Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   9-11 Conspiracy
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 91 of 148 (511006)
06-05-2009 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by onifre
06-04-2009 9:02 PM


may i interrupt?
However, I am sure the original natives of America could say the same for the British colonialists in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as well.
Well, at least they're not currently treated as second class citizens, like the Palestinians are.
i wish you could sit down and talk with Leonard Peltier about that.
Leonard Peltier - Wikipedia
International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee | #FreeLeonardPeltier
there is still a rampant racism against the american indian going on today in 2009.
sorry - just had to get that out.
as you were, gentlemen.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by onifre, posted 06-04-2009 9:02 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by onifre, posted 06-05-2009 1:25 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 92 of 148 (511007)
06-05-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dr Adequate
06-05-2009 12:14 AM


Re: Flight 175
Here you are taking the 9/11 Commission to be in the right and accusing NORAD, not just of accidental error, but of actual perjury. But when you want NORAD to be right about something and the Commission to be wrong, then suddenly the Commission are part of a big conspiratorial cover-up, and what NORAD says is gospel.
Well, this may be how you've interpreted it, but I'm not making a case for neither side to be of a "gospel" quality.
Plus, that wasn't my point per se, that was just a point that I quoted.
One of the 3 sides, or 2, or all 3, are involved in some sort of cover-up. The NORAD timelines where what NORAD claimed was right for 2-3 years. We must keep that in mind, they did not deviate from those timelines until after the FAA tapes and the NORAD tapes were brought to light.
I'll accept your point that they were just covering up their mistakes, fine, but they lied to Congress, to the Commission, and to the general public for 2-3 years, is that not enough to declair that they commited perjury?
Evidence?
All we've looked at so far is a timeline that NORAD rushed out a week after the event.
The evidence was provided by you. NORAD gave their timline 9/18/01, the 911 Commssions final report was, I believe, on 5/27/04, more or less.
Do the math.
During that time NORAD never said "hey, we might be off on our timelines", they stuck to their guns about the original timelines.
How is it "convenient" for the FAA to release tapes proving that they and NORAD got it wrong? How is it "convenient" for NORAD to turn over to the Commission, and the public, tapes showing that they got it wrong?
The overall end result was the convenient part. It showed what they wanted it to show, IMO.
Or wrong. I refer you again to "Nebraska Man" --- is that a proof that the Evil Evil-utionists are enmeshed in a conspiracy of lies, as creationists claim? Or was it an honest mistake?
They had their own tapes, they had access to it, HOWEVER, they never deviated from the timelines they gave on 9/18/01.
Why, only after they Commissions final review, do they then accept that they were, as you say, "wrong" about the timelines?
There was planty of time to review everything the Commission was reviewing and give the right timelines on their own. But they didn't, for 2-3 years they held to the timelines they gave on 9/18 and that's what I question...why?
Yes, you can imagine that any piece of evidence that doesn't fit your hypothesis has been faked. So can creationists. But if we enter into that sort of epistemological nightmare, then what is there left for us to discuss?
So what, you're breaking up with me?
Perhaps 9/11 was perpetrated by Freemasons using flying saucers. If we discount all the evidence to the contrary as a product of the Masonic conspiracy ... then we have made this hypothesis completely unfalsifiable. Hooray!
...Ok, ok, I get it.
However, as a rebuttal, I would point out that the tapes you are disputing came from NORAD. And if they had been tampered with in any way, then NORAD could have said so.
My point exactly Dr. If they had the tapes, for 2- years, why would they stick to their original timelines? Didn't anyone think of listening to the tapes? Why did the Commission have to do it, 3 years later?
And finally, why would anyone bother to lie? We're talking about a discrepancy of 19 minutes.
It's not just an issue of 19 minutes, but I'm not going back through these posts to try and desipher all of the timelines again.
Here's the real issue:
NORAD lied to Congress, the Commission and to the public, IMO. Of course most don't view it as a lie, just as a simple screw up.
I do see it as a lie however, because they had the tapes, they had access to all the evidence, and for 2-3 years they stuck to the original timelines.
However, my point, that NORAD lied, falls apart IF NORAD wasn't lying about those timelines, and was forced to change their original timelines for reasons that are beyond my knowledge.
Not that this is a fact, but that type of senario releases NORAD from being the guilty party, and we would then have to shift focus onto who directed the final report to say what it said, and WHY, having access to the tapes, did NORAD stick to the original timlines?
Given that NORAD held to those timelines, I would say that NORAD's timelines are the correct ones. Keep in mind, we're not talking about a guy with a note pad writing this stuff down as it happened, those timelines were real time recorded using sophisticated equipment, so why exactly did they confuse the timelines?
But lets say they did, some how, fuck up the timelines, it still leaves the question of why, having access to the tape, did they lie.
It suggests to me, that the screw ups where part of a deliberatly placed confusion involving war-games and Cheney. Being at the helm of the war-games and NORAD that day, IMO, makes Cheney involved in some way. How involved, I don't know.
I will admit, before you call me on this, that I am swinging in the dark with that above opinion.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : cleaned up final comments

