The New Pearl Harbor
Being a bit of a masochist, I read David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor yesteday afternoon. It appears to be the Koran of the 9/11 "truth" movement, most of their myths originate back to it. As I have mentioned before, yes there are valid questions that people can ask regarding what happened on 9/11. In any major event like this there will always be unanswered questions. But what makes their theories illegitimate is the fact that they have to lie and mislead in order to support their theories regarding these questions. Always. You cannot find a conspiracy theorist who does not rely on this. Here is the perfect example of how they manipulate and lie, from a chapter on the Pentagon, page 37:
Meyssan combines this approach with a second, which is to point out that there were also several reports of eyewitnesses who said that the aircraft looked and/or sounded like a missile or a military plane.This chapter is pretty much ripped off from Thierry Meyssan, the Frenchman who started the Pentagon "no plane" theories in a book he wrote. Interestingly enough, Griffin repeats Meyssan, who started the myth that the Pentagon is defended by anti-aircraft missile batteries. If you do a google search, you can find millions of references to missiles at the Pentagon, based on nothing more than Meyssan's insistence that the Pentagon must be defended by missiles.
Anyway, so from this sentence, we can assume that the author will give us "several" (meaning more than two) reports that the aircraft looked like a missile or military plane, or alternatively that it sounded like one of those, which would make perfect sense, I would imagine a plane flying that closely would sound just like a missile.
Recall the testimony of, for example, Dulles air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who said that all the experienced air traffic controllers in the room thought that it was a military plane and the witness who said that seemed to be able to hold eight or twelve persons" and "made a shrill noise like a fighter plane" (see page 26).OK, here we have the account, which we have already covered, of the air traffic controllers, thinking that it was a military plane. This was not, however, because it looked like a military plane, air traffic controllers after all do not have little videos of the planes they are monitoring, but because it flew in a manner which they thought was unsafe for a commercial aircraft. Which makes sense, suicidal hijackers not being really big on FAA safety regulations and all.
The second part, about the one person who thought it was a small commercial plane is legit. But given the fact that he saw it at a distance, why would it be unexpected that he might misjudge the size of the plane? Even so, he neither identified it as a missile, or a military plane, the argument that Griffin was making.
Thus far total number of people who have seen a military plane/missile, zero.
Meyssan, in addition to quoting the statements of these eyewitnesses and others, points out that an AGM type missile "does look like a small civilian airplane" and "produces a whistling noise similar to that of a fighter aircraft." On this basis, he counts those who reported seeing a military plane as witnesses on behalf of the missile theory.Well that is convenient. Hey, they don't see what we want them to see, so we will just assume they did and call it a day. Other than the the obvious fact that they both fly, an "AGM type missile" looks nothing like a "small civilian plane":
Note: I have not labeled these pictures, you will have to guess which is which.
And how can he count "those who reported seeing a military plane as witnesses on behalf of the missile theory"? Thus far you have failed to point out even a single person who saw a military plane, much less several!
So skipping on down the page, what conclusions does he draw from this (emphasis mine)?
But if what hit the Pentagon had been a Boeing 757, it would be very surprising to have reports of people-especially people with trained eyes and ears--claiming to have seen a missile or small military plane. These reports of having seen a missile or a small military plane must, accordingly, be given more weight. Properly interpreted, then, the eyewitness testimony does not contradict, but instead supports, the missile theory.
This is an amazing quote, "These reports of having seen a missile or small military plane". But how many reports of this does he cite? Absolutely zero. He had some airtraffic controllers who thought it was flown like a military plane, he had a witness, who thought it was a small commuter plane, some people (not suprisingly) supposedly thought it sounded like a missile, but exactly zero people were identified as seeing a missile or military plane, yet somehow he cites these completely non-existent "reports" as evidence.
Incredible.
posted by James B. @ 10:07 AM
50 comments
50 Comments:
Another dishonest and disingenuous post. Congrats on your consistency.
Please point out what was dishonest.
I mean, bg, did your friend Jeffry shoot that missle or something? I know you think he blew up # 7, but did Jeff do this too?
