can be found here:
The Illuminati Symbol, the Great Seal and the One Dollar Bill

I think this is the reason why the U.S. and Israel get along well, because of these 'inner circle' groups that don't care what religion you have, so long as your first priority is to their group.

I once read a series of novels, which, together, were called "The Illuminatus". I found it very educational. It was fiction, but it many facts mixed in. It was very good because the truth when it comes to the illuminati and other groups of this nature is very hard to come by, with many conflicting theories. Not all of them can be true, but some certainly can be.

judaism people are actually good people thats why it pisses me off when people like that idiot troll divine when makes false accusations against me that I am anti semetic.

Ok, I definitely think it's a good idea that we make it clear that we aren't anti semitic .

 

[PredFan]

You could probably mention the ones you know and refresh my memory. Sorry, but I don't dwell on those at all because I'm satisfied that the "official" story is pretty much correct and that we can never know the whole truth.

I see. Well, for starters, do you atleast agree that government agencies aren't always honest with the public about important events? I'm also curious as to whether you believe the government has ever covered anything up. Iran Contra, the JFK assassination, "Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq", those types of things, do you believe any of the original official stories concerning those events?

You misunderstand. I am not saying that the government is lying, I'm saying that an investigation after the fact cannot answer all of the questions and tell the whole story. We may never know the whole truth because it isn't possible to know.

You may be right on that one; the whole truth concerning 9/11 is quite a lot of information. But I certainly believe that many (including myself) can learn a lot more then we currently know of the event.

Of course the government has covered up things but in every case that you mention except for the JFK Assassination and WMDs, they have not been able to keep quiet. JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and Saddam Hussein definitely had WMDs.

So you don't find Howard Hunt's confession to be credible, I take it? As to your notion that Saddam Hussein definitely had WMDs, I know that this has been claimed, but I haven't seen any real evidence to back it up.

No, Hunt is grandstanding.

How are you so sure? It seems his primary purpose was to tell his children, not to tell the media. It was his children who told the media.

If you haven't seen any evidence that Saddam had WMDs then you haven't been looking. Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds with his WMDs, that is an easily proven fact. But this is off the point.

Yeah, it's off the point, but we could always make a new thread if it really got going. I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein didn't have chemical weapons at the time of the first gulf war. What I'd like to see is evidence that they still had it before Bush Jr. invaded.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. He had WMDs, he used them, there's no reason to believe that he used them all and what did we give him? 30-40 days advance notice before we attacked? If you can't see the logic in that them we may not be able to discuss anything regarding 9-11. Logic and reason will be important.

 

[phoenyx]

Come on rightwinger, do you honestly believe anyone believes you actually believe these "theories" you've put out? Furthermore, a good theory has to be backed up by evidence. Otherwise, it's just quackery.

My theories are the only ones that makes sense.

Sigh. Look, even if you actually believed your "theory", I'd -still- ask you to provide evidence for it. And if you couldn't, I'd leave it by the curb.

I knew you couldn't debunk my theory.

You don't believe in it anyway. But as I said, even if you -did- believe in a given theory, it's up to -you- to provide evidence that it's true. If you can't do that, people will generally just ignore you. Which I should probably get back to doing...

Evidence?

Since when are conspiracy theories held to any standard of evidence? Name anyone else on this thread who provided actual evidence of an alternate theory?

First, I think we should try to come to an accord as to the definition of evidence. Otherwise, we may end up playing a game I've played with Faun, which is to argue over what constitutes evidence. Here is how wikipedia introduces the term:
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

Source: Evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you can agree to this definition, I would say that lots of people have introduced evidence in this thread, on both sides of the fence, starting from my opening post. We can argue about whether any particular piece of evidence is weak or strong, but by the above definition, there's been a lot of it in this thread.

 

[phoenyx]

Well, atleast you aren't assuming that I'm some villainous know it all that is hiding information to further his nefarious claims . I think the director of Zeitgeist did a pretty good job in his documentary, but he may have not been up to snuff on the fact that the FAA's ARTCCs handled air traffic within the U.S.

Have you ever heard of information security compartmentalization? Just in case you haven't:
**
In matters concerning information security, whether public or private sector, compartmentalization is the limiting of access to information to persons or other entities who need to know it in order to perform certain tasks.