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2009 12:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2009 3:44 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 93 of 148 (511008)
06-05-2009 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by xongsmith
06-05-2009 1:19 PM


i wish you could sit down and talk with Leonard Peltier about that.
Leonard Peltier - Wikipedia
International Leonard Peltier Defense Committee | #FreeLeonardPeltier
there is still a rampant racism against the american indian going on today in 2009.
Thanks for the link, xong. I don't doubt that racism still exists for them, and many other, if not all, minorities.
But I don't feel they're treated as "second class" citizens in day to day activities, such as buying a car, or an apartment, etc.
Hell, every time I leave one of their casinos having lost my ass on No-Limit Hold'em I feel like the second class citizens.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by xongsmith, posted 06-05-2009 1:19 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Theodoric, posted 06-05-2009 3:26 PM onifre has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 94 of 148 (511014)
06-05-2009 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by onifre
06-05-2009 1:25 PM


I live in Wisconsin near a reservation. The natives are treated like 2nd class citizens. We destroyed their culture and now they are begrudged anything. Hang out in Indian country for a while. You will clearly see that they are very much treated like 2nd class citizens. Most tribes don't have a high dollar casino. The only tribes getting rich are the ones near the metro areas. Check out the rez's in northern Minnesota and northern Wisconsin. The natives there are live a much different life than the "casino Indians" you are aware of.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by onifre, posted 06-05-2009 1:25 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by onifre, posted 06-05-2009 3:52 PM Theodoric has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 95 of 148 (511016)
06-05-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by DevilsAdvocate
06-05-2009 9:39 AM


So again, was this war (WWII) not justified on our (USA and the Allies) part? Or should we have just let Germany, Japan and Italy wreck devastation while we stuck our head in the sand to appease the Monroe doctrine.
Oh, I agree, to a certain extent, that our part in the war was helpful. I doubt that our allies needed us to win, though.
But we could have gone into the war before Pearl Harbor, but we didn't, we went in after Pearl Harbor, making that single act of "terrorism" the reason why we went in. That, coupled with WWII propaganda, got the US public behind the war. The propaganda was pushed by President Roosevelt, and the Defense Industry.
Here's a great essay on it: WWII Propaganda
quote:
Propaganda in the U.S. During WWII
We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy's side of the front is always propaganda, and what is said on our side of the front is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for peace.1 This essay offers a brief introduction to the propaganda used in the United States between 1941-1945. The main goal of propaganda during World War II was manipulation of public opinion. The manipulation of the American public’s emotions was sometimes subtle, as in Norman Rockwell’s The Four Freedoms, and often explicit as in Walt Disney’s The Fuhrer’s Face. This essay examines movies, posters, and pictures of the war and within each of these formats explores race, religion, and gender to analyze the manipulative forces of propaganda. Because the war was so broadly accepted there will a short section of anti-war and peace movement propaganda to represent the minority of people who weren’t spirited for The Good War.
Also, Psychological Operations (United States) helps gain the trust of foreign governments, and their citizens. (this is relevant to our discussion of Muslim support for the US).
quote:
The purpose of United States psychological operations (PSYOP) is to induce or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to U.S. objectives. It can be used at the strategic, operational, also known as Psychological warfare, level or at the tactical level. Strategic psychological operations are done by government agencies other than the military, except, if delegated to the military, in major wars and at the level of theaters of operations.
Psychological operations are a subset of information operations, defined as:
Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives. Also called PSYOP. [1]