Which makes sense, suicidal hijackers not being really big on FAA safety regulations and all.
That was not their complete observation, only half of it. The other half was that the maneuvers that were being preformed must have been by a military pilot. The above "supposition" is ineffectual in the context of the observation by the air traffic controllers.
This also shines a light on this whole piece in that, it’s all supposition on the motives of the truth seekers. I bet if you asked anyone of them if they are sure what hit the Pentagon or the WTC towers, none would give you a definitive answer because none exists. All the suppositions in the world can’t change the facts really being presented by the truth seekers.
Another dishonest and disingenuous post. Congrats on your consistency.
Agreed. These guys would be perfect in the "Ministry of truth."
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
My emphasis on the REAL point. The latter is simply a conclusion to the above point.
I thought it was a Global Hawk, nesync. These probably dont have much of a radar reflection, if any...and they certainly wouldnt maneuver like a fighter plane with those wings..
270 degree turns cannot be successfully conducted by first time commercial airline pilots.
270 degree turns cannot be successfully conducted by first time commercial airline pilots.
So your a pilot and know better than any of us? CT'ers make it out like its the most difficult thing in the world to do when in reality its not.
As for the molten aluminum. The truthers talk about actual molten metal at the towers and we point out that it could have been aluminum. Then the photo of the red hot beam comes up and you assume that we said it was molten aluminum. It's pretty damn obvious that being suspended in the air its not molten at all. It is most likely red hot steel caused by the fires after the fall of the towers. We then bring up how much thermate it would take to cause something like that to stay hot and the CTers ignore it. So I ask how in the hell is this a SLC problem? We have already been over this so why bring it up again? You obviously missed it before.
the real point is that he wasnt flying a 757 the way air traffic controllers expect peopel to be flying 757s
So why did they think "military?" What was the point of that, to conclude it wasn't safe to fly commercial airplanes like that? Doubtful.
270 degree turns cannot be successfully conducted by first time commercial airline pilots.
What a silly thing to say. It's just a turn. It's not like they're doing Rockfords up there; just turn the plane left (or right), keep in the turn for a bit and if you started out going north stop the turn when you're going west (or east). Ba da bing, ba da bang.
Wait, you mean an FBI informant whose job it is to get to know College-age middle-eastern men actually KNEW college-age middle-eastern men? Wow. That's mind blowing stuff. And here I thought all those FBI informant funds were really just paying for donuts and coffee.
Ms O'Brien was also employing something of a simile. Just because it maneuvered LIKE a military plane, doesnt mean it was one.
But my point is, I'm not saying it was a fighter aircraft, missile or some other purely military craft. I'm saying the hijackers couldn't have flown it that way!!!! There must have been a military pilot guiding that plane via remote control, that's all.
Now, have you ever even flown a flight simulator? Do you understand what kind of expertise you need just to bank a turn? Honjur could never have made that 270 degree turn without stalling the plane or getting it hopelessly in free fall. Driving a plane is not like driving a car and piloting a single engine Cessna is not like piloting Boeing Jumbo Jet.
Actually I have been in flight simulators and I have talked with a commercial air pilot and he says its not only possible but that its obvious in the way he was flying. Its just like me pulling off scandanavian flicks or making 90 degree handbrake turns in my Saab. By your logic it would appear that a stunt driver is behind the wheel when in reality its just a stupid guy who loves his car! And what is up with this 270 degree stall out myth? Talk to some pilots, jeez...
Honjur could never have made that 270 degree turn without stalling the plane or getting it hopelessly in free fall.
Huh? What difference does it make. OK, so he didn't make a 270 degree turn, he made three consecutive 90 degree turns. Are you happy now?
And how exactly do you stall an airplane at 500 MPH while descending?
1) Screw Loose Change said the extremely hot metal found weeks later could be aluminum although it's a solid suspended in air and based on the color we know aluminum would be a liquid at that temperature
Molten steel isn't red/orange/etc, it's white. Why do CTers show videos and call it steel?
Agreed. These guys would be perfect in the "Ministry of truth."
