The problem w/most conspiracy theories & the Conspiracy theorists that love them

[OzmO]

I am a CTer, but I'm not a tox CTer.  Tox believes everything someone put a video on the net over.

yeah,  you seem to stay with concrete stuff and shy away from conjecture,  you also don;t overuse cheesy persuasive statements.

[OzmO]

still no takers on the $10 ,  hmm  perhaps i should go to 20?  lol

[OneBigMan]

The problem with most conspiracy theories and the conspiracy theorists that love them is that the contradictions confuse people because of what someone like Michael Shermer says in his magazine.

[ieffinhatecardio]

I equate conspiracy theorists with those people that follow religions with incredibly outlandish dogma's. They're looking for something to believe in. In some circumstances it's rather sad. The UFO abduction believers are especially sad.

[OzmO]

There are legitimate CT's:

JFK for one.


Would that fall into the UFO types?  I'm sure they wouldn't

[240 is Back]

There are legitimate CT's:

JFK for one.

So there's nothing wrong with believing a small group of people here would kill the most powerful man on the planet, then get the gov't to have the investigation be a farce?

But there's everything wrong with believing a small group of people here would kill 3000 relative "nobodies", then get the gov't to have the investigation be a farce?

[OzmO]

So there's nothing wrong with believing a small group of people here would kill the most powerful man on the planet, then get the gov't to have the investigation be a farce?

But there's everything wrong with believing a small group of people here would kill 3000 relative "nobodies", then get the gov't to have the investigation be a farce?

I tip my hat to you once again for your use of "closing questions".   


There's nothing wrong with either of your assertions.













Unless in the case of the latter, you CT is based on 10 to 100 times the variables and incidents of the first one and your conclusions are based mostly on conjecture speculation and a severe lack of knowledge in the related fields.

 

[OzmO]

Your understanding of politics is very impressive 240.

However, this last go around with the "sure invasion of Afghanistan by the US in 10/2001 and how you used various news clippings to support your theory told me just how much you  lacked knowledge-wise in the field of modern warfare. 

This is a great example of why your theories on your 9/11 Conspiracy lack any weight.

[240 is Back]

Your understanding of politics is very impressive 240.

However, this last go around with the "sure invasion of Afghanistan by the US in 10/2001 and how you used various news clippings to support your theory told me just how much you  lacked knowledge-wise in the field of modern warfare. 

This is a great example of why your theories on your 9/11 Conspiracy lack any weight.

I don't see how my understanding of the war planning in afghanistan would affect the outright physics violations that occurred on 9/11.

It might remove my ability to prove motive.  But since all I want is a second investigation, the physical evidence (and 4/10 of the 911 commissioners calling for a new investigation) should more than provide reasonable doubt on the official story. 

[240 is Back]

I tip my hat to you once again for your use of "closing questions".  
There's nothing wrong with either of your assertions.

Unless in the case of the latter, you CT is based on 10 to 100 times the variables and incidents of the first one and your conclusions are based mostly on conjecture speculation and a severe lack of knowledge in the related fields.

OzmO,

Time will remove the emotional stigma on 9/11.  Our kids and grandkids will look at 9/11 as we look at Pearl harbor, maybe catching movies about it and knowing answers for jeopardy.  They were never SCARED on 9/11 like we were.  They never felt SAFE when GWB promised to clear the world of bad guys.  Honestly, neither you nor I will ever look at 911 with an objective viewpoint because I feel betrayed and you feel rescued (or some other emotion).  We all lived thru it so we have eyeglasses on it.

If the exact events of 9/11 happened in another country, we would be more open minded.  if WTC7 vaporized because of small fires in some weird eurpoean nation, we'd say "shit man, that was bombs, no plane hit it!"  If NBC showed a hole in the ground where United 93 landed, and the country said a fully loaded 757 shredded there, we'd call bullshit.

Plus, dude... 911 is in its infancy.  howard hunt admitted later he was the JFK shooter with details.  It got him $1M, released from jail, and it was never brought up again.  But 911?  Lots more details than under 15 conspirators and less than 15 bullets.  Five years after ANY major event, ten years, 20 years, MUCH more info comes out.

[OzmO]

I don't see how my understanding of the war planning in afghanistan would affect the outright physics violations that occurred on 9/11.

Physics with that many objects and variables isn't absolute.  This lack of understanding is similar in that sense of "lack" as your lack of understanding of war logistics/planning

It might remove my ability to prove motive.  But since all I want is a second investigation, the physical evidence (and 4/10 of the 911 commissioners calling for a new investigation) should more than provide reasonable doubt on the official story.

