Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
I don't believe in 9/11
Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job
- Thread starter Azrael23
- Start date
- Status
mikeinworthing
New Member
Structaural said:
Check out the ed's post on here:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=188816&page=5
Badger Kitten
oof
top anticonspiraloon article
saves me making intelligent points with a hangover...
very good, makes smart points about the real scandalous conspiracy later on...
more
saves me making intelligent points with a hangover...
very good, makes smart points about the real scandalous conspiracy later on...
more
Structaural
in Chatsubo
mikeinworthing said:
cya!Stigmata put it best I think:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Isn't it funny how the CTers (at least on here) seem to focus on random testimony from individuals who claim to be 'in the know' as evidence of MIHOP type shenanigans, while NOT ONE of them has bothered following up on probably the most damaging allegation, made by a serious, credible investigative journalist (Bob Woodward in his book State Of Denial) that Cheney, Bush and Rice were all informed by the head of the CIA about a probable severe attack on US soil about a week before 9/11 and failed to issue orders to act on it.
Woodward's book is researched in depth, is crammed full of credible, verifiable sources, usually with at least one or two corroborating accounts. Yet this is the single biggest question that the CPers won't engage with, least of all on here.
Woodward's book is researched in depth, is crammed full of credible, verifiable sources, usually with at least one or two corroborating accounts. Yet this is the single biggest question that the CPers won't engage with, least of all on here.
Hmm. Thinking about this, I can't help but recall someone very clever, who I can't recall the name of, who said something along the lines of: 'In a democracy, voters have a responsibility to watch their government's behaviour." So, while many may reject arguments seen as conspiracy theories, those self-same theories serve some place in terms of asking and questioning government actions. Any statement made by any government should be open to question and debate, and perhaps more questions should have been asked of the (unrelated to 911) assertion that Iraq had WMD, which was of course a lie, knowingly and wilfully peddled by people who should not be allowed to lie in such a way.
In a sense, given the clear gap between government's morality and truthfulness and accepted social standards of truth, then the evolution of conspiracy theory is a natural evolution of thought, and its very existence reflects the complete moral bankruptcy of our lying politicians.
In a sense, given the clear gap between government's morality and truthfulness and accepted social standards of truth, then the evolution of conspiracy theory is a natural evolution of thought, and its very existence reflects the complete moral bankruptcy of our lying politicians.
what proof do you have that NORAD was asked to stand down, and by whom?Azrael23 said:What a shocking suprise!!!
Well this guy is number 30? number 50?
How many people have to go public before people wake up?
Out of interest how many people on here are still denying 9/11 was an inside job? How many honestly believe that men in a cave made NORAD stand down?
pembrokestephen
New Member
You won't get much of an answer from Azrael23, wishface. Not on this board, anyway.wishface said:
not that you would have if he'd have been here, he'd have just said "fsck23.net read it for yourself wibble it woz the lizzards wot dunnit", or something.
The clue is in the word "Banned" under his user ID...
why do you say that? does the outlandish nature of the claims or alleged evidence make it thus?editor said:
I'm interested; perhaps there is more to the story than the accepted line. I don't know, but I am predisposed to at least consider alternative sources of evidence, providing one can supply them and demonstrate their credibility.
why do you say that? does the outlandish nature of the claims or alleged evidence make it thus?editor said:
I'm interested; perhaps there is more to the story than the accepted line. I don't know, but I am predisposed to at least consider alternative sources of evidence, providing one can supply them and demonstrate their credibility.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I have to admit that those baby pandas are very cute.Monkeygrinder's Organ said:Anyone else see the baby pandas in the paper the other day? How cute are they?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Well, you're clearly not a proponent of prison plannet thenwishface said:
Credible can only be used to describe the readers, not the articles.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
How about for every factual innacuracy we can find in your posts you find five from the USG. That's much easier on us.Jazzz said:
STFC said:
rocketman said:
<awards rocketman medal for displaying usual completeness of Conspiracists lack-of-logic>
<and another medal for smart Conspiracist use of their usual smear that anti-Conspiracists are gullible dupes of the establishment>
You know its perfectly possible for Conspiracy sceptics to think that PrisonPlanet and outlets like Fox are dodgy and unreliable, at the same time??
editor said:
Which is why, rocketman, conspiracy theorists and their made up evidence free notions discredit genuinely investigative research.