More irony has spewed from your keyboard in the past few months than from the entirety of the human populace in six thousand yeaes. You're the one that uses Newspeak at every turn.
My emphasis on the REAL point. The latter is simply a conclusion to the above point.
What a maroon. Only the part taken out of context to support his inane ideas is the "real" point.
There must have been a military pilot guiding that plane via remote control, that's all.
"They flew the plane erratically so it MUST'VE been a remote controlled plane (remember that I have no evidence besides erratic flight)."
Only a real Saudi/ISI connection could be used to blackmail Saudi Arabia and Pakistan into supporting the war on terror.
It makes more sense for them to join with us because we're the most powerful country in the world. Saudi Arabia wants our money. Pakistan wants to make sure India doesn't have lop-sided American support. Personally, I'd rather have neither on our side (from a moral standpoint), but from a realistic standpoint Pakistan is quite important, but Saudi Arabia much less so.
Fair enough. Both sides should avoid plausibility arguments.
That's not exactly true. Technically speaking, the most plausible of 'theories' is the one with the most evidence. As we've given mountains of evidence, and they've come up with virtually nothing.
Boggle, weren't you the one who mocked me for stating the historical fact that people working on the Manhattan Project gave information over to the Soviets, allowing the Soviets to build a bomb in a short period of time?
Er I never made a connection between 9/11 and the USSR, I was pointing out an historical mistake Fetzer (I believe) made.
And that is why I didn't understand why you were mocking me, it had nothing to do with what I said.
To quote him: "nobody leaked that." That statement is an utter falsehood, it was leaked to SOMEONE. He was trying to argue that the project (whether Manhattan or 9/11) stayed within the hallowed halls of the 'conspiracy'.
So you proved Fetzer wrong based on a technicality. Isn't it more important to figure out what's possible out there?
Well the fact that his analogy isn't apt (the government worked a LOT differently in the 40s than it does now, no internet, no Freedom of Information Act, far less scrunity on the government, wasn't a massive hoax), he was wrong and wrong to use it an attempt to buttress his point.
Insofar as you have shown Fetzer to be wrong, it is not relevant to 9/11.
Nor was his point relevant. I was just pointing out his factual error.
Or maybe he was trying to argue that the project (whether Manhattan or 9/11) wouldn't leak to the public.
So it didn't leak? What's the point? The government told us about it. The analogy still doesn't stand, and I question why you'd defend it. He used events we know about to defend his point about a cover-up. And so far it's his only evidence for a cover-up. It's a ludicrous point to make.
So here we've arrived at the point where we can either agree he meant "public leaks"
Then we disagree. And even if we were to agree his analogy isn't apt. It isn't apt for two reasons: when the action that was being hidden was carried out, nobody pretended it was the enemy. Second, the covert action was in attempt to keep the project secret from foreign agencies (although that failed).
If my only evidence for 9/11 being committed by Muslims was most terrorist actions in the past thirty years were committed by Muslims, would you defend my point?
Well if we assume he's really talking about public leaks, then of course it's apt. Unless you can show they got lucky.
Do you understand why it isn't apt? It wasn't made public because if it were made public, foreign governments would know of it. If there were a 9/11 cover-up it would be SPECIFICALLY so the American people would be ignorant of it, not just so foreign governments would not know of it.
As though this did not entail keeping it secret from the public in the historical Manhattan project?
And this is why you don't understand why it isn't an apt analogy (see my first comment in this post).
It would help if you could show that most large powers that go to war with smaller powers do not falsely claim the smaller power attacked them first.
Bay of Pigs. Bosnia. Serbia.
Or that the CIA didn't assassinate Kennedy.
Unless Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA agent (there's no evidence he was), it's quite obvious that he killed Kennedy. All the physical evidence points to him being the sole shooter, so if you can show me his CIA credentials, we might have something.
Or that MI6 agent Haroon Aswat didn't do the London Bombing.
And there have never been double agents in all of human history. I was questioning your actual belief in finding the truth till these last two. You're obviously one of them (CTs).
It would help if you could show that most large powers that go to war with smaller powers do not falsely claim the smaller power attacked them first.