BTW, I am dead set against trying to compare the current situation in the ME and our "war against terrorism" with the conflicts of WWII. They are totally different creatures with different causes and plot lines.
In a sense, yes. But in the propaganda campaign and in the "image of evil" campaign, it's the same tactics used for both.
I believe the first Gulf War was justified to protect the sovereign rights of the recognized country of Kuwait and to thwart the power grab by Saddam Hussein in 1990
That's a very eloquent way of saying "we didn't want Hussein to get his hands on their oil".
This is further substantiated by the fact that a massive allied coalition of over 35 countries participated in this operation including nearly all the Muslim countries of the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, UAE, Morroco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Afghanistan and Turkey and our most strongest allies such as the UK, France, Canada, Italy, Spain and Australia.
A coalition of the "needy", as I like to refer to it.
The current war against Iraq I do not believe was adequately justified and this is reflected by the fact that only a hand full of allied countries have provided troops to this conflict in its 6 year history. Only 4 contries provided troops to initially invade Iraq and overthrow Sadam Hussein in 2003: (US [248,0000 troops], UK [45,000 troops], Australia [2000 troops], and Poland [194 troops]) compared with the 35 country coalition (of non-us 210,000+ troops) of the 7 month Gulf War (Aug 1990-Feb 1991). No Arab countries provided troops for the war in Iraq as opposed to the 10+ Arab countries which provided troops during the Gulf War.
Agreed.
But I'm skeptical about it being a conscience decision, rather than a financial one. I've heard many facts to support the latter.
Most of the countries of the Iraqi coalition of 20 some countries were not involved in the initial invasion but rather only with the clean up, security and reconstruction afterwords. Of which almost 100% of these troops are from small European NATO countries (such as Albania, Azerbizon, Denmark, etc which are compelled by treaty to provide a minimal amount of troops or risk being expelled from NATO (for example Iceland provided 2 troops and Moldova provided 24) Multi-National Force - Iraq) and small pacific countries such as Tongo, South Korea and Singapore which are dependent on the USA for trade and military reasons for a total of 24,000 coalition troops (excluding the US & UK troops) during the last 6 years of the war in Iraq (Mar 2003 to present day) compared to the 210,000 coalition troops of the 7 month Gulf War (excluding the US & UK troops). There is a vast difference between these two conflicts and the current Iraq War "coalition" is a joke IMHO.
Agreed.
BTW, I will take you up on the beer if we ever get a chance to meet
Cool, I'm all for it.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 06-05-2009 9:39 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 96 of 148 (511017)
06-05-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Theodoric
06-05-2009 3:26 PM


I live in Wisconsin near a reservation. The natives are treated like 2nd class citizens. We destroyed their culture and now they are begrudged anything. Hang out in Indian country for a while. You will clearly see that they are very much treated like 2nd class citizens. Most tribes don't have a high dollar casino. The only tribes getting rich are the ones near the metro areas. Check out the rez's in northern Minnesota and northern Wisconsin. The natives there are live a much different life than the "casino Indians" you are aware of.
Thanks for the info, Theodoric. I also live near a reservation, Miccosukee Indians of Florida.
I agree that a case can be made for any minority to be looked at as second class citizens. I'm hispanic, many in my family see themselves treated this way also. But in comparison, in the overall regards to the Native Indians -vs- the Palestinians, I would have to argue that the clear second class citizen would have to be Palestinians, again, specific cases not with standing.
Blacks in the US could also make a case for being considered second class citizens, and they do sometimes. But again, it pales in comparison to what the Palestinians endure.
But I do see your point, and I hope you see mine in regards to the Palestinians.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Theodoric, posted 06-05-2009 3:26 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Theodoric, posted 06-05-2009 4:46 PM onifre has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 97 of 148 (511022)
06-05-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by onifre
06-05-2009 3:52 PM