The concept originated in the handling of classified information in military and intelligence applications, though it dates back to antiquity, and was used to successfully keep the secret of Greek fire.[1]

The basis for compartmentalization is the idea that, if fewer people know the details of a mission or task, the risk or likelihood that such information will be compromised or fall into the hands of the opposition is decreased. Hence, varying levels of clearance within organizations exist. Yet, even if someone has the highest clearance, certain "compartmentalized" information, identified by codewordsreferring to particular types of secret information, may still be restricted to certain operators, even with a lower overall security clearance. Information marked this way is said to be codeword–classified. One famous example of this was the Ultra secret, where documents were marked "Top Secret Ultra": "Top Secret" marked its security level, and the "Ultra" keyword further restricted its readership to only those cleared to read "Ultra" documents.[2]
**
Source: Compartmentalization (information security) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Using compartmentalization, while many people may have unwittingly participated in 9/11, most of them didn't actually need to know what was truly happening. Of those who were likely to figure it out after the fact, they were probably killed. Some if not all of those killed may have later been said to have died as passengers on the doomed flights, or actually died at the Pentagon and WTC buildings. I definitely believe some near the very top had to have known what was going on. Here's a small clip from the pilot episode of an Xfiles spinoff that gets the gist of it:


One last thing: some witnesses on 9/11 may have been deemed to know 'too much' and thus killed off. There is evidence that this has occurred:

so much for the hilarious argument that someone would have talked theory.

I don't find it hilarious personally. But I do believe that some who -did- reveal things that didn't jive with the official story died in suspicious ways.

lol just as I got done proving,9/11 is the same as the JFK assassination where people who DID come forward and give explanations different than the governments version of events,endyed up paying the price getting murdererd off and having their deaths disguised as suicides,car crashs,heart attacks,ect,ect there was even one lady who came on alex jones show saying she heard explosions going off in the basements and if she died soon do not believe the official version of her death,that she would never take her own life. Guess how she died? an alleged suicide hanging.

yep no murder by the government there.

I know who you're referring to...
9/11 Conspiracy Connection To DC Madam Murder

Thank you,i could not remember her name.

Np

true enough that its not hilarious about the somebody would have talked lameass argument they come up with.

It definitely gets very tiring hearing this unsubstantiated argument over and over again -.-

You mentioned how Hunt did not spill the beans about the JFK assassination till his final days on his deathbed confession to his son. He kept quiet about it because if he talked and spilled the beans,he would meet the same fate that others did who knew too much.

You may well be right about that.

many reseachers believed that Hunt was in dallas that day and was one of the three tramps. what is interesting is Hunt denied he was in dallas that day most his life until his final days. Funny in his final days when he was dying he change tune and CONFESSED his involvement in it isnt it?

Hunt was going to die anyways so it would be too late for them to kill him so hew fessed up. and its interesting that he did not fes up because of being guilty,but because he was still proud of his actions is why.

This is what I was trying to point out to someone here, that different people have different ideas as to what patriotism means.

as I said,many decades from now,there will probably be CIA people like Hunt also come forward and spill the beans about their involvement.

It would certainly make the job of those trying to bring the truth to light a lot easier...

that fact seems to be a little too hard for the Israeli shills like that last jerk i got done with who made that false accusation against me that I am anti semitic just for saying Israel was behind it. pesky facts like that seem to go over the heads of people like that devine idiot.

You know me 9/11, I'm not really one to make accusations without having substantial evidence to back it up. Put another way, just as he was quick to jump to the notion that you were anti semetic, I think you are sometimes too quick too jump to the notion that people are shills (just a little bit ago, you were accusing -me- of being a shill, as you may recall -.-).

I really do hate to get into insults but they ALWAYS throw the first punch everytime so it's hard for me to refrain from hitting back.

I just remove the insults from what I quote them saying. Faun has shown some irritation to me doing it, but I think he's finally getting used to it. If you get to a certain point with people, they will appreciate sticking to the arguments, not insulting the person themselves... or atleast not with base insults. I can't resist insulting people -subtly- . You also do that at times, humour can be the best way to get people to think. I greatly appreciate comedians such as Jon Stewart, Colbert, and others. I may not agree with them on all things, but that doesn't matter, when we -do- agree, which is most of the time, it's awesome

This devine jerk being the latest calling me a coward and making that false accusation that I am anti semetic.