You also misunderstood my point. I was saying that I shouldn't be able to use Muslim militancy to prove that 9/11 was committed by Muslims.
As for Serbia and Bosnia, congratulations, I see no false flaggers here. False pretexts are suggested by Noam Chomsky nonetheless.
Oh, now you are going to start arguing that Srebrenica never happened?
BTW there have been 72 comments on this post. Is anyone going to explain to me what dishonesty BG is complaining about? I am really curious.
No
I've given a fine explanation. It's your problem if you don't see why it isn't apt.
Agreed that it wasn't made public. Which is why it's so apt.
D-Day wasn't made public either. How about we throw that in there? (By the way, that analogy wouldn't work either.)
The whole purpose of the pretext for war is to formally declare war.
America has had five formally declared wars. The last one was WWII.
You don't even vaguely hint at how.
I actually explained it quite well. But you people continue to willfully blind yourself to anything that might hinder your beliefs. Motive is quite important in cover-ups, yet you fail to understand that.
False pretexts are suggested by Noam Chomsky nonetheless.
Wow, the great Noam Chomsky. The man who said the Cambodian genocide was anti-revolutionary propaganda but had to problem saying millions would die in the invasion of Afghanistan.
David Ferrie was CIA. Barry Seal was CIA. The office on Lafayette street where the Fair Play for Cuba committee was based out of was ONI.
George de Mohrenschildt had CIA connections through his brother. Ruth Hyde Paine's parents were Bell Helicopter, a defense contractor that "made a killing" off Viet Nam.
Excellent herrings. I believe I said Lee Harvey Oswald.
Take a look at this link. Don't ridicule the site address. Just watch the video. It's Fox news.
I like your moronic insinuation. I don't watch Fox News.
And I quote the site you think:
The Dud Bombers of 21/7, the patsies, have all been rounded up along with 18 others currently under questioning, yet the so called "mastermind" is allowed to go free and is protected time and time again by MI5, MI6, FBI and CIA. The same thing happened in 93 with the WTC bombing, 95 with the OKC bombing, 01 with 911 and its happening again, its the same type of operation EVERYTIME.
Except we have the guys who did 93, the guy who did Oklahoma City had a needle put in his arm, and we know who committed 9/11.
I never denied he was M16, he obviously was. The question is if he did it under his capacity as a government agent, which is unlikely.
Re the Kosovo War and whatever it was the US did in Bosnia, I was against all that, too.
You are against it, and you don't even know what it was?
But I don't want Americans sent to fight and die to stop it (so that our own equally bloody-minded leaders can rule the world with their "values").
And what "values" would those be? Freedom and democracy? How is that any worse than what some of those third world nations have to put up with? Seriously if you were living in poverty you wouldn't want help? So the US should just close its borders and stop sending aid out to the world? That's pretty selfish.
Look at Somalia, look what happened when the american people wanted us out. The whole country fell back into poverty. Do you think we were there for economic interests or maybe because America does a good thing every once in a while?
Remember that movie, Black Hawk Down, that got a lot of assistance from the military and it turned out to be anything but a recruiting film? Talk about throwing American soldiers into a meat grinder, the movie had one soldier's body torn in half and not dead yet.
We seeing as how for realism sake they consulted the military. How is that bad? Also for legal purposes you can only have military pilots fly military aircraft. The only exception for that is the Huey. The director also wanted it to be as realistic as possible. Try looking at the actual conflict instead of the movie. Somalia is the perfect example of how the American publics infuence on foreign policy screwed over people in need. When the American people wanted us out we left, after that Somalia fell apart even more. All we wanted to do was help. I'm really tired of people playing the hate game on America for providing foreign aid. AS for American Soldiers, its our choice if we want to go into the "meat grinder." Stop saying things like that, you assume we don't know the horrors of war. What's that say about us if we know all of that and CHOOSE to still help. I understand that your feelings come from caring about soldiers but don't play that card because its our choice not yours.