That I do. There is a a magnitude of difference between the situations.
I am hispanic also. But I am one of the stealth hispanics that the right fears the most I think. My father is from Puerto Rico and very light skinned(I think the Irish got in there at some point), my mother is pure anglo from Massachusetts.
I have to make sure people are aware of my last name at least a couple times a year. We have a large migrant(primarily hispanic texans)population that comes to work at the bean factory here every summer. I have to interrupt a number of mexican and hispanic jokes and stories every year at the local bars. There is one bar here that they really don't like to see me. I tend to get in fairly loud arguments with the racists. I love running circles around them logically. It ain't real hard.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by onifre, posted 06-05-2009 3:52 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by onifre, posted 06-05-2009 5:24 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 98 of 148 (511026)
06-05-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Theodoric
06-05-2009 4:46 PM


I am hispanic also.
Well, cool.
But I am one of the stealth hispanics that the right fears the most I think. My father is from Puerto Rico and very light skinned(I think the Irish got in there at some point), my mother is pure anglo from Massachusetts.
Boricua!
Me, too. I'm often confused with Italian. I'm from cuban parents. I was born here in the US, but both of my parents family are from Spain. My dad is almost blonde, my mother however, has beautiful spanish features (straight black hair, dark eyes, pocelain skin) - almost like Cher. My dad, when he got to this country, since he looked American, would only get spoken to in English, which he knew barely any of, except for "yes". I think he agreed to almost everything since that's the only word he knew. But, like you, I'm very under the radar, though.
Here in Miami I don't deal as much with the racism, and usually when I travel I don't either, like I said, I'm confused with Italian. However, every now and then, on stage in certain states in the south, I'll do a joke referencing my hispanic background and I can feel the room change their tone.
The fun thing for me is to catch Mexicans, or other hispanics, talking crap about me in spanish, then watch their face as I address them in spanish...it's priceless.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Theodoric, posted 06-05-2009 4:46 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 148 (511057)
06-05-2009 11:20 PM


Plausibility
The scope of the alleged 9/11 conspiracy would be so massive so as to defy all credibility. See, that's the problem. Conspiracy theorists take disparate pieces of half-truths and anecdotes, jumble them all together, and essentially manufacture their own conclusions.
They seldom seem to really think what it would take to actually accomplish the job.
And then they say really stupid shit like Rosie O'Donnell, who seems to think that it's impossible for fire to melt steel. Yyyyyyeahhhh, cuz' swords have always shaped themselves, blowtorches use water, and the art of smelting is a figment of our overactive imagination.

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by onifre, posted 06-06-2009 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 105 by Rrhain, posted 06-06-2009 7:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 100 of 148 (511128)
06-06-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Hyroglyphx
06-05-2009 11:20 PM


Re: Plausibility
The scope of the alleged 9/11 conspiracy would be so massive so as to defy all credibility. See, that's the problem.
It's about as hard as shooting a president from a moving convertible in broad day light, then disposing of the only person who could testify.
Conspiracy theorists take disparate pieces of half-truths and anecdotes, jumble them all together, and essentially manufacture their own conclusions.
The average citizens just accepts that what he is told in the news by the elected officials is truth, and nothing else can be discussed against what they've said for risk of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist."
All you get from the news is "half-truths, anecdotes, jumbled up stories that are manufactured" - you can't signal out one side of doing something that is a standard operating procedure done by the other side.
We don't have a fair and balanced news source in the US, we have corporate news that is watered down and controled to maintain the agenda. If nothing else, "conspiracy theorist" try to give an independent account of what took place - at least it's free press. If they're wrong, who cares? Everyones wrong once in a while - including the mainstream news.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-05-2009 11:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-06-2009 12:15 PM onifre has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 148 (511135)
06-06-2009 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by onifre
06-06-2009 11:20 AM