I'm a historian by background and training, and the lack of historical method of most conspiracy theorists, along with their absence of rigour in research, their absence of any realistic notion of what constitutes credible evidence, and their total LACK of scepticism towards or criticism of their favoured sources, drives me to distraction.
wishface said:
In other words you've reached your conclusion already and are predisposed to believe anything that supports it. Prison Planet is a good source for you because it posts up stuff -- any stuff -- that chimes with what you already think.
What Blagsta says is right -- assess your sources more sceptically FFS. Just because Prison Planet purports to be 'anti establishment' doesn't make it reliable or credible.
If it was serious about persuading people of certain things, that site would cut out a lot of the bonkers made up unsourced/dodgily sourced nonsense that it uncritically includes. Instead, it relies on undercritical, undersceptical people like you to lap it all up.
handy1
A certain Man U fan ; )
Maybe slightly off topic....I remember watching events unfold on 911 in a canteen on Canary Wharf.A young lad of the same trade as me (structural steel erector) asked me if i thought the towers would fall,i said not a chance as they were designed,as all towers are,to maintain their integrity should a number of members fail.
Then when we saw them collapse the way they did,i thought it unbelievable.I still do.
Just my tuppence worth.
No links needed.
H
Then when we saw them collapse the way they did,i thought it unbelievable.I still do.
Just my tuppence worth.
No links needed.
H
editor
hiraethified
No need to do any research for yourself, or consult the opinions of any experts infinitely more qualified than you on the subject then, eh?handy1 said:
Perhaps you and your canteen chum could point out which massive skyscraper structures have been designed to take such high speed intentional crashes and why the WTC's own engineer finds nothing unusual about its collapse?
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
William of Walworth said:
Erm, yeah, right, sure thing.
I don't quite get where I became a conspiracy theorist in your rigorous analysis - I suspect you may have confused a philosophical point on the evolution of such philosophies with being a defence of them. But nuances do escape some people.
But, since you blow your own trumpet, I'm a cultural historian trained using a hybrid history plus sociology approach; and it's the sociological impact and meaning of such evolution that interests me.
Don't, please, tar me with your silly brush,
Moving on - is there anyone here who truly believes we actually do know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as per 911?
Well, we know it was the guys in the planes wot dunnit, but what else don't we know? It's that fertile space of government-created doubt that permits conspiracy the ground in which to breed.
rocketman said:
No, of course not. But thinking that there's probably a fair bit about it that we don't know, and that the US Government (and others) don't want us to find out, is not the same as giving credence to every wild flight of fancy about what might actually have happened. There's a fair old difference between thinking that some intelligence chiefs or politicians may have had an inkling of an imminent attack and failed (deliberately or otherwise) to act, and believing that the whole thing was carried out by the CIA/Mossad/some bunch of proxies.
Conspiracies of omission (i.e. the LIHOP approach) are usually more convincing that conspiracies of commission - but cock-up is IME generally more convincing than either.
handy1
A certain Man U fan ; )
editor said:
I don't doubt there are people infinitely more qualified than me.
All i said was that in 20+ years of erecting steel structures upto and including doing the engineering side i cannot see that a building would collapse in such a way.
I understand this was an unprecedented event.
And by the way i have read the link you posted plus countless more.But thanks anyway.
editor said:
Exactly. So it's interesting, isn't it, that the tendency is to mythologise such events, as it makes more sense as myth than they do as reality. And then if you chuck some modern media theory at it, you end up with a position that potentially claims a position in which the media story presented of such events is also a mythological construct, as it's based on what isn't knowable, or on facts which cannot be fully explored, as they are not all fully known.
So even the consensus opinion then becomes a myth - kind of like the idea that everyone in EastEnders can afford to spend all their time in the pub, which no one else in the UK can. A created myth about modern life.
Reading this back, I probably haven't made myself totally clear, but that's life, and since there is no one true way, I'm not interested in being right, merely in proposing an idea, that people can tear apart and get their little teeth into (hopefully).
pocketscience
Well-Known Member
Yeah, everybody should just STFU and believe what the (US) government tell us.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