I also want to clarify the point. I'm arguing for foreign policies that may require military aid. I agree that the horrors of war are terrible but that doesn't make the cause of the conflict unjust. I'm also refering to all conflicts. The war in Iraq is a unique situation by many definitions but how we got there shouldn't change the fact that we are honestly trying to help. Soldiers may die and that is terrible but I would't call their deaths senseless. That only takes away from what they were trying to do. As mentioned in Black Hawk Down:
"Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that shit just goes right out the window"
And please feel free to show me his prediction in Afghanistan turned out wrong, I'd be very interested.
No, you see, you have to show me millions of people dying. He predicted massive starvation. IN FACT, thanks to American intervention far less people are dying each year of starvation in the country. For all your big talk you don't understand where burden of proof is. I can't prove a negative ("no genocide"), you have to prove the affirmative.
Remember that movie, Black Hawk Down, that got a lot of assistance from the military and it turned out to be anything but a recruiting film? Talk about throwing American soldiers into a meat grinder, the movie had one soldier's body torn in half and not dead yet.
That guy actually survived being torn in two. And pretty much any movie with military action in it has military consultants. Hell, Saving Private Ryan had Irish soldiers on the Normandy beach scene. Oh jeez, where's the conspiracy there?
Where does John Anticev figure into 93? Ramzi Yousef into OKC?
Uh it seems someone else has the reading impairment. I was referring to each of those as separate incidents (note the commas).
I thought you said I could prove Oswald was CIA for example? Now I have to prove he was "acting in a CIA capacity at the time"?
Err you never proved he was CIA to begin with, let alone acting in CIA capacity. And if you think it would be surprising for him to at least come in contact with CIA agents at some point in his life you need a reality check (he lived in the Soviet Union and was an avowed Communist, something the government frowned upon).
And actually, you do have to prove he was acting as M16. It was obvious that he was also an al-Qaeda operative, and not under the supervision of M16 in this capacity.
You can't prove a negative? Sucks for you. I can prove negatives.
Really? Because you would be the first person in history to be able to do that. If I make a claim that there are magical, invisible, undetectable fairies dancing around your head prove me wrong.
You can't prove a negative? Sucks for you. I can prove negatives.
Well, that's not how logic works, but it's not suprising such a statement originates from someone like you. So now we have to disprove God while the believers dance around saying "You can't disprove Him, He's real!"
If you can "prove" where burdens lie in discussion and debate, I'd be very interested.
Since you're as slippery as a snake (but not half as knowledgable), I'll tell you. Burden lies with the one making the claim. You folks claim it was a CD, you folks claim there was government complicity, YOU have to prove it. We've given evidence for the "official" story. We've pointed out where alternate theories fall flat.
And Oswald didn't apparently kill Kennedy but was set up.
And you have to prove who did. Oswald was sighted in the building, the gun was his, the shots trace back to the "sniper's nest". Unless you're give the circular logical argument that it was all planted.
If I make a claim that there are magical, invisible, undetectable fairies dancing around your head prove me wrong.
It's gonna be great when one of these folks understand how logic and reason works.
Going to play more retarded word games or actually respond to points?
Your implicit claim was that Chomsky was wrong to say 1,000,000 could die of starvation in Afghanistan by cutting off food supplies from Pakistan (serving 5 million) during the worst winter in Afghanistan in decades.
Three to four million people haven't died (as was his estimate). Ergo his claim is false. Hell, common sense dictates it was ridiculous before we even went in. In fact, UNICEF estimates that 180,000 lives (per year) will be saved from starvation because of American occupation. How you could even defend such an utterly ludicrous statement is beyond me.
Again, YOU (or he) has to prove that three to four million died from starvation in the aftermath of the invasion. But I guess the whole "silent genocide" phrase deflects him from an criticism, as if we heard of it, it wouldn't be silent.
My mistake if I assumed that this meant you could show the prediction turned out false.
I don't have to, he made the claim. The only thing I can prove is that UNICEF stated that 180,000 less people would starve each year because of American intervention (recall that we dropped more food than bombs).