Re: Plausibility
It's about as hard as shooting a president from a moving convertible in broad day light, then disposing of the only person who could testify.
Are you being serious? And, yes, serious question on my part.
The average citizens just accepts that what he is told in the news by the elected officials is truth, and nothing else can be discussed against what they've said for risk of being labeled a "conspiracy theorist."
Notwithstanding the lemmings out there who, when you say "jump," they respond, "okay, how high," it is also unfairly presumptuous to insist that everyone is a drone without a mind of their own because the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.
All you get from the news is "half-truths, anecdotes, jumbled up stories that are manufactured"
Sure, but what does the media have to do with it?
If nothing else, "conspiracy theorist" try to give an independent account of what took place - at least it's free press. If they're wrong, who cares? Everyones wrong once in a while - including the mainstream news.
The thing about conspiracy theorists is that they tend to believe in numerous conspiracy theories. If one believes in a 9/11 conspiracy, invariably he also believes in a JFK conspiracy, and an Area-51 conspiracy, and, and, and... We are dealing with very mistrustful people who generally shape their opinions about the military and government not because they have close ties with it, but actually because they have no ties with it!
It is easier to believe in these things when one doesn't really have a clue about how they operate. It is easier to sit in Mom's basement, endlessly playing World of Warcraft and scouring 9/11 Truth websites than it is thinking about what it would actually take to accomplish.
You seem to be leaning towards a 9/11 conspiracy. If we are going to discuss the matter, I first need to know the essentials:
Who?
What?
How?

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by onifre, posted 06-06-2009 11:20 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by onifre, posted 06-06-2009 12:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 102 of 148 (511140)
06-06-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Hyroglyphx
06-06-2009 12:15 PM


Re: Plausibility
Are you being serious? And, yes, serious question on my part.
Yes, I'm quite serious.
Notwithstanding the lemmings out there who, when you say "jump," they respond, "okay, how high," it is also unfairly presumptuous to insist that everyone is a drone without a mind of their own because the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.
The easiest explanation seems to be the easier one to swallow; the veracity has nothing to do with it.
I'm not saying people are "drones", people are simply preoccupied with their day to day lives and don't have time to check everything they hear on the news. The easiest thing to do is to listen to the news and accept that it's true. In fact, most people don't have any personal motives to check these stories for truth.
Sure, but what does the media have to do with it?
Your claim that the conspiracy theories are littered with "half-truths, anecdotes, jumbled up stories that are manufactured" is the same thing that the mainstream media is littered with, so whats the difference? A personal inquiry into the matters is what's usually best, but for the most part people don't have the time or the motivation to do this. Don't trust either side is my point.
The thing about conspiracy theorists is that they tend to believe in numerous conspiracy theories.
The thing about mainstream America is that they tend to believe in numerous stories that come from the mainstream news...
If one believes in a 9/11 conspiracy, invariably he also believes in a JFK conspiracy, and an Area-51 conspiracy, and, and, and...
No, see that's the closed minded point of view. Each individual case can be dealt with without believing anything else about any other story.
How many people believe in God but don't take the bible literally? How many do? How many take parts of it literally and other parts not so literal? The point is you can't pigeon-hole people into one type of mind set because peoples beliefs vary.
I accept that there is a 911 "cover-up", not a conspiracy. I also accept that there is a JFK "cover-up" not a conspiracy. The details of both can go from the lunatic idea to the minor quibble of a few details. But don't presume that anyone who finds issues with certain parts of a story will just believe any dumb thing said by conspiracy theories.
We are dealing with very mistrustful people who generally shape their opinions about the military and government not because they have close ties with it, but actually because they have no ties with it!
Oh please, look at the history of this country's political and military actions, if you trust what they say then you are as blind to their lies as the people you claim to be conspiracy theorist are.
It is easier to believe in these things when one doesn't really have a clue about how they operate.
This goes for both sides. You don't know what the government is doing anymore than I do, or anyone else not involved in any top level politics.
It is easier to sit in Mom's basement, endlessly playing World of Warcraft and scouring 9/11 Truth websites than it is thinking about what it would actually take to accomplish.
You sure paint a pretty picture of some fantasy world in which anyone who has a different perspective is automatically labeled a World of Warcraft playing hermit who lives in their mom's basement. I can assure you that I do not fit that bill. But I'll give you a few more chances to guess my background, however, note that when you are done painting a characterization of me, it will be my turn to paint one of you, and I won't play nice.
You seem to be leaning towards a 9/11 conspiracy.
No I am not. I have an issue with a few things about the currently accepted story, again, not everyone that takes issue with mainstream stories is a "conspiracy theorist".
If we are going to discuss the matter, I first need to know the essentials:
Who?
What?
How?
Take some time to read all of the previeous posts and reply to the one that you take issue with.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-06-2009 12:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-06-2009 1:22 PM onifre has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 148 (511142)
06-06-2009 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by onifre
06-06-2009 12:54 PM