As do i, but not for the same reasons as:

WTC's explosives, missile in pentagon...  etc...

[a_joker10]

I don't see how my understanding of the war planning in afghanistan would affect the outright physics violations that occurred on 9/11.

It might remove my ability to prove motive.  But since all I want is a second investigation, the physical evidence (and 4/10 of the 911 commissioners calling for a new investigation) should more than provide reasonable doubt on the official story. 

Mainly your belief that 9-11 defied physics, yet every reputable person that understands structural and materials engineering are on side with an actual scientific peer reviewed document based on the physics of 9-11.
Plus you are relating 2 unrelated topics. That is an illogical way to argue.

[OzmO]

OzmO,

Time will remove the emotional stigma on 9/11.  Our kids and grandkids will look at 9/11 as we look at Pearl harbor, maybe catching movies about it and knowing answers for jeopardy.  They were never SCARED on 9/11 like we were.  They never felt SAFE when GWB promised to clear the world of bad guys.  Honestly, neither you nor I will ever look at 911 with an objective viewpoint because I feel betrayed and you feel rescued (or some other emotion).  We all lived thru it so we have eyeglasses on it.

If the exact events of 9/11 happened in another country, we would be more open minded.  if WTC7 vaporized because of small fires in some weird eurpoean nation, we'd say "shit man, that was bombs, no plane hit it!"  If NBC showed a hole in the ground where United 93 landed, and the country said a fully loaded 757 shredded there, we'd call bullshit.

Plus, dude... 911 is in its infancy.  howard hunt admitted later he was the JFK shooter with details.  It got him $1M, released from jail, and it was never brought up again.  But 911?  Lots more details than under 15 conspirators and less than 15 bullets.  Five years after ANY major event, ten years, 20 years, MUCH more info comes out.

yeah, maybe, maybe not.  But those 2 CT's are very different  as i've outlined above and the reasons you use to point to a 9/11 CT are too weak and or invalid versus the reasons to point to a JFK CT

[240 is Back]

I maintain that one test of the metal from the twin towers will show whether explosives were used - specificlaly, very traceable nanothermate as civilian tests on samples supposedly shows.

I think every one of you should be f'king disgusted that the FBI won't test the metal for explosive residue.  You look at the twin towers and WTC7 come down in precisely symmetrical manners, from very asymmetrical fires, in complete violation of all fire history... yet they don't do one test which would either disprove the bomb idea, or point out the nation and date of origin of the explosives.

It baffles me.  Over a trillion on the war, and you can't argue there's enough evidence to spend $300 on a damn metal test. 

[a_joker10]

I maintain that one test of the metal from the twin towers will show whether explosives were used - specificlaly, very traceable nanothermate as civilian tests on samples supposedly shows.

I think every one of you should be f'king disgusted that the FBI won't test the metal for explosive residue.  You look at the twin towers and WTC7 come down in precisely symmetrical manners, from very asymmetrical fires, in complete violation of all fire history... yet they don't do one test which would either disprove the bomb idea, or point out the nation and date of origin of the explosives.

It baffles me.  Over a trillion on the war, and you can't argue there's enough evidence to spend $300 on a damn metal test. 

I take my advice from experts.

You don't.
The fact that you are making unsupported scientific claims shows this.

[240 is Back]

yeah, maybe, maybe not.  But those 2 CT's are very different  as i've outlined above and the reasons you use to point to a 9/11 CT are too weak and or invalid versus the reasons to point to a JFK CT

I don't understand a lot of the 911 evidence.  Many in the 911 scholars for truth are pretty advanced scientists who have studied the collapses and believe physics show some thigns I couldn't dream of explaining.  

I tell ya what tho... dozens of very brilliant people - of varying political and scientific background - join the 911 scholars list.

*something* in the evidence convinces then it' more important to investigate murders properly than to be labeled a nut.

Now, are there THAT many gullible scientists, engineers, former CIA and military men, etc?

Or is there something to it?

[240 is Back]

well sir...

many experts believe the official story is wrong.  Same ilk you're rerferring to.  Engineers and physicists.

The FBI won't test the metal.  Ask any cop what he would do.  he'd just run the damn test.

[a_joker10]

well sir...

many experts believe the official story is wrong.  Same ilk you're rerferring to.  Engineers and physicists.

The FBI won't test the metal.  Ask any cop what he would do.  he'd just run the damn test.

OK come forward with a peer reviewed paper.

None of your "experts" have yet.

