Monday, July 03, 2006

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.

123 Comments:

At 03 July, 2006 11:12, Blogger BG said...

Another dishonest and disingenuous post. Congrats on your consistency.

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:15, Blogger James B. said...

Please point out what was dishonest.

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:16, Blogger MarkyX said...

Don't bother James. All they can do is accuse without really citing anything.

I have yet to be told what is wrong with the statements I have made in Screw Loose Change or why Stephen Haper (Canada's PM) would fake the terrorist attack.

I guess it's easier to say random shit and not back it up.

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:33, Blogger BoggleHead said...

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

2) The RCMP has trumped up terrorist cells before. It didn't have to be Harper.

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:37, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Let me say, however, that the Pentagon evidence is flimsy and this post shows how DRG missed the boat.

That's all well and good and I really thought the Pentagon computer model was top notch.

However, a computer model can't explain why two of the Flight 77 hijackers lived with an FBI informant specializing in college aged Saudi terrorists.

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:40, Blogger MarkyX said...

boggle, thank you for ignoring my comment when you mentioned the FBI again.

I will repeat: He did not have prior knowledge that they were going to pull of 9/11.

You think people would just tell their roommate that they are going to commit a terrorist attack?

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:47, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

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?

 
At 03 July, 2006 11:58, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"boggle, thank you for ignoring my comment when you mentioned the FBI again.

I will repeat: He did not have prior knowledge that they were going to pull of 9/11."

1) You yourself seem unaware of my comments on the forum about the aluminum claim in SLC

2) I never said this FBI informant had prior knowledge about 9/11. That's not the only possibility that would make this relevant.

3) You seem to be saying that there's a dearth of evidence he had prior foreknowledge of 9/11, not that you've proven the claim that he didn't.

4) But are you aware he lied to the FBI about how and how early he met the hijackers?

5) Or that he eventually admitted that he met them through Omar al Bayoumi, his "friend" who worked out for the Saudi consulate?

6) Or that Omar al Bayoumi was deported based on suspicions of involvement in 9/11? Or that Omar al Bayoumi caims to have "accidentally" met the two hijackers? And then gotten them bank accounts and social security numbers and places to live, including but (at least if I recall correctly) not limited to with an FBI informant in counter-terrorism specializing in college aged Saudis?

7) Isn't that a form of evidence that maybe he did have foreknowledge? Even if he did not have foreknowledge, in what sense have you explained the circumstances of his having lived with these guys? Which was my original point, after all.

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:26, Blogger apathoid said...

Another dishonest and disingenuous post

You guys have absolutely no sense of irony......

Thats all I've seen out of you (a self proclaimed "skeptic") is the ability to reproduce nonsense you get at CT sites and refusal to answer any tough questions yo're faced with...

..and do point out what was dishonest about James' post.

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:31, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:32, Blogger nesNYC said...

Another dishonest and disingenuous post. Congrats on your consistency.

Agreed. These guys would be perfect in the "Ministry of truth."

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:35, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Everybody just sort of skipped over my point.

Why's that?

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:38, Blogger James B. said...

"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."

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:38, Blogger apathoid said...

Boogle, when did you turn into a LIHOP'er? Are you saying now that there were hijackers?? and that the FBI should've foiled the plot becase an informant was a roomie with a guy who knew the alleged hijackers??
Ever hear of the six degrees?? Six degrees of separation can get you close to anyone in the world.
Four degrees (Hijackers -> Informants Roomate -> Informant -> FBI agent) is nothing to write home about.

I can link myself to Peyton Manning in 3 degrees and his wide reciever Reggie Wayne in 2 degrees, does that make me part of the Colts organization, privy to their everyday operation?

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:48, Blogger apathoid said...

The other half was that the maneuvers that were being preformed must have been by a military pilot

Talk about dishonest and disingenuous......sheesh

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..

My 5th or so straight reply to you in which I'll ask you to explain.

Specifically how this(ATCs quote mining) helps your theory of a Global Hawk...

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:50, Blogger nesNYC said...

"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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 13:54, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:05, Blogger apathoid said...

270 degree turns cannot be successfully conducted by first time commercial airline pilots.
Why not?

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:06, Blogger apathoid said...

BTW - You do know that Hani Hanjour had 600 hours and a commercial certificate, dont you?

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:11, Blogger Richard said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:11, Blogger default.xbe said...

My emphasis on the REAL point. The latter is simply a conclusion to the above point.

the real point is that he wasnt flying a 757 the way air traffic controllers expect peopel to be flying 757s

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:16, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:18, Blogger apathoid said...

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

Nessie, Nessie. I'll break it down for you my little friend.

The speed - There is a 250 knot speed limit below 10,000 feet. The only aircraft that can break this are military aircraft and aircraft that have declared an emergency. AA77 was doing twice the speed limit essentially

the maneuverability - 757s can be successfully barrel rolled. However, airline pilots dont get in the habit of this because its uncomfortable for the pax and its unsafe. Commercial airliners typically turn at 1.5 degrees per second with no more than a 25 degree bank angle....though they CAN do alot more than 1.5/25

the way that he turned - Airliners dont perform 270 degree turns at 600 MPH, though they they are perfectly capable of it....

all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane
The fact that airliners never do what AA77 did, doesnt mean they cant. Military aircraft dont play by the same rules, so they get to have when when they fly...

Ms O'Brien was also employing something of a simile. Just because it maneuvered LIKE a military plane, doesnt mean it was one.

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:20, Blogger apathoid said...