Mass starvation averted in Afghanistan
All claims I see for mass starvation predate January 2001. Indeed, the UN warned of starvation as early as June 2001, well before America would come into the picture (and when Noam rattled his knees about a silent genocide by America).
Since you're seam to be so anti-god, it would be fun to hear you disprove his existant.
You can't, that's the point dude. You can't prove a negative. If you ever see the words "prove" and "doesn't" there is a good chance it a pointless task. But what CTers assume is that just because you can't prove a negative that the positive MUST be true. I can't prove god doesn't exist but that doesn't mean that he does exist either. You guys need to brush up on your critical thinking. I see lots of errors in judgment on the CT side. Some on the OS side but not nearly as bad. Example:
Burden of Proof
If you think it was an inside job you NEED TO GIVE US THE EVIDENCE. Don't say "It was an inside job, prove us wrong!!!!" You have to prove to us it was. And by proof I mean good evidence. In order for you to make a valid point you need to give evidence that refutes our evidence. You guys may give the occasional link which holds no relevant info but I have yet to see a proper detailed analysis of how all of our evidence is wrong. Don't say FEMA is crap, prove it and this is the important part PEER REVIEW IT.
Data Mining
This one is equally as big. Don't collect all the facts and opinions after the fact and poke holes in the OS argument. I see this all the time. Why argue about 93 being shot down if you believe that it landed somewhere else? Why argue about UAV's or military fuelers hitting the towers if your arguing about brainwashed hijackers? What you are doing is data mining. Your rounding up all the evidence and trying find the occasional hole (which there will be) and using that to point to a conspiracy which would require evidence outside of what your talking about. What might be considered relevant in one field doesn't mean that it can hold weight in another. Basically get your story straight and then find the evidence to prove it. You can't have a constantly rotating theory that changes whenever its disproven. If you do then how am I supposted to buy anything your saying if your willing to drop it at the first sign of trouble. If you argue a point until your blue in the face and its disprove, and then drop the point like it was nothing, how can I believe anything you say?
Ad hominem
I don't give to shits if Bush rapes kittens and worships Satan. That doesn't by default prove a massive conspiracy or effect our foreign policy or any policy. Unless there is some kitten raping bill I missed :) You need evidence not personal attacts
George de Mohrenschildt
Oswald's friend who said the Lee he knew couldn't have assassinated the president. Funny, you always hear the neighbors say of the serial killer that he was always nice and they couldn't imagine he was such a monster.
David Ferrie
Knew Oswald when the younger man was fifteen. Also associated with a CIA-back anti-Castro group. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, there's no evidence they had contact for eight years.
Allen Dulles
CIA head, started MKULTRA. No known contact with Oswald.
Prescott Bush
Now you're plain ol' grasping for straws.
Ruth Hyde Paine
Friend of Oswald's wife. Oswald stored his rifle in her garage. Conspiracy theorists seem obsessed with her.
Boggle, you seem to think I'm arguing from ignorance. I assure you, I am not. I used to believe in the JFK conspiracy theories (even those that defy the evidence like a second gunman). I took the film JFK as gospel.
Since you're seam to be so anti-god, it would be fun to hear you disprove his existant.
Are you people really this thick? I'm not anti-god, I'm pro-logic. There could certainly be a god, but there is no evidence for Him, ergo no reason to believe in it.
Also, you have to prove He exists, I don't have to disprove it. At every turn every last one of you shows your failure at understanding the vary basis of critical thinking.
To think that the fact that the US ordered people to stop delivering food to 5 million people while the US bombed the area.....
....would logically mean that would happen.
Actually, that's not why the famine would happen (as I stated before a famine was feared as early as June, before the US had any recent interaction in the area). The human rights organizations (laughable as they may be), at least the ones I've read, based it on the famine information (poor harvest and all) and not on American intervention.
Well, most of Jacks and Boggles arguments are too silly to deserve much of a response. However, Jack did take the time to explain what he thought was dishonest, and I'll take the time to address that (since nobody else seems to have taken the bait).
By linking the Koran to this book you leave the impression in the reader's mind that the people who like this book are some how linked to islamic terrorists.
