quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Again no, because there are 'dozens of eyewitnesses' who claim they saw a missile fly towards the Pentagon, so why don't you believe them????

Maybe because they're full of shit?

Note: I've highlighted the examples for those that continue to push them as fact.

quote:

CONSPIRACY CRANKS CREATING CRAZED '9/11 TRUTH' By JAMES B. MEIGS September 12, 2006 -- ON Feb. 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for world domination. That day, Popular Mechanics, the magazine I edit, hit newsstands with a story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs - which calls itself the "9/11 Truth Movement" - was aflame with wild fantasies about me, my staff and the article we had published. Conspiracy Web sites labeled Popular Mechanics a "CIA front organization" and compared us to Nazis and war criminals. For a 104-year-old magazine about science, technology, home improvement and car maintenance, this was pretty extreme stuff. What had we done to provoke such outrage? Research. Conspiracy theories alleging that 9/11 was a U.S. government operation are rapidly infiltrating the mainstream. These notions are advanced by hundreds of books, over a million Web pages and even in some college classrooms. The movie "Loose Change," a slick roundup of popular conspiracy claims, has become an Internet sensation. Worse, these fantasies are gaining influence on the international stage. French author Thierry Meyssan's "The Big Lie," which argues that the U.S. military orchestrated the attacks, was a bestseller in France, and his claims have been widely repeated in European and Middle Eastern media. And recent surveys reveal that, even in moderate Muslim countries such as Turkey and Jordan, majorities of the public believe that no Arab terrorists were involved in the attacks. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts." Yet conspiracy theorists want to pick and choose which facts to believe. Rather than grapple with the huge preponderance of evidence in support of the mainstream view of 9/11, they tend to focus on a handful of small anomalies that they believe cast doubt on the conventional account. These anomalies include the claim that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to have been made by a commercial jet (but just right for a cruise missile); that the Twin Towers were too robustly built to have been destroyed by the jet impacts and fires (so they must have been felled by explosives), and more. If true, these and similar assertions would cast serious doubt on the mainstream account of 9/11. But they're not true. Popular Mechanics has been fact-checking such claims since late 2004, and recently published a book on the topic. We've pored over transcripts, flight logs and blueprints, and interviewed more than 300 sources - including engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of investigative teams. In every single case, we found that the very facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies are mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified. Here's one example: Meyssan and hundreds of Web sites cite an eyewitness who said the craft that hit the Pentagon looked "like a cruise missile with wings." Here's what that witness, a Washington, D.C., broadcaster named Mike Walter, actually told CNN: "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up. It's really low.' And I saw it. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon." We talked to Walter and, like so many of the experts and witnesses widely quoted by conspiracy theorists, he told us he is heartsick to see the way his words have been twisted: "I struggle with the fact that my comments will forever be taken out of context." Here's another: An article in the American Free Press claims that a seismograph at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory picked up signals indicating that large bombs were detonated in the towers. The article quotes Columbia geologist Won-Young Kim and certainly looks authoritative. Yet the truth on this issue is not hard to find. A published Lamont-Doherty report on the seismic record of 9/11 says no such thing. Kim told Popular Mechanics that the publication's interpretation of his research was "categorically incorrect." Yet the claim is repeated verbatim on more than 50 Web sites as well as in the film "Loose Change." Every 9/11 conspiracy theory we investigated was based on similarly shoddy evidence. Most of these falsehoods are easy to refute simply by checking the original source material or talking to experts in the relevant fields. And yet even the flimsiest claims are repeated constantly in conspiracy circles, passed from Web site to book to Web site in an endless daisy chain. And any witness, expert - or publication - that tries to set the record straight is immediately vilified as being part of the conspiracy. The American public has every right to ask hard questions about 9/11. And informed skepticism about government and media can be healthy. But skepticism needs to be based on facts, not fallacies. Unfortunately, for all too many, conspiratorial fantasies offer a seductive alternative to grappling with the hard realities of a post-9/11 world. James B. Meigs is editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics. The magazine's new book, "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand up to the Facts," is just out.

>>Source<<

We're all so good at believing the CTs that we don't even bother to check them; just go on blindly pushing false information or outright lies.

I have an idea, how about we listen to the qualified engineers that are telling us that are these CTs are full of themselves, pushing their own agendas and let the facts speak for themselves and not let others' interpetation do it for you?