What was the point of that, to conclude it wasn't safe to fly commercial airplanes like that? Doubtful.

I'll let Ms. O'Brien answer that

"You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe"

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:25, Blogger default.xbe said...

"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"

so in a room where all they see is a dot moving the THINK its a military plane

if he wanted to conclude that it WAS a military plane, wouldnt he have said "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, theres no way that was a commercial plane"

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:28, Blogger undense said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:29, Blogger undense said...

My emphasis on the REAL point. The latter is simply a conclusion to the above point.

The latter explains why they came to their conclusion. They make no mention whatsoever about a "military pilot." Just about anyone who reads that statement in context and understands a modicum of English can figure that out. So what's your major malfunction, besides discarding anything that directly opposes your already made up mind on the issue and exposes your penchant for quote mining and dishonesty?

'Just asking questions and searching for TRUTH.' What a joke you CTs are.

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:44, Blogger Manny said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 14:51, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Boogle, when did you turn into a LIHOP'er? Are you saying now that there were hijackers??"

1) The theory of MIHOP has always been (at least to my knowledge) that a (presumably) small group MIHOPs and a (presumably) larger group LIHOPs. For example, NORAD stand-down theory is strictly LIHOP not MIHOP although it's likely an integral part of controlled demolition theory, which is MIHOP.

2) I'm not into MIHOP or LIHOP.

3) I never said I stand by controlled demolition theory, no-plane-hit-the-pentagon theory, or a whole slew of other theories.

That doesn't mean I'm opposed to really determining the plausibility of these theories with evidence and argument.

"and that the FBI should've foiled the plot becase an informant was a roomie with a guy who knew the alleged hijackers??"

It's certainly something that occurred to the Joint Inquiry on intelligence failures. They said this guy was the "best chance" to foil the 9/11 attack. It makes sense because his role was to keep an eye on saudi terrorists and these were saudi terrorists---the only two known al Qaeda members among the entire group.

Feel free to dispute whether he knew this and it's not apparent to me that he did. But he did lie about how he met them and when he met them. It was ultimately revealed that these guys had a Saudi handler pass them over to this FBI informant---unless you believe the deported Saudi spy Omar al Bayoumi that he met them accidentally at a restaurant and then got them bank accounts, social security numbers and places to live with his FBI informant friend.

LIHOP, MIHOP, both or neither, these claims are all supported in the evidence so they're of interest.

"Ever hear of the six degrees?? Six degrees of separation can get you close to anyone in the world.
Four degrees (Hijackers -> Informants Roomate -> Informant -> FBI agent) is nothing to write home about."

In social network analysis we look at the type of the connection being alleged. Here we have a Saudi spy passing them off to an FBI informant in college-aged Saudi islamist counter-terrorism.

"I can link myself to Peyton Manning in 3 degrees and his wide reciever Reggie Wayne in 2 degrees, does that make me part of the Colts organization, privy to their everyday operation?"

In social network analysis we look at the type of the connection being alleged. Here we have a Saudi spy passing them off to an FBI informant in college-aged Saudi islamist counter-terrorism.

Senator Bob Graham described his role as informing on Saudis of college age who might be involved in terrorism.

It's a little different from your Peyton Manning analogy but at least you understand my point about the strength of a connection.

 
At 03 July, 2006 15:06, Blogger apathoid said...

Bogglehead, I guess we simply disagree. I find the informant thing to be somewhat suprising. But, I cant say how it proves anything more than a missed chance.

Maybe the informant lied about how he knew them because he didnt want the FBI to think he was privy to the attacks, but didnt speak up. I also dont see the connections as being really strong as you say. The Saud that set them up with the informant had to know of the attack plot for this to be suspicious. If you can prove that, then I'll give the LIHOP argument some more weight..

 
At 03 July, 2006 15:10, Blogger Alex said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 15:38, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"The Saud that set them up with the informant had to know of the attack plot for this to be suspicious. If you can prove that, then I'll give the LIHOP argument some more weight.."

First, it would be nice to explain your understanding of what LIHOP theory is, apart from just what the acronym stands for.

Secondly, why would this guy have to know of the attack plot for this to be suspicious?

He got the hijackers bank accounts and social security numbers. It's not like he booked their flights.

 
At 03 July, 2006 15:40, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"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."

And then lied to the FBI about how he met them, eventually admitting he met them through Saudi spy Omar al Bayoumi.

Also, he doesn't describe his living with these two terrorists as part of his job. He says he had no idea they were radicals.

 
At 03 July, 2006 16:02, Blogger apathoid said...

First, it would be nice to explain your understanding of what LIHOP theory is, apart from just what the acronym stands for.

Bogglehead, I told you in the SLC forum that you overthink everything.
If there were hijackers from the Middle East as a part of a CT theory, it safe to say that that your stance is LIHOP. MIHOP would imply drones/misiles/CD/who knows what the hell for UA 93.
To summarize, hijackers = LIHOP.
Unless you've got a really exotic theory you'd like to share with us.

Secondly, why would this guy have to know of the attack plot for this to be suspicious?

Uhhh, because that would signal cooperation between the FBI and the hijackers, maybe?? Youre trying to connect dots between a Saudi spy and the FBI with the hijackers in the middle. If the spy wasnt aware of the plot, why exactly is he important? Anything he wouldve done to help setup a joint effort between the FBI and the hijackers would merely be a coincedence...

 
At 03 July, 2006 16:06, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 16:29, Blogger Richard said...

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...

 
At 03 July, 2006 16:29, Blogger James B. said...

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?

