9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
Jazzz said:
It seems rather strange to me that you think this is the best evidence against CD. Is this because you have you filed the last million posts explaining why planes and fires caused the collapse in the "doesn't agree with idiot theory so never refer to again" drawer.
editor
hiraethified
But there is *no* credible evidence *for* a CD - just the lunatic ramblings of unqualified conspiracy obsessed fruitcakes who think they know better than properly qualified professionals and experts.Jazzz said:
Quick Q for you Jazzz: seeing as you've had many, many thousands of posts to present your claims here, why is it that barely a single soul here believes any of your 'theories'?
I mean, everyone here has had chance to read your claims and follow your links to wonderful websites, yet no one's interested. Why is that do you think?
Are they are sheeple? Or just not as clever as you to see through the conspiracy?
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Jazzz said:No, you can't. Not me - nor anyone else
Bollocks Jazzz don't lower everyone else to your pathetically low standards, the NIST doesn't lie, doesn't make up evidence, doesn't contradict themselves, change their story, all of which you do.
Just because you have a casual relationship with reality, truth, and science doesn't mean the rest of the world does as well.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Jazzz said:
And the protec report is "pseudo scientific"... how exactly?
Becuase I'm interested to see what you base your ideas and theories on. You have already made it clear that you consider your views to be more valid than those of people far more qualified than you, so what exactly is it that convinces you that you are right?
Unless of course you simply believe, with nothing more than one act of faith being required to convince you?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Sorry, i was under the impression that the NIST report was the offical hypothesis. It doesn't need to prove to you that it wasn't a CD, after all it's not possible so why bother trying?Jazzz said:
The Protec report wasted it's efforts trying to educate you, but you didn't read it or somehow think that the crap on that rebuttal eddyblack found was anything more than utter shit. You're another bloody fanatic.
This is an easy one, and I can answer it in five words:beesonthewhatnow said:And the protec report is "pseudo scientific"... how exactly?
Becuase I'm interested to see what you base your ideas and theories on. You have already made it clear that you consider your views to be more valid than those of people far more qualified than you, so what exactly is it that convinces you that you are right?
Unless of course you simply believe, with nothing more than one act of faith being required to convince you?
I make up my own mind.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Based on what?Jazzz said:
editor
hiraethified
That's because there's not a single solitary scrap of credible evidence to say that it was a controlled demolition.Jazzz said:
You can't even dream up a remotely convincing argument as to how the towers were supposedly wired and blown up with invisibly installed invisible explosives or offer an explanation why every single soul in the building managed to not notice the thousands of explosives being drilled into walls around the desks.
I'm totally bemused that that answer confuses you bees. Of course, you are not expecting me to reproduce every post I've ever made on 9/11 coupled with a discussion of everything else that has created my world model coupled with my life's experiences, and put it into a nice 500-word post.beesonthewhatnow said:Based on what?
You're asking for an overview of my decision-making process. And what can I say - I simply make up my own mind.
What's confusing you about that? Let's go back to part of your question, which was revealing. You say 'you consider your views more valid than those of people much more qualified than you'. How can one not? The proposition is a tautology. For one's views are by definition that which we consider 'valid', and unless one is a robot who simply takes the word of 'authority', one must be prepared to hold a view which runs counter to 'authority'. I am prepared to do such a thing.
This seems easy, self-evident to me now but there was a time when I was really just like you guys. If you like, I can elucidate into what changed me from someone who ultimately would follow the word of established authority into someone who will happily hold a view against everyone else on the planet if he sees fit.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Two words for you eddy:EddyBlack said:
Anal Probe
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
I have a vague understanding of how a nuclear reactor works, and of how to fly a plane, and of the principles of heart bypass surgary.Jazzz said:
I would however, admit that my understadning of these issues is nothing like enough to operate a power station, fly a plane, or perform life saving surgery.
Yet you seem to think that by reading a few dodgy sites on the internet you are more qualified to say what happened on 9/11 than people with far more knowledge and understandsing of the issues involved than you. You are either utterly deluded or simply the most arrogant twat I've ever encountered. Meeting with you at Glasto rules out ther latter, so all I can conclude is that you have been completely and utterly sucked into a 9/11 cult of sorts...
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
It's nothing to do with being a robot, it's to do with simply admitting that on occasion one can be wrong, and that there are people out there who know more about certain subjects than you.Jazzz said:
To question authority is one thing, but to assume that it is always wrong is quite another.
Jazzz said:
I think the NIST report looked into how the buildings collapsed. They then used the blinkered sheeple approach of looking at the evidence available, rather than dreaming up every possible scenario.
The NIST report also didn't examine whether dolphins attacked the towers. Do you know why they didn't examine this hypothesis?
In the last 6 years the only positive evidence for CD that I have come across that hasn't been shown to be bollocks is that guy in the basement that heard some explosions. This is has to be countered with the vast body of evidence for the "official" story. No one has demonstarted why planes and subsequent fires could not have lead to the buildings collapse.
beesonthewhatnow said:
What you are simply saying here, without consciously realising, is very clear - 'follow authority'. There are times when that is a very good idea. But there must be countless examples throughout history of when it was very very bad. Authority is sometimes not all it is cracked up to be! You may wear it around your neck and let it make all decisions for you - for those who do that, it's their path. But not mine. No longer.