I get accused of things as well; I try to brush it off like water off a duck's back as much as I can. I've also started to think that those who don't believe the official story have to stick together a bit more. I think I've spent a bit too long only responding to those who believe it, it can get pretty demoralizing when you are only discussing things with people who don't agree with you on the most fundamental points in the discussion.

that was ONLY because i was confusing your user name with another Israel shill in the Israel section similiar to yours. His is Phonenail so i think you can see how i got him mixed up with you.

Ah ok, I see about the similarity of the name. I'm not sure I'd consider him a shill, but I've never seen his posts, so I'll reserve judgement on that count.

thats because it goes through one ear and out the other with you that its easy to tell, they make up LIES all the time when they cant refute the facts with bible length rants full of them, that is how i know predfan is not because he just comes back with one liner insults when he cant refute them and then adds people to ignore as he did with me years ago when i proved him wrong that oswald was innocent.

I can tell you right now that I've never been sure that anyone I've ever discussed 9/11 or any other conspiracy with in all the years I've been doing it was a shill. Sure, I've -suspected- some, but I've never been sure, and I'm not even sure I've ever let any of them know of my suspicions, atleast not directly. I just find that it tends to distract from discussing the matter at hand.

 

[rightwinger]

My theories are the only ones that makes sense.

Sigh. Look, even if you actually believed your "theory", I'd -still- ask you to provide evidence for it. And if you couldn't, I'd leave it by the curb.

I knew you couldn't debunk my theory.

You don't believe in it anyway. But as I said, even if you -did- believe in a given theory, it's up to -you- to provide evidence that it's true. If you can't do that, people will generally just ignore you. Which I should probably get back to doing...

Evidence?

Since when are conspiracy theories held to any standard of evidence? Name anyone else on this thread who provided actual evidence of an alternate theory?

First, I think we should try to come to an accord as to the definition of evidence. Otherwise, we may end up playing a game I've played with Faun, which is to argue over what constitutes evidence. Here is how wikipedia introduces the term:
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

Source: Evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you can agree to this definition, I would say that lots of people have introduced evidence in this thread, on both sides of the fence, starting from my opening post. We can argue about whether any particular piece of evidence is weak or strong, but by the above definition, there's been a lot of it in this thread.

You have yet to refute any of my theories.
A theory examines facts and assigns a reason to them

Fact: People jumped thousands of feet to their death on 9-11
Evidence: I provided a picture

Theory: People jumped from burning buildings because they were informed the buildings would undergo a controlled demo

rationale: there is no other reason they could have jumped

 

[phoenyx]

I see. Well, for starters, do you atleast agree that government agencies aren't always honest with the public about important events? I'm also curious as to whether you believe the government has ever covered anything up. Iran Contra, the JFK assassination, "Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq", those types of things, do you believe any of the original official stories concerning those events?

You misunderstand. I am not saying that the government is lying, I'm saying that an investigation after the fact cannot answer all of the questions and tell the whole story. We may never know the whole truth because it isn't possible to know.

You may be right on that one; the whole truth concerning 9/11 is quite a lot of information. But I certainly believe that many (including myself) can learn a lot more then we currently know of the event.

Of course the government has covered up things but in every case that you mention except for the JFK Assassination and WMDs, they have not been able to keep quiet. JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and Saddam Hussein definitely had WMDs.

So you don't find Howard Hunt's confession to be credible, I take it? As to your notion that Saddam Hussein definitely had WMDs, I know that this has been claimed, but I haven't seen any real evidence to back it up.

No, Hunt is grandstanding.

How are you so sure? It seems his primary purpose was to tell his children, not to tell the media. It was his children who told the media.

If you haven't seen any evidence that Saddam had WMDs then you haven't been looking. Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds with his WMDs, that is an easily proven fact. But this is off the point.

Yeah, it's off the point, but we could always make a new thread if it really got going. I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein didn't have chemical weapons at the time of the first gulf war. What I'd like to see is evidence that they still had it before Bush Jr. invaded.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

True. Ofcourse, that logic can be used to argue for the existence of invisible unicorns and elves on Mars. You're free to do it, but don't expect me to go along for the ride .

He had WMDs, he used them, there's no reason to believe that he used them all and what did we give him? 30-40 days advance notice before we attacked?

The strongest evidence that he had no chemical weapons left is in the fact that none were ever found after Bush Jr.'s invasion. Like you said, absence of proof and even absence of evidence is not proof of its lack, but that doesn't mean I'm going to believe in invisible unicorns just because no one has proven they don't exist.