 
At 03 July, 2006 16:35, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"To summarize, hijackers = LIHOP.
Unless you've got a really exotic theory you'd like to share with us."

I have to admit, I like the way you're able to admit of multiple possibilities.

Some relevant terms might be sheep-dipping, identity theft and blackmail. Look them up, they're all real terms.

Typically, with patsies, you sheep dip them (cut formal ties for plausible deniability), steal their identities (to incriminate them---the act for which they must be blamed, including possibly a backstory) but meanwhile there is a latent element of blackmail because just beyond plausible deniability, their identities can't be investigated too heavily because it implicates a government operation (drug smuggling for example---one historic example of the theory in action would be Operation 40, the Bay of Pigs team).

This would appear to work whether the main conspirators were part of the unrelated operation being covered up to maintain its integrity or whether they merely knew about it.

Assume that this government operation would be so embarrassing that it can't be exposed and the potential for blackmail is obviously there.

US-Saudi drug smuggling is a hypothesis for example.

 
At 03 July, 2006 16:44, Blogger apathoid said...

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.

What do you base this opninion on? It sure as hell isnt any expertise or aviation knowledge..

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.

Dude, youre arguing with the wrong guy. I cant even begin to write a response to this, but I'll hit the high points.

Now, have you ever even flown a flight simulator?
As a matter of fact I have. I'm autoland certified on the 757/767 as an autopilot technician. This means I can restore the 757/767 to autoland status without a test flight being necesary(an autoland is required by the FAA every 30 days - if an aircraft does not perform one, its deemed cat 2, as opposed to cat 3, ergo - restricted).
As part of the training regiment for this, we are required to have full knowledge of all autoflight functions and in what regime the pilots would use these different modes. To get an understanding of us, we spend about 4 hours on the 767 full motion simulator going through all of these differnet modes. This helps later when talking to pilots as we have an idea of what they are talking about when they say something like "after we armed the LOC, it failed to follow the steering commands by the FD as it captured and flew through the beam. The PFD indicated it captured" Most mechanics and sparkchasers would be like "Huh?"

After going through all these modes and performing autolands in the sims, we did have some playtime. I landed a 767-400 in 25 knots of crosswind, first try(Okay I used autothrottle to maintain speed on approach). So yes, Nessie I have flown sims.

Do you understand what kind of expertise you need just to bank a turn?
I do. Do you?

Honjur could never have made that 270 degree turn without stalling the plane or getting it hopelessly in free fall.

They were about 300 knots above stall speed, genius. So you are totally and completely incorrect.(and you sound like a fool to any aviation enthusiasts reading this )

Driving a plane is not like driving a car and piloting a single engine Cessna is not like piloting Boeing Jumbo

Thats all they did was steer, its not like they performed a handflown 0/0 appraoch at night in a rainstorm.
BTW - Hanjour had 600 hours and a commercial pilots license..

 
At 03 July, 2006 16:54, Blogger BoggleHead said...

You want me to try out an elaborate theory?

I can't say it's proven at all but maybe someone can tell me how you'd go about disproving this theory....

Al Qaeda essentially trafficks in cocaine and heroin for the Taliban -> ISI -> CIA + Saudis.

The DEA at home is investigating drug smuggling but also protecting CIA drug smuggling.

But people who are surveilling and aware of the drug smuggling come along and do 9/11. Pick your theory. Real hijackings, drones brain-washed Hale-Bopp cultists, holograms---even the 19 alleged al Qaeda hijackers---this post is obviously not meant to resolve any of those disputes although some of them are obviously absurd.

The theory in its essence is that maybe the FBI can't admit these guys are patsies because the best evidence they are patsies is that they're involved in US-Saudi drug smuggling.

This is not to suggest that anybody involved in their drug smuggling operations would be involved in 9/11, but only that if this was a drug smuggling operation, it casts significant doubt on the official version.

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:03, Blogger apathoid said...

Bogglehead. You have a truly dizzying intellect.

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:09, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Thanks, that's quite a compliment.

Maybe you'll look at this evidence in a new light.

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/viewtopic.php?t=18

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/viewtopic.php?t=33

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/viewtopic.php?t=35

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/viewtopic.php?t=10

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/viewtopic.php?t=36

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/viewtopic.php?t=32

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:28, Blogger shawn said...

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)."

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:32, Blogger apathoid said...

Boggs,
Well I only browsed a bit through those, you've connected quite a few dots, but I really dont see a smoking gun in there.
Can I ask you a question? Why would the government go through all of that trouble to setup the identities of the fall guys. Couldn't they just use the State Department computers to make up identities out of thin air. That would resolve the problem of the hijackers still being alive, and they couldve made some more Afghan/Iraqi hijackers as opposed to Saudis/UAEs. Its seems amateurish..

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:36, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Molten steel isn't red/orange/etc, it's white. Why do CTers show videos and call it steel?"

Let's say it's not molten (it's being suspended in air, and is therefore a solid in at least one photograph)

Still, we can rule out various metals because on the one hand we know the temperature of a metal from its color independent of what metal it is.

And on the other hand we know that some metals can't exist as solids if the temperature is high enough.

From the color of one photo posted by Dr. Jones (we named the dog Indiana, we named YOU Junior!)...

...we can tell it's too hot to be aluminum and still be solid at that color. Depending on what color you think the metal is, while still existing in a solid phase, we start to be able to rule out almost all metals apart from steel and iron.

You can dispute that all the specific claims here are factually correct, but my intent is to lay out the theory behind the claims, not promulgate the supposed accuracy of a given measurement, which is an empirical matter.