You'd have to have a pretty twisted perception of reality in order to see his statement that way. The only intent of the original statement was to indicate that "The New Pearl harbour" has become something of a holy book for many in the CT movement.
You're down playing the holes in the OS here.
Yes, because the majority of what you consider "holes" are in fact nothing of the sort. Most statements made by CTers have been shown to be lies, fabrication, and misrepresentations. The few "holes" which have not yet been explained are mostly irrelevant.
Classic! Create the impression that the theories are based on lies and the reconfirm it by saying always, so that it leave the seed that all the theories are based on lies. That is dishonest because not all the theories are based on lies. Some are, but not all.
Well, when every theory we've looked at so far has involved lies of some sort or another, it's rather difficult NOT to make such a generalization. I'll admit that there's some slight possibility that a CT out there does not involve any lies or fabrications. On the other hand, there's also a slight possibility that humanity may have evolved on mars.
Same tractic you always like to use. Find one thing you can hop on and attack it. That's dishonest because of the way you presented it.
So pointing out a lie is dishonest? Maybe if there were ONLY one lie dealt with in this entire blog, and that same lie was brought up to counter every other argument, then THAT could be considered dishonest. However, all you need to do is scroll through the history of the blog and you'll find literaly hundreds of examples of lies and distortions by CTers. So how is pointing out yet another lie "dishonest"?
But what proof do you require anyways? Do you expect him to show himself when you have your eyes closed? Do you expect yourself to hear him when you have your ears closed? The problem about proving God is the willingness of the person seeking the proof to know the truth when they come across it.
I was a believing Catholic for most of my life. How does that factor in to closing my ears?
The irony here is that eventually Shawn proved exactly what he said was a negative.
Actually, you're incorrect. I proved the positive that American intervention saved lives.
Much is the same way with 9/11. Fancy stories and pretty pictures make it's clearer to one mind's eye, and at the same the mind will mask the holes and failures of the story to protect itself.
The irony is the alternate theories are based on faith, not the official story.
And boggle, I'm sorry but I won't do a point by point dissection of your post. You say certain people are related when they are not. Nor do you explain how this proves a conspiracy (insinuation isn't evidence).
The official story is also based on faith - faith that the government had nothing to do with it. If that fails, then the whole OS fails.
And if gravity fails, we'll all go flying off into space. Fortiunately, there's lots of evidence which suggests that gravity will continue to function the way it does, and pretty much zero evidence that it has any intention of going on a coffee break.
The Catholic Church is the biggest cult on the planet. Compare a cult like JW to the Catholic Church and you'll see what I mean.
If you're a Christian, you're a cultist then. All Christians stem from the Catholic Church, it was the first.
The real difference between a religion and a cult is a popularity contest - and Catholicism beats all other religions in that.
The official story is also based on faith - faith that the government had nothing to do with it.
And this is why I insult you morons. It isn't based on faith. It's based on evidence. There are people that loathe government and understand they had nothing to do with it.
Tell Gerald Posner his book didn't help you much.
He wrote the best book on the subject (although I haven't read it in ages).
Posner's book says there was zero conspiracy, what are you getting at?
That Posner is thoroughly dishonest in his "investigation".
Of course he is, as he doesn't come to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy. You idiots make me laugh.
Yeah he also denied that mickey mouse knew luke skywalker, but I've got a photograph of them together, so he must be a liar.
You really ARE retarded, aren't you bobblehead? For a while there I thought it was just an act.
It is pretty simple really.......Hanjour was very skillfull pilot he managed to see the Pentagon on approach and thought to himself where can I do the most damage.....are if I hit this building head on it will cause enormous damage...wait a minute what if I survive....I know I will do a 270 degree turn and hit the part that is under construction......I will need evidence of this I had better notify the FBI and have them confiscate all the videos of my crash so they can see what I have done is truly honourable.......now how do I get this damn thing to slip into a really configned space and do less damage (in case I survive).....I know I will computer animate myself into a 16 foot hole and they will see how truly honourable I am (in case I survive)
Good on you Pete Swann.
Post a Comment
<< Home