As Eddyblack has requested, I shall explain how I dropped the habit, and that's what it is, a habit. A piece of programming that we are taught since school onwards. You won't even notice it's there until it's gone. The funny thing is I'm sure you don't even think you are suggesting one simply follows authority for one's views yet that is precisely what you are doing.
It was literally beaten out of me. I was desperately ill with the 'crash' of chronic fatigue syndrome. This is a point at which struggling on becomes impossible and your efforts to do so force a cascade of health problems, headaches, joint pains, numbness, tinnitus, episodic blurred vision, also many neurological symptoms such as loss of short term memory and simultaneous function along with anxiety and depression. It was absolute hell and very scary. I was willing to try absolutely anything that might make things better - anything at all. I didn't care. I didn't know what the hell I had, though I knew this wasn't simply depression. Yet that is all doctors would say I had. One after the other. All their tests came back normal. I saw at least nine all inclusive. They all had the same message with varying degrees of rudeness - 'you are depressed and please stop wasting my time'. My attempt with antidepressants led to everything being rapidly much much worse. In fact I couldn't tolerate any drugs at all my system seemed so sensitive. After a second antidepressant failed horribly - and faced with things just getting worse and worse with no respite seeming possible - I decided that the doctors were all wrong and I had to work it out for myself.
And do you know why I did that?
It was the only hope I had.
AndrewNumLock
Well-Known Member
Jazzz, I know where you're coming from, I bought this 9-11 stuff for a while. It's easy, you get wrapped up in this whole world where every turning turns up more evidence of government involvement.
But, just take a step back. Stop reading about it for a few months and then go back and think about it. It's such bollocks! The truth is that if you looked at any single event in such stupid detail you'd find hundreds of similar weird inconsistancies. There's just no way it could have happened.
But, just take a step back. Stop reading about it for a few months and then go back and think about it. It's such bollocks! The truth is that if you looked at any single event in such stupid detail you'd find hundreds of similar weird inconsistancies. There's just no way it could have happened.
cont.
So, I set about trying to do anything and everything that might help me. I'd already gone through any 'disease' that might explain my symptoms - Lyme disease for instance - and they didn't seem to fit. So I followed my gut feeling which that I'd become ill through toxic exposures. This fitted with timing and it seemed to explain why I could not tolerate any drugs. So I did my own research (thank you, internet) and set about treating myself from a detox perspective. This included saunas, colonics, herbal gut cleansing and crucially amalgam filling removal.
It worked, and I've been recovering ever since. I don't think I'm exaggerating to say that this saved my life - had I not done so I would likely have committed suicide.
Later I found a doctor who was a specialist in environmental toxicity and he was able to confirm my own diagnosis with test results - he knew what to look for. When I told him what I had done, and how I had worked it out for myself, and how I'd supplemented my lowered glutathione with Cysteine - his jaw dropped and he said 'I take my hat off to you'.
Of course, now doctors are far more willing to diagnose chronic fatigue and NHS ones have now done so with me.
But through all this I learnt an invaluable lesson - authority can get it wrong. And to a large extent, the people giving it are just toeing a party line. They're folllowing their authority like everyone following them!
That, dear Bees, is why I now make my own mind up. For I wouldn't be here now writing this if I hadn't learned to do that.
So, I set about trying to do anything and everything that might help me. I'd already gone through any 'disease' that might explain my symptoms - Lyme disease for instance - and they didn't seem to fit. So I followed my gut feeling which that I'd become ill through toxic exposures. This fitted with timing and it seemed to explain why I could not tolerate any drugs. So I did my own research (thank you, internet) and set about treating myself from a detox perspective. This included saunas, colonics, herbal gut cleansing and crucially amalgam filling removal.
It worked, and I've been recovering ever since. I don't think I'm exaggerating to say that this saved my life - had I not done so I would likely have committed suicide.
Later I found a doctor who was a specialist in environmental toxicity and he was able to confirm my own diagnosis with test results - he knew what to look for. When I told him what I had done, and how I had worked it out for myself, and how I'd supplemented my lowered glutathione with Cysteine - his jaw dropped and he said 'I take my hat off to you'.
Of course, now doctors are far more willing to diagnose chronic fatigue and NHS ones have now done so with me.
But through all this I learnt an invaluable lesson - authority can get it wrong. And to a large extent, the people giving it are just toeing a party line. They're folllowing their authority like everyone following them!
That, dear Bees, is why I now make my own mind up. For I wouldn't be here now writing this if I hadn't learned to do that.
OK Jazzz, ignoring a lot of the details about your last post let's see if I've got this straight and can try to relate it to 911. Doctors (Authority) said you were depressed and tried to treat you for it. Now, this treatment didn't work, EVIDENCE being that you weren't feeling better. You looked for more info and managed to sort out the diagnosis.