It is not many you use the term too loosely it is 1 according to your "scholars for truth". 1 structural engineer and no structural organizations or Universities.
Joseph M. Phelps (FM)

[militarymuscle69]

And YOU have admittited you would trust the nutjob alex jones to inform you of a terrorist attack, before you'd trust your own president. This puts you in the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) crowd, since no one who believes Bush would even allow the possibiliy Bush wouldn't let them know.

It's so funny... the two of you don't have faith in your own Prez to warn you about a terror attack... but you have faith to defend his involvement - when even HE refuses to answer questions by reporters about what he knew beforehand.

Yes, you're defending a guy who won't defend himself on that.  You noticed that?  Bush and Cheney - neither man has ever denied knowing about 911.  They always changed the subject when asked.  You're defending them because "they wouldn't do that!", when they won't deny it.  Wow.

I wouldn't answer such asinine questions either, what is Bush supposed to say. I don't care, there is no way you believe Bush thought this all up in 9 months. So are you saying Clinton designed it?

[Dos Equis]

OK come forward with a peer reviewed paper.

lol.  Good point.  I doubt we ever see the "911 scholars" publish anything a reputable journal.  

[240 is Back]

I wouldn't answer such asinine questions either, what is Bush supposed to say. I don't care, there is no way you believe Bush thought this all up in 9 months. So are you saying Clinton designed it?

911 took 5 years to design, you asinine, uneducated prick. 

911 would have happened with Cheney, or Lieberman at the wheel.  911 was about securing 50 years worth of resources for AMerican use.  It is above the presidential level.  Do you seriously think the groups in this nation worth hundreds of billions, would allow a new guy, every 4 years, to fck up the long term goals of the US?

No.

JFK tried.  He vowed to disassemble the CIA and structure of longterm power behind the presidency.  And he was killed quickly thereafter.  Every president since has "played ball".  If you look at events in history - they transcend presidencies - go above it.  Longer term than 4-year political pandering stints.  The middle east oil aggression took 15 years to get us where we are today.  CLinton was getting BJs and dealing with small skirmishes in Africa while the bigger group was setting up the afghan pipeline.

Go fucking eat a sandwich and watch some TV.  You don't get it.

[militarymuscle69]

911 took 5 years to design, you asinine, uneducated prick. 

911 would have happened with Cheney, or Lieberman at the wheel.  911 was about securing 50 years worth of resources for AMerican use.  It is above the presidential level.  Do you seriously think the groups in this nation worth hundreds of billions, would allow a new guy, every 4 years, to fck up the long term goals of the US?

No.

JFK tried.  He vowed to disassemble the CIA and structure of longterm power behind the presidency.  And he was killed quickly thereafter.  Every president since has "played ball".  If you look at events in history - they transcend presidencies - go above it.  Longer term than 4-year political pandering stints.  The middle east oil aggression took 15 years to get us where we are today.  CLinton was getting BJs and dealing with small skirmishes in Africa while the bigger group was setting up the afghan pipeline.

Go fucking eat a sandwich and watch some TV.  You don't get it.

You just proved my point fuck stick, you said yesterday you blamed bush for 9/11, I said how can you balme him? well you just said it has been in the planning for 5 years, like every Lib you flip flop with the best of them.

[240 is Back]

You just proved my point f**k stick, you said yesterday you blamed bush for 9/11, I said how can you balme him? well you just said it has been in the planning for 5 years, like every Lib you flip flop with the best of them.

Bush sat and read "my pet goat" at 9:13 AM, after being told at 8:21 AM that plane #1 had been hijacked.

Bush fought an investigation tooth and nail.  Bush impeded an investigation, dude.  If 3000 troops died on day, and the general supervising REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE, what would you say?

He finally caved after 441 days of the 911 widows marching on the white house.  He gave them no budget, chose 9 of his dad's oil buddies, and put on a sham of an investigation.

You haven't studied this, have you?

[militarymuscle69]

Bush sat and read "my pet goat" at 9:13 AM, after being told at 8:21 AM that plane #1 had been hijacked.

Bush fought an investigation tooth and nail.  Bush impeded an investigation, dude.  If 3000 troops died on day, and the general supervising REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE, what would you say?

He finally caved after 441 days of the 911 widows marching on the white house.  He gave them no budget, chose 9 of his dad's oil buddies, and put on a sham of an investigation.

You haven't studied this, have you?

For the last time, there is nothing to study. It wasn't an inside job period

[240 is Back]

For the last time, there is nothing to study. It wasn't an inside job period

You enlisted because of 9/11, didn't ya?