Re: Plausibility
Yes, I'm quite serious.
Very well... Might have to make a new topic for this one.
I'm not saying people are "drones", people are simply preoccupied with their day to day lives and don't have time to check everything they hear on the news. The easiest thing to do is to listen to the news and accept that it's true. In fact, most people don't have any personal motives to check these stories for truth.
But people do have motives to cry conspiracy. No one can hold the conspiracy theorists accountable for omissions of truth, half-truths, or outright lies. There is at least legal recourse with the media.
A personal inquiry into the matters is what's usually best, but for the most part people don't have the time or the motivation to do this. Don't trust either side is my point.
How many people personally were allowed near the site? You have to admit, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, think how many people have to be on a pay roll covering it up. ALL independent sources have stated nothing more than the obvious, which is that planes took down the Towers. People with Fire Science PhD's are all saying the same thing. The ConSpi's are relying on a handful of loonbats touting pseudoscience and spouting empty rhetoric.
How is that any different from, say, creationists?
The thing about mainstream America is that they tend to believe in numerous stories that come from the mainstream news.
Again, what the hell does the media have to do with it? I'm not listening to the opinion of the media, but of the experts in the fields of physical science.
No, see that's the closed minded point of view. Each individual case can be dealt with without believing anything else about any other story.
I just said that it was common, not the exception to some rule. Most of these people are prone to it.
I accept that there is a 911 "cover-up", not a conspiracy. I also accept that there is a JFK "cover-up" not a conspiracy. The details of both can go from the lunatic idea to the minor quibble of a few details. But don't presume that anyone who finds issues with certain parts of a story will just believe any dumb thing said by conspiracy theories.
Very well, then. I'll simply have to hear your personal theory as the starting point.
Oh please, look at the history of this country's political and military actions, if you trust what they say then you are as blind to their lies as the people you claim to be conspiracy theorist are.
Look, you won't find anyone to be a bigger advocate for the rights of the People against the government... And shit, I work for the US gov't! My point was only that the people that tend to distrust the government the most are those that have never been around it at all and have no idea what they're talking about.
This goes for both sides. You don't know what the government is doing anymore than I do, or anyone else not involved in any top level politics.
I know what is in the realm of possibility and what isn't. I also have a realistic sense of the massive collusion it would take to plan and execute such a heinous plan in order to accomplish.... What, exactly?
You sure paint a pretty picture of some fantasy world in which anyone who has a different perspective is automatically labeled a World of Warcraft playing hermit who lives in their mom's basement. I can assure you that I do not fit that bill. But I'll give you a few more chances to guess my background, however, note that when you are done painting a characterization of me, it will be my turn to paint one of you, and I won't play nice.
Try not to get personally offended. You have to remember that the Alex Jones' of the world, you know, the peddler of nonsense, give sensible fellows such as yourself a bad name.
Take some time to read all of the previeous posts and reply to the one that you take issue with.
Will do...

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by onifre, posted 06-06-2009 12:54 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by onifre, posted 06-06-2009 3:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 104 of 148 (511144)
06-06-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Hyroglyphx
06-06-2009 1:22 PM


