Nice fantasy but only fantasy. No evidence of any such thing and the other poster was correct. Such explosives work would require weeks of prep and hundreds of men at a minimum and would be impossible to disguise or hide. - - - Updated - - - Wrong nothing more than facts. you have yet to offer ashred of evidence or any proof for any of your posts which are strictly and exclusively opinion
[video=youtube;fLrpBLDWyCI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI[/video] We are not creating events here, we are making an argument as to what really happened on 9/11. I had an English Professor in College who made sure his students understood the importance of knowing their audience when making an argument. The goal of an argument is to persuade those who may disagree, or atleast plant some seeds of doubt in those who disagree. With this in mind, if your audience literally tells you that they once thought as you did, finding out -why- they once thought as you did could be crucial in furthering receptivity to your argument. You clearly didn't read his claim carefully. I'll quote it again: I'm sure you'll agree that 9/11 didn't occur in 2003. And what do you believe is his agenda? Have you ever considered what this discussion would be like without those who disagree with our point of view? I've seen it first hand, many times, in boards dedicated to those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Don't get me wrong, there can be some interesting discussions on the finer points of what happened on 9/11, the Pentagon attack being the most contentious one. But as a general rule, it's basically preaching to the choir- no one's going to challenge you on the basic premise that 9/11 was an inside job because everyone already agrees on that. I would also argue that this is the most important point- if enough people agreed that it was, the government would have no choice but to conduct a new, less biased, investigation. Until then, people who agree that 9/11 was an inside job can discuss the finer points all they like, but a new official investigation will continue to elude them. OCT defenders can and have accused those who disagree with the OCT as "parroting" one of the various truther narratives regarding 9/11. I think it's sad that people on both sides are so intent on criticizing the other side that they can loose track of the truly important questions. Questions like -why- their opponents believe what they believe. Actually, I believe posters should be considered innocent of being deceptive until -proven- to be deceptive. And yes, that's a bit of a play on the old "innocent until proven guilty". Personally, I find that anyone who is willing to engage in long arguments on the evidence instead of focusing on ridiculing their opponent can be worth some time. Admittedly, it can be hard to find such intellectual opponents, but I've found that if you give them the benefit of the doubt as to their motivations, some truly productive conversations can be had.
I've never been a fan of Soupnazi's posts. He's clearly a novice when it comes to 9/11. Blues had some good ones though.
As a response to your last two posts, I already stated that individual posters (especially those I assess as disingenuous) are not my concern and I'd rather not divert my attention to the greater problem that is 9/11 in order to focus my attention on these fakes (as I view them). I understand your point of view on this issue and I truly respect it but I don't share it. What really happened on 9/11 has nothing to do with them other than that they believe the OCT is what really happened. This entire section of the forum would not exist if we all sat around a campfire and sung Kumbaya to the OCT.
Not one of the official investigations can document the steel framed core structure they assert existed. There is a logical sequence associated with investigation and the official investigations were misled before they began. 1) What happened?(This includes what it happened to) 2) How did it happen? (This depends very much on what it happened to) 3) Who did it?
Are you saying that you don't think that people who believe the OCT is a problem? Certainly. By the same token, I think that the truth movement is gaining adherents as more people begin to question what happened on 9/11. I think making persuasive arguments to those who believe the OCT can help.
No I'm saying posters who spend nearly every day defending the OCT and the storytellers and attack/insult those who contradict it or even question it are not genuine and are therefore not worth analyzing. Most of these types infest forums such as this one. I hope so but that's only true for those who are genuine. For the disingenuous, they only serve a useful purpose as tools to bring up 9/11 subjects worthy of discussion. And that is useful for those who want to learn and understand the many fallacies/myths of the OCT.
Somehow I doubt your viewpoint on those who defend the OCT helps when you debate them . Now don't get me wrong, I know that many OCT defenders think of us the same way. I just don't think that 2 wrongs make a right. I can agree with that. The main issue I have with many of the posters here, on both sides of the aisle, is the idea that people are lying/disingenous, when I generally see it more as simply not truly understanding the evidence of the events being discussed and/or the true extent of the knowledge of various posters in this forum.
Except as I've often said, I'm not here to debate anyone, I here strictly to discuss, learn and educate (the genuine) and some disingenuous OCT defenders serve that purpose for me, nothing more, nothing less. I understand you want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt but it's not part of my agenda. I usually determine who is genuine and who is not within the first post or two. I might be wrong at times but that is usually settled within a few more posts.
A debate is simply a formal discussion, but perhaps you are saying that you only want informal discussions. Anyway, I think our main disagreement is your capability of judging whether someone is being disingenuous or not. Or atleast, that's what you believe .