In regards to 911, Authority sources are saying the buildings collapsed because of planes and fires. Now you need evidence demonstrating that this couldn't have been the case (as in your ailment, the evidence was that you weren't getting better showing that the initial diagnosis were wrong). There is no evidence against planes and fires being responsible for the collapse. So when an Authoriy figure says something AND cannot be shown to be wrong this is a good reason to believe them.
In regards to 911, Authority sources are saying the buildings collapsed because of planes and fires. Now you need evidence demonstrating that this couldn't have been the case (as in your ailment, the evidence was that you weren't getting better showing that the initial diagnosis were wrong). There is no evidence against planes and fires being responsible for the collapse. So when an Authoriy figure says something AND cannot be shown to be wrong this is a good reason to believe them.
AndrewNumLock said:
What do you mean you bought it for a while?
As for the bollocks, well that would be the official line that asks us members of the public to accept it was all incompetence on their part. The biggest and most staggering incompetence in the history of empires and hegemonic acts.
Another thing we're supposed to buy is that members of the american elite would never allow members of the american public to die because of their power games.
Another thing we're supposed to buy is that americans spend tonnes and employ thousands on gathering intelligence so that they can defend themselves and further their interests in this world, and to then simply ignore all that intelligence. That kind of beggars belief really. But many on this forum do believe it. And that the biggest empire in history can be capable of staggering and sustained incompetence.
When you stepped back mate, you lost your reasoning faculties! At least you had them for a while though.
axon said:
Personally axon i come from the angle where i distrust authorities all of the time, and never believe them.
It makes me right a whole heap more times than being wrong!
My experience with those in authority is that they actually HAVE to lie in order to both prop up their jobs and to abuse the power they have in order to either enrich their lives, or to satisfy their twisted egos.
"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied."
[can't remember who the author of that quote is]
I am actually in agreement with you in the distrusting authorities. However, I digress when it comes to never believing them. You need to judge each case on it's own merits.fela fan said:
Many people in authority do behave like you describe. However, there is the tiniest possibility that there is an overlap of someone knowing what they are talking about AND not wanting to screw you over. The only way to tell the difference between the former and the latter is to actually examine what they are saying and to see if it stands up to scrutiny. My experience with the field of 911 discussions is overwhelmingly that people with claims of CD tend to stop posting or start new threads on different aspects when questioned on details of their claims. I myself have no finacial gain, or need to enrich my life or ego by pointing out that there is no positive evidence for a 911 conspiracy, and that it is perfectly possibly that a plane loaded with fuel can crash into a skyscraper and cause enough structural damage so that subsequent fires will lead to the buildings collapse.fela fan said:
There might not be any 'postive evidence' of a 911 conspiracy, but there's plenty of suspicious stuff that support an independent investigation of the events that day, and that led up to that day.
I really don't think it matters one jot about whether explosives or planes brought down those two towers. Obviously the third tower fell for reasons other than having a plane crash into it, but either way, the case for an inside job does not rest on any CD or not.
The biggest case for it being an inside job is that the american powers-that-be had been told via intelligence that the attacks were going to happen.
But not only did they not stop them, it appears they acted in ways to make sure they did happen. And the only way anybody can dispute this is if they believe the americans are capable of such staggering and sustained incompetence.
Oh, and that spending billions on intelligence is just a charade, coz we're just gonna ignore it all anyway!!!!
I really don't think it matters one jot about whether explosives or planes brought down those two towers. Obviously the third tower fell for reasons other than having a plane crash into it, but either way, the case for an inside job does not rest on any CD or not.
The biggest case for it being an inside job is that the american powers-that-be had been told via intelligence that the attacks were going to happen.
But not only did they not stop them, it appears they acted in ways to make sure they did happen. And the only way anybody can dispute this is if they believe the americans are capable of such staggering and sustained incompetence.
Oh, and that spending billions on intelligence is just a charade, coz we're just gonna ignore it all anyway!!!!
axon said:
Yes, agreed that at weird and wondeful times authority is actually telling the truth. And i also agree that each case should be judged on its merits.
And as authority by govenments go, then i'd say the yanks are the least likely to tell the truth, and the most likely to be lying. And probably just about all the time. However to my knowledge the bush government has never talked about a CD. In fact i don't recall any of them even talking about the possibility of 911 being an inside job. If i'm right, then we cannot talk about authority and CD.
It might be for another debate, but i'd reckon it's more than possible that whenever and wherever a government person in america speaks out that they are lying. Move the mouth and out drops a lie.
Whereas it's probably quite easy to accept that a norweigan or swedish or new zealand minister could speak out and tell the truth.
fela fan said:
But they weren't told it was going to happen. They were told that naughty people were thinking of hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. So what are you going to do with this info, ground all flights for eternity in the US? No dates, no targets, no more info, and this "intelligence" mixed in with no doubt hundreds of other bits of vague information. I have no doubt that the US government are incompetent when it comes to combating terrorism (e.g. lets invade Iraq, that's sure to reduce the number of people pissed off at the US), but that is a long way from the US gov actually orchestrating 911.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