 

[phoenyx]

Sigh. Look, even if you actually believed your "theory", I'd -still- ask you to provide evidence for it. And if you couldn't, I'd leave it by the curb.

I knew you couldn't debunk my theory.

You don't believe in it anyway. But as I said, even if you -did- believe in a given theory, it's up to -you- to provide evidence that it's true. If you can't do that, people will generally just ignore you. Which I should probably get back to doing...

Evidence?

Since when are conspiracy theories held to any standard of evidence? Name anyone else on this thread who provided actual evidence of an alternate theory?

First, I think we should try to come to an accord as to the definition of evidence. Otherwise, we may end up playing a game I've played with Faun, which is to argue over what constitutes evidence. Here is how wikipedia introduces the term:
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

Source: Evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you can agree to this definition, I would say that lots of people have introduced evidence in this thread, on both sides of the fence, starting from my opening post. We can argue about whether any particular piece of evidence is weak or strong, but by the above definition, there's been a lot of it in this thread.

You have yet to refute any of my theories.

Sorry, not interested in proving that invisible unicorn theories aren't true.

A theory examines facts and assigns a reason to them

Fact: People jumped thousands of feet to their death on 9-11
Evidence: I provided a picture

Theory: People jumped from burning buildings because they were informed the buildings would undergo a controlled demo

rationale: there is no other reason they could have jumped

Sure there is. The buildings were burning, they were quite possibly going to get burned to death if they didn't jump.

 

[rightwinger]

I knew you couldn't debunk my theory.

You don't believe in it anyway. But as I said, even if you -did- believe in a given theory, it's up to -you- to provide evidence that it's true. If you can't do that, people will generally just ignore you. Which I should probably get back to doing...

Evidence?

Since when are conspiracy theories held to any standard of evidence? Name anyone else on this thread who provided actual evidence of an alternate theory?

First, I think we should try to come to an accord as to the definition of evidence. Otherwise, we may end up playing a game I've played with Faun, which is to argue over what constitutes evidence. Here is how wikipedia introduces the term:
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

Source: Evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you can agree to this definition, I would say that lots of people have introduced evidence in this thread, on both sides of the fence, starting from my opening post. We can argue about whether any particular piece of evidence is weak or strong, but by the above definition, there's been a lot of it in this thread.

You have yet to refute any of my theories.

Sorry, not interested in proving that invisible unicorn theories aren't true.

A theory examines facts and assigns a reason to them

Fact: People jumped thousands of feet to their death on 9-11
Evidence: I provided a picture

Theory: People jumped from burning buildings because they were informed the buildings would undergo a controlled demo

rationale: there is no other reason they could have jumped

Sure there is. The buildings were burning, they were quite possibly going to get burned to death if they didn't jump.

That is ridiculous

Why would people choose to jump out of a burning building at the exact time Bush was performing a controlled demo? The odds of both occurring at the same moment are astronomical.

 

[MaryL]

There have been threads in this forum that address the general issue of what happened on 9/11. That being said, I have found that a lot of them are not neutral in their title- their titles imply that they are either for or against an official narrative. I started a thread with the same title as this one in another forum and after over 1000 posts, I think it's been fairly successful. Not sure if it'll work out here, but I thought I'd give it a go. I'll start by responding to someone who asked me to outline my view of what happened on 9/11 and who was behind it...

I've heard many theories as to what happened at the World Trade Center. As to the general outline of what happened 9/11, I think I'll start with the general outline of both the official narrative of events, as well as the generally accepted outline of what those who disagree with it is, as outlined in a documentary film called Zeitgeist...

***
19 hijackers, directed by Osama Bin Laden, took over 4 commercial jets
with box cutters and, while evading the Air Defense System (NORAD), hit
75% of their targets. In turn, World Trade Towers 1, 2 & 7 collapsed due
to structural failure through fire in a "pancake" fashion, while the
plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane
that crashed in Shanksville. The 911 Commission found that there were
no warnings for this act of terrorism, while multiple government
failures prevented adequate defense.
***

I would like to ask anyone who sides with the official narrative if they essentially agree with this narrative.

As to what I believe, this is exemplified by the concluding statement of Zeitgeist in its 9/11 section:
***
Criminal Elements within the US government staged a "false flag" rerror
attack on its own citizens, in order to manipulate public perception
into supporting its agenda.