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:39, Blogger apathoid said...

They flew the plane erratically so it MUST'VE been a remote controlled plane (remember that I have no evidence besides erratic flight)."

Yeah. Its absurd. I think guiding that puppy in via remote control would be 10X harder than the feat Hani Hanjour performed from the flight deck. If anything, it couldve been programmed like a cruise missile, but you'd need evidence that such a system was ever installed on a 757..

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:41, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Boggs,
Well I only browsed a bit through those, you've connected quite a few dots, but I really dont see a smoking gun in there.
Can I ask you a question? Why would the government go through all of that trouble to setup the identities of the fall guys. Couldn't they just use the State Department computers to make up identities out of thin air. That would resolve the problem of the hijackers still being alive, and they couldve made some more Afghan/Iraqi hijackers as opposed to Saudis/UAEs. Its seems amateurish.."

Bush is close to the Saudis but a lot of neocons are not. This may have been a way not of blaming Iraq but blaming the Saudis (and Bush) if the Saudis tried to dispute the claim that the official version of 9/11 was real.

Only a real, ongoing operation would ensure cooperation on the part of guilty congressmen who partake of bribes from Jack Abramoff and Titan corporation.

Only a real Saudi/ISI connection could be used to blackmail Saudi Arabia and Pakistan into supporting the war on terror.

In short, possession of a genuinely deep, dark secret is a foundation for blackmail.

A smear campaign is weaker and encourages challenges by the intended blackmail-ee.

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:46, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Also, there's people fighting over the drugs themselves. Blackmail is an obvious way to get a cut.

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:50, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:53, Blogger default.xbe said...

but you'd need evidence that such a system was ever installed on a 757..

but, if such a system was ever used on a 757 its proof positive it was used on 9/11, lol

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:56, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"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."

My understanding is that, geostrategically, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are on one side and India and Israel are on another side.

Intelligence agencies, commercial interests and geostrategy don't have pure fault lines.

Try to factor in just the drug trade, which is bigger than the automobile industry (at least from what I can glean) and already things are complicated again.

 
At 03 July, 2006 17:57, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"but, if such a system was ever used on a 757 its proof positive it was used on 9/11, lol"

Fair enough. Both sides should avoid plausibility arguments.

 
At 03 July, 2006 18:02, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 18:10, Blogger apathoid said...

but, if such a system was ever used on a 757 its proof positive it was used on 9/11, lol

Theoretically, this actually would be (somewhat)possible. The Flight Management System could have been used to setup speed/altitude constraints at pre-programmed waypoints. Typically pilots use "company routes" and dont really have to program any new waypoints.

But, it is possible to create a waypoint by either programming lat/long or using a distance/bearing from another known way point. I'm suprised that this theory isnt being pushed by any of the aviation geek CTs. The theory would ultimately break down though, as you'd need human hands to engage LNAV and VNAV functions of the autopilot for this, unless some other system was fitted to uplink ARINC data commands to the flight computers.....

 
At 03 July, 2006 18:23, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"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."

1) I'm sure you believe that

2) I'm sure you believe that after much analysis

3) For the rest of us, what's nice is to see claims organized like this

a) The problem at hand, clearly explained

b) All the possible explanations that are possible a priori

c) An accounting for the evidence (including each exhibit's credibility as a probability) supporting each different hypothesis

d) Explanation of things not at first considered.

So this means, independent of which one of us is "right" we should endeavor to help each other fill out this program, like a questionnaire we can all mutually collaborate on.

That's how intelligence analysis is done, although Red team / Blue team duelling hypotheses are good too, they are ultimately in the furtherance of this program.

 
At 03 July, 2006 18:25, Blogger BoggleHead said...

In fact, here's a good e-book on how intelligence analysis is done.

www.cia.gov/csi/books/19104/index.html

I don't intend to criticize by the way. Merely to organize.

 
At 03 July, 2006 18:29, Blogger shawn said...

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?

 
At 03 July, 2006 18:47, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"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?"

Here's an accounting of that mockery. Allow me to put it in context better.

I was pointing out that

1) it never leaked to the public, despite Soviet penetration

2) in that case the Soviets had an actual motive to duplicate the technology and therefore to penetrate the Manhattan Project

3) the KGB had major successes like Robert Hanssen that went unnoticed for years---they were another superpower

4) the KGB wasn't around on 9/11

So pointing out that espionage is real and works and that operational security was maintained wouldn't appear to further the conclusion that when one of those superpowers ceases to exist you'll lose operational security.

The whole point was about operational security regarding any 9/11 related Manhattan projects.

Not to mention that the Soviet Union and Israel would appear to have motives (Chechnya and Iraq) to blame muslim extremists for 9/11.

If it wasn't the ex-KGB or the Mossad that penetrated a little Manhattan project (a refuelling 767 that nobody would want to make anyway, unless they were doing 9/11) ---or at least wouldn't have leaked it, then it would appear that it's quite possible to use arguments about the Manhattan project to say operational security would most likely be maintained, would it not?

 
At 03 July, 2006 18:49, Blogger BoggleHead said...

And I'm not even saying I believe in this refuelling 767 nonsense.

 
At 03 July, 2006 18:56, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 19:00, Blogger shawn 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'.

 
At 03 July, 2006 19:15, Blogger BoggleHead said...

I guess the point is this.

Insofar as you have shown Fetzer to be wrong, it is not relevant to 9/11.

And insofar as this issue is relevant to 9/11 (public leaks, not high level espionage by an agency that no longer exists) you are wrong (there was no public leak of the Manhattan project).