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 In a court of law a case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not beyond that doubt.

Are you making this a criminal case or civil case?

Because burden of proof changes between the two. You're more than likely strike a verdict making this a civil case. If this were a real world courtroom.

BTW are you alleging that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon? What kind of conspiracy theory are you trying to prove?


Funny how the shoe is on the other foot

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hey! i know! why dont you propogate more falsehoods peddled by the conspiracy theorists as facts

I've repeatedly stated that I don't believe the CTs can be proven and in no way shape or form do I consider them hard factual evidence. Its clear at this point all you're interested in is putting words in my mouth and approaching everything and everybody involving the CTs as one big group that all believe the same thing. I haven't even said I believe any of this, all I've done is explain why they are here, what they're based on, and why you can't prove them wrong and shouldn't say you have.

So thats enough for me. I'm not going to argue with you because you're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm disappointed that a regular user of PDD would approach a topic, even this one, by making assumptions and accusations against others like that. Oh yes, you're tired of repeating yourself and this is a topic that gets you all rilled up. Well sucks to be you. Growup.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 I've repeatedly stated that I don't believe the CTs can be proven and in no way shape or form do I consider them hard factual evidence. Its clear at this point all you're interested in is putting words in my mouth and approaching everything and everybody involving the CTs as one big group that all believe the same thing. I haven't even said I believe any of this, all I've done is explain why they are here, what they're based on, and why you can't prove them wrong and shouldn't say you have.

i havent missed your point at all joshua. you however, have missed mine your central position, in that there are gaps in the evidence, official story (whatever) which breeds the CTs. i understand that. however, i totally disagree with your assessment. there is so much hard physical evidence, and expert analysis across a wealth of different disciplines that to discredit such sources the CTs should have to come up with their own credible evidence. which they DONT. they try and poke holes in issues that are irrelevant or things that can never be known. but thats not evidence.

i mean seriously, ive never been to the US. as far as i know the towers came down coz i saw it happen on tv. i wasnt actually there. is not being there reason enough to disbelieve that its true? of course not.

you were the one that raised "beyond reasonable doubt". well theres another "reasonable" expression used in a court of law, and its "reasonable person".

firstly, lets recap on something youve said

quote:

because the rubble was cleared without being examined there is no physical evidence that explicitly tells what brought down the towers.

i dont need to make assumptions to tell you this statement is false. this i just something peddled by the CTs which you apparently have bought. i provided you with evidence suggesting this was false. thats what debating is.

things like this statement from you are repeated and copy-pasted from other 911 truth sites without the proper amount of research one should make before stating things as fact. its not a "hole" in the official narrative, it is a fallacy being peddled as truth. and the 911 movement is full of similar claims that you seem to think is evidence enough to argue the CTs exist because of gaps.

my central thesis: CTs exist because of poor research and logical fallacies in an environment where yes, sometimes the exact truth cannot be established because chaos breeds unpredictability and uncertainty.

quote:

So thats enough for me. I'm not going to argue with you because you're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm disappointed that a regular user of PDD would approach a topic, even this one, by making assumptions and accusations against others like that. Oh yes, you're tired of repeating yourself and this is a topic that gets you all rilled up. Well sucks to be you. Growup.

ive listened to what youre saying, and all you seem to be doing is repeating falsehoods as some kinds of "evidence" that because the truth cannot be known CTs are at least legitimate in their enquiry. even if you are correct in your analysis of the latter, you are thoroughly undermining your position by repeating lies.

the so-called "assumption" im making is that you are supporting a premise with poor evidence.

___________________

Just so we're on the same page, here's what I said:

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 I'm just asking because I feel the same way Purple does. Bush isn't exactly old faithful or trustworty. As I've hinted at before he had ties to Bin Laden before and it's kind of hard to swallow that they didn't keep in touch at least once not necessarily during his presidency.

and here's what you said:

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the video of the 9/11 hijackers with Bin Laden aside, you say things like "it's hard to swallow" or "Bush isn't exactly trustworthy" but in essence, in the face of empirical and majorative facts and logic, you're saying nothing.

What do you mean I say nothing? My statement was based on what I've already posted on the first page. You say you want facts so try reading that article I posted. That's one example of 'keeping in touch' with the Bin Ladens.