They have been doing these for years.

9/11 was an Inside Job.
***

For anyone considering responding to this thread for the first time, I ask that you consider briefly pointing out what you think happened on 9/11; it can be as simple as stating that you believe in one of the 2 summaries outlined above, or it can be more detailed. At that point, I will endeavour to comment on your entry, and explain why I agree or disagree with your point of view.

Sigmund Freud once said about interpreting facts and symbology: "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". I believe the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by outside forces for their own agenda. That simple. Cloaking it as some mysterious inner government illuminati machiavellian scheme just makes things more complicated and messy than the facts bare out. 19 Muslim jihadis funded and morally supported by Saudi Arabia perpetrated 9/11, and they got away with it.

 

[phoenyx]

You don't believe in it anyway. But as I said, even if you -did- believe in a given theory, it's up to -you- to provide evidence that it's true. If you can't do that, people will generally just ignore you. Which I should probably get back to doing...

Evidence?

Since when are conspiracy theories held to any standard of evidence? Name anyone else on this thread who provided actual evidence of an alternate theory?

First, I think we should try to come to an accord as to the definition of evidence. Otherwise, we may end up playing a game I've played with Faun, which is to argue over what constitutes evidence. Here is how wikipedia introduces the term:
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

Source: Evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you can agree to this definition, I would say that lots of people have introduced evidence in this thread, on both sides of the fence, starting from my opening post. We can argue about whether any particular piece of evidence is weak or strong, but by the above definition, there's been a lot of it in this thread.

You have yet to refute any of my theories.

Sorry, not interested in proving that invisible unicorn theories aren't true.

A theory examines facts and assigns a reason to them

Fact: People jumped thousands of feet to their death on 9-11
Evidence: I provided a picture

Theory: People jumped from burning buildings because they were informed the buildings would undergo a controlled demo

rationale: there is no other reason they could have jumped

Sure there is. The buildings were burning, they were quite possibly going to get burned to death if they didn't jump.

That is ridiculous

Why would people choose to jump out of a burning building at the exact time Bush was performing a controlled demo?

Now you're saying they all jumped at the exact moment the towers started to collapse -.-? If you can find evidence of that, by all means present it. To be honest, this is feeling a bit like Monty Python's argument clinic right now ...

 

[rightwinger]

Evidence?

Since when are conspiracy theories held to any standard of evidence? Name anyone else on this thread who provided actual evidence of an alternate theory?

First, I think we should try to come to an accord as to the definition of evidence. Otherwise, we may end up playing a game I've played with Faun, which is to argue over what constitutes evidence. Here is how wikipedia introduces the term:
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

Source: Evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you can agree to this definition, I would say that lots of people have introduced evidence in this thread, on both sides of the fence, starting from my opening post. We can argue about whether any particular piece of evidence is weak or strong, but by the above definition, there's been a lot of it in this thread.

You have yet to refute any of my theories.

Sorry, not interested in proving that invisible unicorn theories aren't true.

A theory examines facts and assigns a reason to them

Fact: People jumped thousands of feet to their death on 9-11
Evidence: I provided a picture

Theory: People jumped from burning buildings because they were informed the buildings would undergo a controlled demo

rationale: there is no other reason they could have jumped

Sure there is. The buildings were burning, they were quite possibly going to get burned to death if they didn't jump.

That is ridiculous

Why would people choose to jump out of a burning building at the exact time Bush was performing a controlled demo?

Now you're saying they all jumped at the exact moment the towers started to collapse -.-? If you can find evidence of that, by all means present it. To be honest, this is feeling a bit like Monty Python's argument clinic right now ...

How could they possibly have known when to jump if they weren't warned that Bush was ready to control demo the building?

 

[phoenyx]

There have been threads in this forum that address the general issue of what happened on 9/11. That being said, I have found that a lot of them are not neutral in their title- their titles imply that they are either for or against an official narrative. I started a thread with the same title as this one in another forum and after over 1000 posts, I think it's been fairly successful. Not sure if it'll work out here, but I thought I'd give it a go. I'll start by responding to someone who asked me to outline my view of what happened on 9/11 and who was behind it...

I've heard many theories as to what happened at the World Trade Center. As to the general outline of what happened 9/11, I think I'll start with the general outline of both the official narrative of events, as well as the generally accepted outline of what those who disagree with it is, as outlined in a documentary film called Zeitgeist...