Although, and I admit--strictly you are right. It's just irrelevant to the point about whether in principle it's possible/likely to maintain this operational security.

So you proved Fetzer wrong based on a technicality. Isn't it more important to figure out what's possible out there?

 
At 03 July, 2006 19:18, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 19:18, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"He was trying to argue that the project (whether Manhattan or 9/11) stayed within the hallowed halls of the 'conspiracy'."

Or maybe he was trying to argue that the project (whether Manhattan or 9/11) wouldn't leak to the public.

That's a far cry from "hallowed halls" don't you think?

Think of all the stuff you can't even tell me about 9/11 if I ask because nobody leaked it to the public.

Like whether the hijackers were seen on video tape at the SunCruz casino boats. Even 911Myths just takes the fact that the FBI won't say as their best way to cast doubt on the eyewitnesses who say they saw the hijackers.

 
At 03 July, 2006 19:19, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 19:22, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 19:27, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Nor was his point relevant. I was just pointing out his factual error."

Obviously the relevant point he could have made is that nobody leaked the Manhattan project to the public.

So here we've arrived at the point where we can either agree he meant "public leaks" or else argue the semantics of specifically "public leaks" versus "leaks" of all kinds, including those perpetrated by intelligence agencies that use bribery, extortion and surveillance.

 
At 03 July, 2006 19:33, Blogger shawn said...

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?

 
At 03 July, 2006 20:03, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Then we disagree."

As is your right.

"And even if we were to agree his analogy isn't apt."

Well if we assume he's really talking about public leaks, then of course it's apt. Unless you can show they got lucky.

"It isn't apt for two reasons: when the action that was being hidden was carried out, nobody pretended it was the enemy."

I guess this goes to the question of whether false flag attacks are possible.

Unless you'd like to suggest that their possibility is conditional on not having any secret Manhattan projects in the background.

First you have the black budget which obviously existed for the real, historical, Manhattan project as well---but let's jump back to the modern era for now.... Then it goes to these defense contractors. Something the size of Titan corporation as purely a hypothetical example. Then they create a private version of the Manhattan project's compartmentalization of the engineering work, not altogether different from how the black budget allocations from the government (though these would not be from the government) would normally be spent. Complete with alleged security clearance requirements, etc.

Then the product gets laundered to a cell.

"Second, the covert action was in attempt to keep the project secret from foreign agencies (although that failed)."

As though this did not entail keeping it secret from the public in the historical Manhattan project?

"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?"

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.

Or that the CIA didn't assassinate Kennedy. Or that MI6 agent Haroon Aswat didn't do the London Bombing.

You can look at the question through the lens of other muslim attacks or you can look at it through the lens of the initiations of wars and the false flag operations associated with them.

 
At 03 July, 2006 20:14, Blogger shawn said...

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).

 
At 03 July, 2006 20:22, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 20:55, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Do you understand why it isn't apt?"

No

"It wasn't made public because if it were made public, foreign governments would know of it."

Agreed that it wasn't made public. Which is why it's so apt.

"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."

Oh I get it. In one case it wasn't made public. But in this other case here it SPECIFICALLY couldn't be made public. That explains so much.

I'm going to be generous and say you mean "permanently" rather than specifically, only because I have no real idea.

But if that's the case then I disagree, although I won't expand at length because I don't even know what you mean by "SPECIFICALLY".

"And this is why you don't understand why it isn't an apt analogy (see my first comment in this post)."

On the contrary. Asking if keeping it secret from the public isn't actually part-and-parcel to hiding it from foreign governments seems to be the next logical question.

Unless "SPECIFICALLY" is supposed to mean something to me. Presumably you think this complicates things. You don't even vaguely hint at how.

Not least because I already showed how a private corporation's black budget would sever ties to the US House of Representatives power-of-the-purse and the concomitant oversight that goes along with that.

"Bay of Pigs. Bosnia. Serbia."

I don't remember the war with Cuba. Just the Operation Northwoods document that Kennedy scrapped.

Why would you need a pretext for war unless you were using US military forces without any plausible deniability?

The whole purpose of the pretext for war is to formally declare war. This Bay of Pigs reference is a little different from what I asked for for these reasons.

As for Serbia and Bosnia, congratulations, I see no false flaggers here. False pretexts are suggested by Noam Chomsky nonetheless.

"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."

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.

Look for a photograph of Porter Goss and Barry Seal by the way.

"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)."

Take a look at this link. Don't ridicule the site address. Just watch the video. It's Fox news.

http://www.infowars.net/Pages/Aug05/020805Aswat.html

 
At 03 July, 2006 21:18, Blogger James B. said...

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.

 
At 03 July, 2006 21:39, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Oh, now you are going to start arguing that Srebrenica never happened?"

No. I'm sure if it never happened I would have heard of it before.

Darfur, I've heard of that one. 400,000 dead as opposed to 8,000.

Then again, al Qaeda is already in Darfur, so no need to import them like with al Moujaroun.

 
At 04 July, 2006 05:21, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 06:54, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Re the Kosovo War and whatever it was the US did in Bosnia, I was against all that, too. They weren't attacking or threatening us and I don't want the US to be the world's policeman. Theres a movie (a drama, not a documentary) on HBO this weekend about female genital mutilation in Africa. Thats a horrible practice. 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").

Re the Kennedy assassination and all things secret CIA or otherwise: People are influenced too much by fiction, where theres a denouement and everything is revealed. Of course, that doesn't happen in real life. The people closest to you have secrets you'll never know.

