Are there any posters here that would like to have a real discussion/ debate about a specific issue on 9/11? I'm most interested in topics about the physical aspects of the attacks, not the political CYA, grandstanding and leverage used in the wake. If so, start a thread about it and adhere to a few rules: 1) Stick to the topic, no 'dodgeballing'. 2) If asked for a source, provide one. Do not argue a claim based on your opinion. 3) If you are shown that your claim is inaccurate, admit to it and move on. Don't argue the same defeated claim. 4) No personal attacks or name calling. Period. I'll stick to those rules myself. Can this happen, or am I just pipe dreaming? - - - Updated - - - This was inspired by a pic I saw today:
I love the concept of this, but I honestly think most of the truther posters here cannot handle something like that. I, like you, prefer to speak to the technical\physical aspects of what happened that day. I veer away from the political angle as there is nothing that interests me there, and it generally just muddies the water. Turns it into a "if they can do something like this then they obviously did 9/11." If you succeed in making this thread happen then I will gladly participate. I can put my name calling and degrading on the back burner for a few posts I'd like to think.
If this question was directed at people who believe that 9/11 was not committed by Muslim hijackers, the answer to your question is no.
The only thread here in which someone has not gone Sweeney/Martin on us is the one I just posted to demonstrate that the collapse of the towers was too slow. The reason there is no Sweeney/Martin smear on it is that nobody has replied yet. Maybe it just went over their heads and hit them in the belly button.
Anyone interested in discussing possible Pakistani ISI involvement in 9/11? While I'm clearly a "shill", thats one topic I've been interested in for many years and events of the last year have only strengthened what I've felt for a long time. However, unlike someone armed with a Youtube vid and sexy photoshop analysis, most of my opinon on this is culled from many different sources I've read over the years (Coll, Anderson, Rashid, The Guardian, etc).
When making a post last night, I had them specifically in mind as one of the other state actors I believe was involved in 9/11.
Per the OP: Anything anyone has genuine questions about, or feels they have the evidence to change my mind on a particular aspect. I'd like for the discussions to start in new threads, so as to keep this one uncluttered if you please.
I felt they had some involvement for a long time and I also suspect members of our government knew/found out about it, but shoved it under the carpet for political expediency. Real politik not really being dead and all. Again, it's just an opinion of mine. That said, that doesn't change my opinion on what actually happend on 9/11 which is very much in line with the "official" version. It would have a much bigger impact on the planning/funding side of the operation. It's very difficult to get hard evidence on something like this, which I readily admit. This might be one of the reasons why nonsense Truther theories annoy me so much because they muddy the waters with their stupidity.
I don't think their relationship with the Taliban was explored, or well-enough at least. It was an open secret, I guess you could say. And Pakistan turned out to be the safe haven for the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I don't think they were running into much resistance, more like into open-arms. Pakistan's dealings with the Taliban pre-9/11 are troubling. In a lot of ways, they sheltered the terrorist government. And then you've got the whole bin Laden issue. But, as you said, and I agree with, there are realpolitik reasonings behind our government not hanging Pakistan from the tallest tree. As evidenced during the Clinton administration, the primary concern was of nuclear tension with India, and IIRC, proliferation. I think we held/hold it against them to get our way in a lot of the things that have transpired since 9/11 in that region though, especially since Obama took office. We are at War in Pakistan currently.
Sure; I definitely believe Pakistan's ISI was involved. Just found an article from the guardian on the subject: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11
I like it . I'm actually on the side of those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, so in theory we could have a good discussion.
Ok, well first I'd like to know what you've seen of "the other side", so to speak. Have you read any books or seen any documentaries that question the official story if not downright disagree with it?
I'd like specifics. For my part, I've read: The Terror Conspiracy, by Jim Marrs (my introduction to 9/11 conspiracy theories) Inside Job, also by Jim Marrs 9/11 and American Empire, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott Parts of Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin I've seen: Zeitgeist Loose Change- First Edition and American Coup Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak out from AE911T 9/11: Intercepted by Pilots for 9/11 Truth September Clues by Simon Shack National Security Alert by Citizens Investigation Team There are others, but I think that's a good starting list. Please atleast tell me which of these books and/or documentaries you have seen. Also, if you have only seen part of any of these books/documentaries, please tell me this as well.
All of those, among others. How about you just start your thread and present your case, per the OP? Did you read the 'discussion' chart I posted?
Wow, I must admit I'm impressed. Not only did I read it, I used it in another forum . Alright, let me think a bit as to what my thread title should be...
When those "claim" to have seen or read what you've listed, ask them about any SPECIFIC highlight of the book or film. I can assure you they will not do it. Maybe you'll already found that out. These folks want the conversation to be STRICTLY controlled by them, and conducted in the manner THEY want them to proceed, I assure you. Specifics are not to be tolerated here. Just a heads up for ya. Good day.
For the record, Fraud does not speak for me. I encourage specifics in the discussion. In fact, as per the OP, I insist on it.
I'll give Hannibal the benefit of the doubt. However, I think it's only fair that he also gives a statement of what he believes happened on 9/11.
My position has always been fairly clear. The request for this exercise is for someone to choose one thing that for them proves the 'inside job' narrative. Present your evidence, back up your theory and have a discussion about it. Is that really so complicated?