You want more? Here's another article which talks about how our current President had ties to the Bin Ladens well into mid 90's right before his run for governor. He just couldn't keep his hands off the Carlyle Group:

quote:

....Neither former president Bush—who has continued advising his son on handling the war on terrorism—nor the Carlyle Group returned calls seeking comment. In a case of "like father, like son," [current] President Bush also had connections to the Carlyle Group, the Voice has learned. In the years before his 1994 bid for Texas governor, Bush owned stock in and sat on the board of directors of Caterair, a service company that provided airplane food and was also a component of Carlyle. For his consulting position, Bush was paid $15,000 a year, according to a Texas insider, and a bonus $1000 for every meeting he attended—roughly $75,000 in total. Reports show Carlyle was also a major contributor to his electoral fund. Upon hearing about the Bush-Bin Laden family connection, other Washington nonprofits have joined Judicial Watch in expressing their concern. "Carlyle is as deeply wired into the current administration as they can possibly be," Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, told Bushwatch.org. "George Bush is getting money from private interests that have business before the government, while his son is president. And, in a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that. To me, that's a jaw-dropper."

here's another article regarding how our government trained Bin Laden in the CIA
1)http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101
2)http://www.worldpress.org/asia/1101binladen_cia.htm
3)http://www.antiwar.com/spectator/spec19.html

These articles describe how the FBI was told to back off Bin Laden family and how they were flown out:
1A)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm(see last paragraph of that article)
1B)http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...sp?item=a96wamy(see title dates February-September 11, 1996 and Late January 2001
2)http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001...ain313048.shtml.

And to finish this off. Guess who the Bush adminstration contracted to rebuild wartorn Iraq? It's all here:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/05/new...ies/war_bechtel

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Maybe because they're full of shit?

Hmmmmmmm, good argument. Maybe a few more of those might just clinch this debate for you. You're picky about what arguments YOU believe aren't you?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I have an idea, how about we listen to the qualified engineers that are telling us that are these CTs are full of themselves, pushing their own agendas and let the facts speak for themselves and not let others' interpetation do it for you?

So you need a guy with a piece of paper to tell you? OK.

But again, and I'm only going to say this once more just so you can get your tiny 'intellect' around it. Show me a video of a plane hitting one of the most top secret and highly guarded instiutions in the country. Then I'll believe you.

Look up Flight 77, Gas station, Sheraton.

Please read my post with the links in it too. Especially the one from the Cold War analyst.



Now sit down and shut up.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike Social outcasts are often of the opinion that they must have a drink before being able to loosen up with their inhibitions, thus being able to have a good time. There's a word that sums up this sort of behaviour, and that word is 'reject.'

Last edited by _Ocean_Drive_ on Sep-13-2006 at 08:25

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Hmmmmmmm, good argument. Maybe a few more of those might just clinch this debate for you.

Maybe you should read the evidence before you or does your computer not show engineering articles?

quote:

So you need a guy with a piece of paper to tell you? OK.

You mean qualified people who actually know what they are talking about?
Better than listening some of those quacks out there with no qualifications at all I'd say...

quote:

But again, and I'm only going to say this once more just so you can get your tiny 'intellect' around it. Show me a video of a plane hitting one of the most top secret and highly guarded instiutions in the country. Then I'll believe you. Please read my post with the links in it too. Especially the one from the Cold War analyst. Now sit down and shut up.

Oh I see, you're one of those, "I have to see it to believe it" type people.
That's like saying the holocaust didn't happening because you weren't there either; great arguement! Not.
The plane isn't going to leave some cartoon cut-out of it's former self in a hardened, concrete bunker of a building, kapeesh?
The wings ripped off pretty damn fast.

You believe who you want to believe and I'll believe who I want to believe and we'll leave it at that.
I'll go with the guys who actually did engineering research, cross-referenced thousand of documents and interviewed everyone that was there and you go with some cold war analyst sitting on his ass typing whatever someone wants to believe.

Now scuse me while I get dressed...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Show me a video of a plane hitting one of the most top secret and highly guarded instiutions in the country. Then I'll believe you.

quote:

Please read my post with the links in it too. Especially the one from the Cold War analyst.

i watched 2 of the three. i must say youre the most uncritical of viewers! there was so much bullshit in those vids it doesnt even bother going into. itd take me forever.

___________________

Watch Loose Change^

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Watch Loose Change^

youre not serious are you?

___________________

^there's more holes in that than swiss cheeze...

Watch [[ LINK REMOVED ]]

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."