quote:

Originally posted by occrider Actually you have reposted the exact information that stevieboy32808 provided in his post. But in response to your response, numerous websites have insinuated the contrary. stevieboy32808's post insinuated to the contrary claiming that he in fact represents something that he doesn't factually represent. I'm simply attempting to clarify the situation. I don't like ad-hominems that attack a person's character while failing to attack the person's arguments. That is why I have nothing but distaste for arguments that critique Popular Mechanics because the editor is Michael Chertoff's brother/cousin or whatever. So which is it, do ad-hominems work against Popular Mechanics while failing with Ryan or are they both ancillary arguments to the meat of the matter? That is why I didn't stop with looking at the background of Ryan. He was apparentely making claims as a subject matter expert and thus the start of my investigation was to determine whether he was in fact a subject matter expert or not. Once I found out he was not, I examined his argument in greater detail to see whether there were flaws. If you reference my arguments I directly addressed his claims because that's the meat of the issue. I never attempted to discredit him for raising questions. I simply made it clear to everyone that everything he said should be subject to the EXACT same scrutiny and skepticism as any other proposed theory that provides little verification ... because he doesn't deserve the status of a subject matter expert. Quite the contrary I realised the weaknesses of ad-hominem arguments and thus I attempted to discredit his specific arguments which I then proceeded to do. Now I know you have sourced a bunch of links and papers in response to my arguments, but let's be frank ... they run the gammot on a million issues. Like I told stevieboy32808, I really don't have time to read a website that raises a million theories. I'm doing things one at a time presented by someone in their own words. This is why I originally abandoned 9/11 discussions. I would make a good case and the person i was arguing with never responded ... never admitted the weaknesses of their arguments or bolstered their case. Then someone esle would come along and post another website that I would try to refute ... and of course they would never try to argue beyond what their website told them to copy and paste. To be frank I'm sick of it. I've resolved to spend as much time as my opponent is willing to sepnd on an issue to a resonable degree. This requires specificity and arguments put in your own words with reference quotes as opposed to quoting someone else's entire arguments. So in conclusion I'm perfectly happy to debate you, but unless you're addressing a really specific argument I have raised (I think that I have addressed every specific argument that stevieboy32808 raised in quote/response, quote/response format) I really don't have the time to really argue with 10 different people on 10 different issues. I'm doing as much as I can ...

Actually bro, if you look more closely you'd see that I included the original header which had been left out on the majority of the websites in which that letter was reposted (including stevieboy32808's post here). I didn't want to just repost the header while leaving the body of the message out. As far as him (Ryan) being a subject matter expert - no, I never made such claims (and as far as I can tell, neither did he.) While I can't and won't claim to be a subject matter expert on ANY of this myself, I can in fact make good use my research skills in order to glean bits and pieces of information which others may have missed. At least I'm trying to do something which could possibly prove to be of use to anyone attempting to further connect the dots beyond the sorry excuse of a picture that our government has painted for us in regards to the overall events of 9/11. And in consideration of how resolute they have been in both their stonewalling and their prohibiting of any real investigations into the matter, I would definitely have to say that every little bit helps at this point.

In regards to my posting all of that information, I was posting it here merely for the sake of disclosure. I really wasn't using it as a rebuttal to anything you've said, especially since most of the material you posted here seems to have come almost directly from one of the main Federal agencies that I deem to be complicit in the coverup (or as Bill Manning, Fire Engineering Magazine's Editor in Chief called their investigation, "A half-baked farce.") Anyway, as much as I would enjoy such a great debate, I really can't be arsed to wait on you to reply to every little specific question when there are what seems to be like a million of them floating around which have gone completely unanswered. Those questions will likely remain that way until people wake up and start making their own inquiries, because complacency isn't a very good way at getting to the truth.

So while you may be able to look at the big picture and naively believe that there is no conspiracy involved here, after taking a considerable amount of time to look at the mounting evidence which states otherwise - I couldn't live with myself to do the same.

Fair enough. We'll have to agree to be skeptical about different things.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Fair enough. We'll have to agree to be skeptical about different things.

What you don't know can't hurt you, right Occ?

Anyway, at this point I think that I've grown to be more cynical than skeptical.

quote:

Originally posted by eRRaTiK not a far stretch to suggest the US Govt were behind/involved in 9/11 in order to perpetuate fear across the globe and push the anti-terrorism (weapons of mass bullshit) movement.

dont be a dick anf.

id like to know why the conspiracy nuts believe your govt, which couldnt keep bill's cock a secret, could carry out such a successful conspiracy.

firstly, lets assume that there were secondary explosions in the buildings. theres absolutely no evidence who planted those bombs. why is it automatically the government to blame? who's to say there werent some terrorists on the ground?

according to the arguments in this thread, the explosions occurred at the lower levels of the buildings. why then, did does the tower collapse from the top, rather implode from the bottom? the stuctural failure of both towers occurs at the location where the planes hit, and fell down, rather than the entire tower collapsing nicely at a point where the secondary explosions supposedly went off.

excellent excellent posts occ, though i can understand your frustration with the cut-and-pasters who dont respond. there are those that dont post as often that still appreciate your analysis however

if you think about all the shit things the american govt has done is recent memory, and how often theyve been caught red-handed, the thought that they would deliberately massacre their own people in such a high-profile manner to justify a POSSIBLE war against iraq (remember, the US got fuck all from a war in afghanistan) two years later is laughable. grow up kids. sure, theyve abused 9/11 as much as they possibly could, but thats politics. again, remember, a POSSIBLE war against iraq. there was no guarantee that it would happen.