Re: Plausibility
Very well... Might have to make a new topic for this one.
Cool...
How many people personally were allowed near the site? You have to admit, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, think how many people have to be on a pay roll covering it up. ALL independent sources have stated nothing more than the obvious, which is that planes took down the Towers. People with Fire Science PhD's are all saying the same thing. The ConSpi's are relying on a handful of loonbats touting pseudoscience and spouting empty rhetoric.
How is that any different from, say, creationists?
Oh, I'll admit that conspiracy theorist had a field day with 911, which is also why I usually don't like conspiracy theorist, because they make a mockery out of actual inquiry.
Initially, just to have fun with the guys on this site, I began my position with typical conspiracy theory point of views. You'll find that many here are a bit too serious when debating, have fun exploiting that if you want, I usually do.
But, since then, Dr. A and I have narrowed down our debate to just the tapes, both from NORAD and the FAA, and I've continued to argue for a cover-up with that specific issue.
I also feel that the Bush admin knew about an attack on the US was coming and ignored all of the warnings, for what reason? I don't know. But finding out will be harder than just accepting that it was for some unknown reason, beyond simply saying "they screwed up".
I'm doubtful of the timelines, which are correct? The ones that NORAD stuck to for 3 years, or the ones the 911 Commission said was the right one after reviewing all of the tapes? If it's the 911 Commissions timelines then why did NORAD not adjust their original timelines, having access to the same tapes the 911 Commission did?
I don't think Bush had something to do with the attacks. I don't think the towers were controlled demo (however, I will say this, there is no full description as to how or why the towers fell the way they did. The report by NIST is crap). I don't think there is a single mastermind behind 911 some where in our government.
I do feel that the folks responsible for 911 goes beyond Osama Bin Laden. I feel that more should have been done to find out who financed this attack. I feel nothing was done because the governments who supported OBL and possibily financed the attacks have ties with the Bush family and to our government. No need to show these connections to the American public, I think, was their attitude.
The fact is there are no "experts in the field" giving any answers to any of this. The experts dealt with the towers and their collapes (and have not done, to this day, IMO, a good job), not all this other mess. This other mess was taken care off behind the publics eye and then things like the "911 Commissions Report" come out and that's the final verdict. And we must accept it even when it is different from the original reports and when they've omitted information that had relevence to the attacks...such as who financed it.
This is just a quick version of where I stand. My original posts were more for fun than anything else. I didn't think anyone would even want to argue any of this, but once I found myself in an actual debate I felt the need to clarify my position and brush off the conspiracy label with a more sensible position.
If you'd like to discuss these particulars then cool, but if you want to debate whether Bush orchestrated the attacks, or that the tower were controlled demos ( again, I don't think it was a controlled demo, but I still don't know how they fell that way), or some other typical conspiracy theory, then I won't be game for that. I would have originally, because of boredom, but once it because a legitimate debate then I'd have to drop the conspiracy crap and get serious with the facts.
The shitty thing about conspiracy theories, like I said, is that they get made a mockery of. There are a lot of people investigating these issues, but not in a conspiratorial way. Many are just curious and don't believe what has been given to us to believe. Many are simply conducting honest inquiry into the matter, many are just exploiting certain anomilies with no real points to make. But, I think that more needed to be done in the investigating of this tragedy and sadly, the 911 Commissions Report, the NIST's report, the Popular Mechanics reports, FEMA's report, etc, fail miseribly in their attempt to explain. In fact, FEMA's and the NIST's account on the failures of the columns are different. So, even they can't get the stroy right. But we'll deal with all this if you care to debate it.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-06-2009 1:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 06-06-2009 11:06 PM onifre has replied
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-07-2009 7:34 AM onifre has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 105 of 148 (511148)
06-06-2009 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Hyroglyphx
06-05-2009 11:20 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:
quote:
And then they say really stupid shit like Rosie O'Donnell, who seems to think that it's impossible for fire to melt steel.
Well, the sad thing is that the stupid comment shows a complete lack of understanding about how metals react under heat. Specifically, you don't need to melt the metal in order to make it incapable of supporting the weight that it's bearing. It's how blacksmithing works: The heat softens the metal and makes it pliable. When you cast items, you do liquefy the metal in order to work with it, but wrought materials aren't done with molten metals but with softened metal.
All that needed to be done was to have enough heat to soften the supporting struts such that they warped out of shape due to the load they were bearing. This would transfer the load onto areas that were not designed to carry that much weight and the system would collapse.
You can prove this for yourself: Take a paperclip and repeatedly bend it back and forth. Eventually, it will snap at the point where you're bending it. If you feel the ends where it snapped, you'll find they are at least warm if not hot. The mechanical action of bending the clip heats it up. It never got hot enough to melt: The melting point of steel is about 1350C. However, it did get hot enough to destabilize the crystalline structure of the atoms and cause it to fail.
[Note: There is more going on than just the heat: Bending of the metal will break the crystalline structure in and of itself, but the heat generated from the bending will make it happen more quickly.]
The conspiracy nuts want to make it a case of either/or: As if the only way a beam can collapse is if it melted. Thus, since it didn't melt, it must have been deliberately sabatoged. It doesn't occur to them that neither answer is correct.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-05-2009 11:20 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024