 
At 04 July, 2006 08:56, Blogger James B. said...

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?

 
At 04 July, 2006 10:39, Blogger Richard said...

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?

 
At 04 July, 2006 11:13, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Please point out what was dishonest.

Since BG won't I will...

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.

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.

That is dishonest.

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.

You're down playing the holes in the OS here. That is dishonest, since the holes in the OS are larger then then holes created on 9/11. Also down playing the "holes", or unanswered questions, gives the impression that it could silly to question some part of the OS in the first place. Of course that is the way you feel, so no shocker there.

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.

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.

This is dishonest becuase you label at CT and their theories as lies, when not all of them are. Most of the lies are like Bushes lies - based on bad information. Yet you'll defend his lieing.

You cannot find a conspiracy theorist who does not rely on this.

More of the same dishonest behaviour. The truth is subjective to the source of the truth.

Here is the perfect example of how they manipulate and lie, from a chapter on the Pentagon, page 37

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 11:18, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Our leaders "values" are the craven, cowardly kind that won't say "boo" about Israel destroying civilian infrastructure for several hundred thousand people. In fact, they're going to have the American people pay for restoring the electric power and still not say Israel shouldn't do it again!

Their "values" are centered on their own personal careers.

 
At 04 July, 2006 11:21, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"I've given a fine explanation. It's your problem if you don't see why it isn't apt."

But it could be your problem for being reading impaired.

"D-Day wasn't made public either. How about we throw that in there? (By the way, that analogy wouldn't work either.)"

Clearly the reason you're using it as an example is because it's not an apt analogy for the Manhattan project.

"America has had five formally declared wars. The last one was WWII."

Thank you, Cliff Claven.

"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."

Motive is important, that's agreed. But you haven't provided a single logical connection between motive on the one hand and means and opportunity on the other.

Remember, this all comes from a Fetzer quote so don't get all lost in the clouds on me.

"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."

Only as good as your last mistake, no matter how many decades ago.

And please feel free to show me his prediction in Afghanistan turned out wrong, I'd be very interested.

"Excellent herrings. I believe I said Lee Harvey Oswald."

Well if his civil air patrol commander, a fellow member of his civil air patrol unit, the office he worked out of in Dallas, his only known friend in Dallas and his landlord in Dallas don't cut it for you, be advised he worked on the top secret U2 project.

"I like your moronic insinuation. I don't watch Fox News."

It's less of a "moronic insinuation" and more of the "insinuation that you're a moron" to say someone watches Fox news for anything other than a good laugh.

Except in this particular case.

"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."

Where does John Anticev figure into 93? Ramzi Yousef into OKC?

"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."

Why not? 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"?

 
At 04 July, 2006 11:25, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Somalia!

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 11:27, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Somalia!

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 13:19, Blogger Richard said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 15:05, Blogger Richard said...

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"

 
At 04 July, 2006 15:08, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:24, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"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."

You can't prove a negative? Sucks for you. I can prove negatives.

If you can "prove" where burdens lie in discussion and debate, I'd be very interested.

"Uh it seems someone else has the reading impairment. I was referring to each of those as separate incidents (note the commas)."

And yet John Anticev as much as admitted the FBI built the 93 bomb. And the lawyer for Nichols said that McVeigh and Nichols visited Ramzi Yousef in the Philippines.

"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."

Maybe you didn't know that the office where Oswald's "anti-communist" activities were being carried out was the same office David Ferrie (who WAS CIA) was carrying out anti-castro activities. Maybe you don't figure out how Barry Seal, who was also in Oswald's civil air patrol unit under David Ferrie, figures into that.

And Oswald didn't apparently kill Kennedy but was set up.

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:25, Blogger BoggleHead said...

And maybe you didn't realize that British Intelligence lied to the US and said Haroon Aswat was dead.

Or that they let him get out of the country AFTER the london bombings.

Or that he was brought up on unrelated US charges despite making some 20 odd phone calls to the bombers.

Why was he cleared of involvement if you admit he was the mastermind?

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:35, Blogger Richard said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:37, Blogger BoggleHead said...

But not just any negative.

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:42, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Just as you can't prove all positives.

In fact, prove that you can prove all positives. It's a positive so you should be able to prove it.

Here's the kicker: prove that there are no negatives that can be proven.

(You lose)

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:44, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Really? Because you would be the first person in history to be able to do that."

Prove there weren't others before me

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:58, Blogger shawn said...

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?

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:05, Blogger jackhanyes said...

So now we have to disprove God while the believers dance around saying "You can't disprove Him, He's real!"

Since you're seam to be so anti-god, it would be fun to hear you disprove his existant.

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:15, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"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."

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.

My mistake if I assumed that this meant you could show the prediction turned out false.

Presumably all the human rights organizations are discredited by the their prediction, a prediction the certainty of which was obviously not proveable at the time anyway, being PREDICTIVE as predictions are.

I suppose if they couldn't prove that 1,000,000 will die---and since it's impossible to prove a prediction about a future historical event---and since you're making the claim the burden is on you to prove it, then these human rights organizations are quite guilty indeed.

Shame on Noam Chomsky for citing human rights organizations with their lack of credibility in the logic of debate.

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:43, Blogger shawn said...

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).

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:46, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Suffice it to say I had another long post about Oswald.

I will not assume that particular burden though.

If anybody reading this wants to know more look up any of these names.

***George de Mohrenschildt***
David Ferrie
Allen Dulles
Prescott Bush
Ruth Hyde Paine

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:47, Blogger BoggleHead said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:51, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Fine, the prediction was wrong.