Yes, informal and most preferably genuine (e.g. this discussion). That's in the eyes of the beholder. The point is it's my prerogative as to who I find genuine or disingenuous, no one else's. Anyone can contradict my beliefs about a specific poster but for me to change my mind, one would need to post a persuasive argument and I don't believe anyone ever has done so. I have had discussions with one particular poster in another forum about NIST's theory who adamantly believed NIST's collapse theories and I determined that poster was 100% genuine (based on many other posts and the tone of those posts). So I don't determine anything strictly based on whether a poster believes the OCT or not.
To be fair, it wasn't until 15 years later that it was admitted that the Saudi's officially played a role. We knew the hijackers were born there, but we didn't know until this year the government was involved. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and definitely believe this absolutely was a terror attack, but this news is very concerning. What are your thoughts on these latest updates?
The proof that the government did it is crushing. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456423&p=1066183060#post1066183060 Have you looked at it?
you're a bot ... The "proof is crushing" I have read so many times by you with the same lame links ... connect the dots for me Scott ... in your own words ... please don't tell me to go to 2:23 in some YouTube vid ... you waste my time with opinion ...
Fair enough. Are you suggesting that our main disagreement is something else? Certainly, it's your right as to who you find disingenuous, just as it's my right to challenge your findings. Conversely, you can believe that a specific poster is disingenuous, but one would need to post a persuasive argument for me to actually believe this to be the case. I certainly haven't seen anyone here do so. Tell me Bob, what do you think of the argument "innocent until proven guilty?" Fair enough. But just because you found that a single poster was genuine in his OCT beliefs doesn't mean that your reasoning regarding whether other OCT posters are disingenuous is necessarily accurate.
First of all, the 28 redacted pages don't go that far. I think the first sentence of the redacted pages is a good summary: While in the United States, some of the September 11th hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government. There is information, primarily from FBI sources, that at least two of those individuals were alleged by some to be Saudi intelligence officers. Source: https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...t-important-passages-from-the-un-redacte.html Note the "may be" part. Nevertheless, it's an allegation that has been repeatedly denied by 2 both the Bush Administration as well as the Obama administration. Secondly, the original hijacker list is known to have been false, and there is strong evidence that not all of the alleged hijackers were even in the country on 9/11, and some of them were apparently still alive years after the event: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html
Uh, in order to answer accurately, it is required to what it happened to. The design of the towers core is officially misrepresented AND the truth movement, mostly, believes it.
No I'm stating the obvious. Of course. I'm a strict constitutionalist and as such, a firm believer in due process and the above English common law doctrine. But I'm also not a court of law. I'm a human being just like everyone else (er, most everyone lol) and I hold personal opinions. For example, I fully believe most of the last two administrations include several war criminals/traitors from the top down. IMO those responsible at NIST for the 9/11 "investigation" skirt that characterization because they are complicit. But I would defend all these war criminals' constitutionally protected rights to a fair trial in a legitimate constitutional court (something that's nearly impossible to come by anywhere in the US). That means that the court must treat all of them as innocent (non criminals) unless and until proven guilty. Absolutely and I reserve the right to change my mind at any time of course. I would require compelling reason to be sure. But I didn't say I only found a single poster, it was just one example. There have been others but for some reason they are few and far between in forums. My guess is most of them don't want to post in the 9/11 conspiracy section of any forum, but that's just a guess.
True but more importantly, in order to TRY to answer that accurately, a legitimate investigation is an absolute requirement. That's your opinion and it's irrelevant in comparison to the greater requirement. What's more important is that the "truth movement" as you call it is an essential component of the requirement for a legitimate investigation. Without their voice and effort, the official investigation is all we have and we know that wasn't legitimate in any sense of the word.
The fact this forum only has 20 minute to edit is great problem. Leave out one word, and in order to correct the post must be remade. Posting on a phone guarantees typos and omissions. Uh, in order to answer accurately, it is required to KNOW what it happened to. The design of the towers core is officially misrepresented AND the truth movement, mostly, believes it.
Not my opinion. I can prove the core structure is misrepresented and I can do it with independently verified evidence and hard evidence. The "truth movement" was created by and it is run by the perps. If this was not true I could register at 9/11 blogger.com, or my posts at truthandshadows.com would not be be immediately deleted. Until we agree on an absolutely verifiable definition of error in the official investigation, we will not get a new one. Ironically, the truth movement will be the last to use evidence. It runs on peer review and they are corrupted. So either you really want a new one and verified, consistent evidence means something, or it's not really important, because the perps are not going to give up anything .