***
19 hijackers, directed by Osama Bin Laden, took over 4 commercial jets
with box cutters and, while evading the Air Defense System (NORAD), hit
75% of their targets. In turn, World Trade Towers 1, 2 & 7 collapsed due
to structural failure through fire in a "pancake" fashion, while the
plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane
that crashed in Shanksville. The 911 Commission found that there were
no warnings for this act of terrorism, while multiple government
failures prevented adequate defense.
***

I would like to ask anyone who sides with the official narrative if they essentially agree with this narrative.

As to what I believe, this is exemplified by the concluding statement of Zeitgeist in its 9/11 section:
***
Criminal Elements within the US government staged a "false flag" rerror
attack on its own citizens, in order to manipulate public perception
into supporting its agenda.

They have been doing these for years.

9/11 was an Inside Job.
***

For anyone considering responding to this thread for the first time, I ask that you consider briefly pointing out what you think happened on 9/11; it can be as simple as stating that you believe in one of the 2 summaries outlined above, or it can be more detailed. At that point, I will endeavour to comment on your entry, and explain why I agree or disagree with your point of view.

I believe the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by outside forces for their own agenda. That simple. Cloaking it as some mysterious inner government illuminati machiavellian scheme just makes things more complicated and messy than the facts bare out.

I disagree...

19 Muslim jihadis funded and morally supported by Saudi Arabia perpetrated 9/11, and they got away with it.

For starters, the initial list of hijackers was changed fairly early on. Then there are the reports of 7 of the hijackers that 'stuck' reporting to be alive:
At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive

There's a real dearth of evidence that -any- of the alleged hijackers actually boarded the '9/11' planes as well:
Not a shred of evidence that any 9/11 ‘hijackers’ boarded any planes | Truth and Shadows

And while I agree that certain Saudi officials do seem to have been involved, I believe that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[phoenyx]

First, I think we should try to come to an accord as to the definition of evidence. Otherwise, we may end up playing a game I've played with Faun, which is to argue over what constitutes evidence. Here is how wikipedia introduces the term:
"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

Source: Evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you can agree to this definition, I would say that lots of people have introduced evidence in this thread, on both sides of the fence, starting from my opening post. We can argue about whether any particular piece of evidence is weak or strong, but by the above definition, there's been a lot of it in this thread.

You have yet to refute any of my theories.

Sorry, not interested in proving that invisible unicorn theories aren't true.

A theory examines facts and assigns a reason to them

Fact: People jumped thousands of feet to their death on 9-11
Evidence: I provided a picture

Theory: People jumped from burning buildings because they were informed the buildings would undergo a controlled demo

rationale: there is no other reason they could have jumped

Sure there is. The buildings were burning, they were quite possibly going to get burned to death if they didn't jump.

That is ridiculous

Why would people choose to jump out of a burning building at the exact time Bush was performing a controlled demo?

Now you're saying they all jumped at the exact moment the towers started to collapse -.-? If you can find evidence of that, by all means present it. To be honest, this is feeling a bit like Monty Python's argument clinic right now ...

How could they possibly have known when to jump if they weren't warned that Bush was ready to control demo the building?

You haven't even shown any evidence that they all jumped right before the collapses -.-

 

[rightwinger]

You have yet to refute any of my theories.

Sorry, not interested in proving that invisible unicorn theories aren't true.

A theory examines facts and assigns a reason to them

Fact: People jumped thousands of feet to their death on 9-11
Evidence: I provided a picture

Theory: People jumped from burning buildings because they were informed the buildings would undergo a controlled demo

rationale: there is no other reason they could have jumped

Sure there is. The buildings were burning, they were quite possibly going to get burned to death if they didn't jump.

That is ridiculous

Why would people choose to jump out of a burning building at the exact time Bush was performing a controlled demo?

Now you're saying they all jumped at the exact moment the towers started to collapse -.-? If you can find evidence of that, by all means present it. To be honest, this is feeling a bit like Monty Python's argument clinic right now ...

How could they possibly have known when to jump if they weren't warned that Bush was ready to control demo the building?

You haven't even shown any evidence that they all jumped right before the collapses -.-

Now you are obfuscating....just like all truthers

It was viewed by millions that people started jumping minutes before the towers were controlled demoed. How could they have known the controlled demo would take place if they weren't tipped off?