And therefore Noam Chomsky is an evil/biased/America-hater/whatever-your-claim-is for citing the human rights organizations perpetrating that FRAUDULENT and biased prediction.

You win, my mistake.

And you said you couldn't prove a negative ;-)

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:52, Blogger Richard said...

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

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:59, Blogger BoggleHead said...

What a fraud by Chomsky.

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.

Chomsky and the human rights organizations that perpetrated that lie are obviously to blame, not being able to prove that claim.

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:59, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 22:02, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 22:05, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 04 July, 2006 23:06, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"You can't, that's the point dude. You can't prove a negative."

Depends what you think a "negative" is.

"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."

The irony here is that eventually Shawn proved exactly what he said was a negative. If you think your referent-in-reality for this argument is me (in the CTer role you cite) think again.

I asked him to prove Chomsky's prediction didn't come true, for my own curiosity, because Chomsky's argument that removing all the aid workers from the country during the worst drought in decades seemed to lend some credence to the human rights organizations' contention that 1,000,000 would die.

Shawn proved that "negative" citing evidence that starvation was averted. Of course it was because the aid workers ignored the orders.

"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."

You're comparing two groups on a subjective measure here.

If you have two groups of people how do you determine which group is taller? It's easy if everyone in one group is taller than everyone in another group.

But what if the average height of one group is much greater than the other group but more people in the other group are taller than the average height of the other?

So it's even more meaningless to talk about CTers or OSers' comparative critical thinking skills.

Although we all do it anyway, so who cares.

The point is, I want to hear about me and I'm not a CTer or OSer.

"Example:"

Oh Joy!

"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."

At least they don't think they've proven something they haven't.

"And by proof I mean good evidence."

Or just enough proven or obvious facts. In other words, context. The context here is that Richard Clarke and George Tenet just started blaming Osama in the absence of any evidence.

Not altogether similar to the Iraq war, which is more "context" or "evidence."

You should notice I don't call these definitive. This is a call for context.

"In order for you to make a valid point you need to give evidence that refutes our evidence."

Does this really relate to the burden of proof in the case of 9/11 overall or in the specific point being made?

If I say that an FBI informant lived with two of the hijackers and that he met them through a Saudi spy, do you NOT need to refute that evidence, even if it is part of the context in which the attacks happened (i.e. a reality), just because the burden is on me about 9/11 in general?

"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."

How all of the evidence is wrong? The.... context..... I put the evidence in tends to be that there's an apparent US-Saudi drug smuggling relationship which the alleged hijackers traversed in the course of their travels.

"Don't say FEMA is crap, prove it and this is the important part PEER REVIEW IT."

Great, why don't you review these links, peer mine:

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=10
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=33
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=18
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=35
and this last one is too long to read, it's just my thoughts on the 911Myths page on the hijackers....
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=32


"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."

No, we musn't do that. :-)
Does this relate to the Big Burden about 9/11 or the little burden of any claim that could be construed as being at odds with the official version of 9/11?

Cause I'm annoyed about this one too. Someone will just collect a bunch of opinions after the fact to show that this apparent US-Saudi drug smuggling operation is innocuous in relation to 9/11.

"I see this all the time. Why argue about 93 being shot down if you believe that it landed somewhere else?"

Why did the FBI polygraph Adnan Bukhari about his involvement in 9/11 just because he worked at one of the flight schools.

After all, they told the press he was a hijacker at first.

I guess some things just need to be investigated further before you know what to make of them.

Such as investigating how in all hell you could think Adnan Bukhari was on the plane unless there some form of identity theft.

Or how you could think Ameer Bukhari was a hijacker by looking at his 9/11 2000 death certificate.

Or what would lead you to think they were brothers apart from their involvement in 9/11 (since they aren't any longer claimed to have any official involvement)?

"Why argue about UAV's or military fuelers hitting the towers if your arguing about brainwashed hijackers?"

In point of fact, I never said they were brainwashed hijackers. I said it's disturbing that the guy living with the hijackers was working for a CIA front university apparently involved in brainwashing. There's a difference.

"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."

Funny how general Michael Hayden told Congress that the US data mining program was important. He said that there were only two known al Qaeda hijackers prior to September 11 (the same two that lived with an FBI informant in counter-terrorism) and that data mining would have been helpful in figuring out the terrorist network.

But you think it's irrelevant I guess. You don't want more context, you want the "right" context. A good way to curtail the search for evidence.

"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 even put the two steps in the wrong order. Am I taking "get your story straight and then find the evidence" too literally?

"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."

Does the Administration stand by its "Angel is next" claim? The White House said top secret US codes were broken on 9/11. Condi Rice said this in a press release. Lynne Cheney repeated the story a few times.

So how can we buy anything these guys are saying?

I know you're trying to be a good mom, but you think the bathwater's too dirty to see the baby.

But let me throw you a net, a useful tool in this situation.

1) Clearly state the problem or sub-problem at hand.

2) List every scenario you can think of

3) State the known evidence for all

4) See what is thereby explained that was not at first considered

5) Rinse and repeat. There, isn't your baby much cleaner?

"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?"

Also FEMA made claims that NIST is in the process of refuting.

My understanding is that the pancake theory is no longer en vogue.

Like FEMA, I call for more investigation.

"Ad hominem

I don't give to shits if Bush rapes kittens and worships Satan."

That's too bad I like kittens.

"That doesn't by default prove a massive conspiracy or effect our foreign policy or any policy."