inconsistencies in an extreme situation like two massive buildings having planes flown into them is hardly reason to automatically assume a cover-up. stop pointing out supposed inconsistencies and bring forward some real evidence and then ill start listening.

youre as bad as the religious zealots. too much \"faith\" and not enough evidence, when i know for a fact that oswald planted the charges on the 6th floor. he acted alone.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN dont be a dick anf. id like to know why the conspiracy nuts believe your govt, which couldnt keep bill's cock a secret, could carry out such a successful conspiracy. firstly, lets assume that there were secondary explosions in the buildings. theres absolutely no evidence who planted those bombs. why is it automatically the government to blame? who's to say there werent some terrorists on the ground? according to the arguments in this thread, the explosions occurred at the lower levels of the buildings. why then, did does the tower collapse from the top, rather implode from the bottom? the stuctural failure of both towers occurs at the location where the planes hit, and fell down, rather than the entire tower collapsing nicely at a point where the secondary explosions supposedly went off. excellent excellent posts occ, though i can understand your frustration with the cut-and-pasters who dont respond. there are those that dont post as often that still appreciate your analysis however if you think about all the shit things the american govt has done is recent memory, and how often theyve been caught red-handed, the thought that they would deliberately massacre their own people in such a high-profile manner to justify a POSSIBLE war against iraq (remember, the US got fuck all from a war in afghanistan) two years later is laughable. grow up kids. sure, theyve abused 9/11 as much as they possibly could, but thats politics. again, remember, a POSSIBLE war against iraq. there was no guarantee that it would happen. inconsistencies in an extreme situation like two massive buildings having planes flown into them is hardly reason to automatically assume a cover-up. stop pointing out supposed inconsistencies and bring forward some real evidence and then ill start listening. youre as bad as the religious zealots. too much \"faith\" and not enough evidence, when i know for a fact that oswald planted the charges on the 6th floor. he acted alone.

Station break...

I guess you've never heard of the Northwoods Documents?

hey, im not sticking up for the US govt by any means. of course, 40 year old documents prove your theory obviously notice the very important part too

quote:

However, McNamara rejected the proposal

so, something that was ruled out 40 years ago is evidence to suspected bombs being planted in buildings when its fvcking obvious planes crashed into them? right. i accidentally bought too much tin-foil at the supermarket this week, youre welcome to borrow it if you must.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hey, im not sticking up for the US govt by any means. of course, 40 year old documents prove your theory obviously notice the very important part too so, something that was ruled out 40 years ago is evidence to suspected bombs being planted in buildings when its fvcking obvious planes crashed into them? right. i accidentally bought too much tin-foil at the supermarket this week, youre welcome to borrow it if you must.

Do you think that they ruled out the instigating and/or fomenting of the attack on Pearl Harbor?

BTW - that tin foil hat thing is a good excuse for not having to use your brain, isn't it? You guys must never tire of that line, so long as it keeps you from actually thinking. Ignorance must surely = bliss!

hehe, i just love the tin-hat imagery

im at work and dont have time to read that whole link, but i skimmed it. i still dont see how you can draw a parallel between allowing/goading a foreign power into attacking you so that you might get a useless, selfish public into supporting a war against regimes that threatened the entire world, and flying 2 planes into buildings which also had bombs in the bottom of them which would need to be blown up so that they fell down (rather then just blowing those buildings up and blaming it on the arabs anyway), so that *maybe*, down the track you *might* get enough support for a war so you *might* be able to get some oil.

sorry, totally different things imo.

stop calling me ignorant, it doesnt add anything to your argument. how about instead of spending all your time trying to find/make distant distant parallels, you go and get me some real evidence. cheers.

___________________

Last edited by pkcRAISTLIN on Dec-13-2005 at 01:32

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN stop calling me ignorant, it doesnt add anything to your argument. how about instead of spending all your time trying to find/make distant distant parallels, you go and get me some real evidence. cheers.

Maybe you should read more of the eye-witness and professionally detailed accounts of what happened, rather than hanging on to Occ's balls after he posts the hypothetical "factoids" that the NIST's government funded study came up with in their ongoing efforts to skirt any real scientific investigation.

I'm sorry for being so curt, but after researching this for so long it just gets tiresome having to answer to all of the uninformed and uneducated armchair critics who refuse to actually investigate the matter for themselves.

Last edited by Trancer-X on Dec-20-2005 at 00:44

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

pkc's socialist hands would never want to hang on to occrider's conservative balls

quote:

I'm sorry for being so curt, but after researching this for so long it just gets tiresome having to answer to all of the uninformed and uneducated armchair critics who refuse to actually investigate the matter for themselves.

my interest in this type of stuff is to keep me occupied when im bored at work. so i read all the stuff in this thread over the last few weeks, and im still totally unconvinced. we can sit here all day, and you can link me til youre blue in the face, and it doesnt change the fact that all you can point to is conjecture and possibilities.

like i already said, inconsistencies are all you theorists have. yes, you might well be correct. but you still dont have the missing link so you can say 'i told you so'. sorry.

___________________