Yes it does. Look at the context.

"Unless there is some kitten raping bill I missed :) You need evidence not personal attacts"

Cute. But what's odd here is that even your humorous argument is structured very oddly.

1) I don't care if X-claim is true
2) It won't prove other claims (even though it would)
3) Unless you actually have evidence of X-claim in the first place (see step 1)

I'm not accusing you of something because that would be an ad hom.

But what you really seem to be saying is that you have no logical way of accepting major claims about high officials. I think it's a potentially revealing Freudian slip here.

 
At 04 July, 2006 23:07, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"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."

You're 100% right I concede every last point to you.

 
At 04 July, 2006 23:45, Blogger BoggleHead said...

" 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."

Good. I'll make sure to tell that trick to anyone trying to set up a patsy. I bet they hadn't thought of that before.

" 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."

Did he or did he not frequent an office adjacent to Oswald's one-man pro-Castro operation?

Was he or was he not involved in the Bay of Pigs and Operation Mongoose?

" Allen Dulles

CIA head, started MKULTRA. No known contact with Oswald."

Try de Mohrenschildt's brother and Ruth Hyde Paine's parents.

Connections to Operation 40.

" Prescott Bush

Now you're plain ol' grasping for straws."

de Mohrenschildt's employer and connections to Operation 40 through his son, H.W. Bush as well as Nixon who appears to have been a cut-out for Bush in general.

" Ruth Hyde Paine

Friend of Oswald's wife. Oswald stored his rifle in her garage. Conspiracy theorists seem obsessed with her."

You're absolutely right. She's neither a strong nor a necessary link.

She's just interesting because of her mother's ties to a Dulles agent and mistress, Bell Helicopter, and her role in setting Oswald up with the job.

Here's a woman who could stand clarification but is not really a suspect.

A genuine example of six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

As distinguished, however, from the 9/11 Saudi money trail and connection to FBI informants.

"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."

You used to believe in things without evidence? And that's supposed to prove you're not arguing from ignorance?

Offer insights if you think they will clarify the things I've mentioned but you can't just pull rank on the grounds that you were hoodwinked before and are all the wiser for it or have an axe to grind or whatever.

 
At 05 July, 2006 01:20, Blogger jackhanyes said...

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.

For once in your life can you give a rebutal without insulting? Are you a child? No, so act like a man.

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.

Human logic with God fails the person which is why you must go beyold logic and relay on faith. However, there are those who must be shown to become a believer. To those God will up their eyes if they ask.

For me, it's a personal experince I can't express in words but I could show you by example. How do you prove something by showing only examples, and not the real thing?

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.

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 mind doesn't want to know it has failed and will fight to keep itself protected. It's hard to deal with being wrong, or being mislead. Believe me, I know too well. However, coming to terms with being wrong is a growing experince.

If it's one thing I have learned about this blog is that it only attack the opposing theory leaves and mock the limbs. Rarely does it attack the trunk or roots. It only under mines the trunks and roots importants. Is your driving record not brought up when you have a speeding ticket? Is the past crimes and dealings with other questionable people not brought up in court to build a case against the accused? No DA would over look the past of the accused! Why can't we do the same with the government? Why it the government given a free pass when talking about 9/11?

This blog reminds me of the battle I wage with the Jehovah Witnesses. They are people who have their own picture of God and they believe strongly in, yet it's roots and trunks are rotten, and not one of them wishes to look at them. And those who do are cast out.

 
At 05 July, 2006 01:51, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Amen brother.

Speaking of the "roots" here's an interesting symbiosis:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/070306.html

“At the five o’clock meeting, [deputy CIA director] John McLaughlin opened the issue with the consensus view: ‘Bin-Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President.’”

McLaughlin’s comment drew nods from CIA officers at the table.

 
At 05 July, 2006 08:35, Blogger Alex said...

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"?

 
At 05 July, 2006 09:29, Blogger shawn said...

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).

 
At 05 July, 2006 12:35, Blogger jackhanyes said...

I was a believing Catholic for most of my life. How does that factor in to closing my ears?

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.

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.


I agree, some of the crazy theory are based on faith built on lie and disinformation. 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.

 
At 05 July, 2006 13:10, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"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)."

Tell Gerald Posner his book didn't help you much.

 
At 05 July, 2006 13:11, Blogger Alex said...

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.

 
At 05 July, 2006 17:12, Blogger shawn said...

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).

 
At 05 July, 2006 17:18, Blogger shawn said...

Posner's book says there was zero conspiracy, what are you getting at?

 
At 05 July, 2006 18:04, Blogger BoggleHead said...

That Posner is thoroughly dishonest in his "investigation".

 
At 05 July, 2006 18:46, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 06 July, 2006 17:43, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"Of course he is, as he doesn't come to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy. You idiots make me laugh."

Pretty coincidental that Gerald Posner doubted that Ferrie and Oswald knew each other at all as people gave him evidence they met in New Orleans.

Only to have a photograph of them together turn up after he tried to deny they ever knew each other.

 
At 07 July, 2006 12:32, Blogger Alex said...

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.

 
At 11 July, 2006 01:17, Blogger FreeSpeechForever said...

James B and Pat:
Who are you guys? I couldn't find your last names on this site (maybe I missed it).

If you stand behind something, stand behind it with your name.

I stand behind Loose Change - good movie. My name is Pete Swann.

 
At 23 December, 2006 12:23, Blogger Paulie said...

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)

 
At 23 December, 2006 12:41, Blogger Paulie said...

Good on you Pete Swann.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home