Simple question... Who is it more sensible to believe?

The latest you can start training is age 31. The earliest you can retire is 25 years with mandatory retirement at age 56. Do the math.

 

Perhaps he was injured, perhaps he wanted to pursue a different career, perhaps he fell in love with someone in another state and gave up his career as an air traffic controller to be with them. I could go on with this pointless speculation, it seems that you rather enjoy it, but for some reason, I'm still hoping you'll actually answer my question...

 

No one I know had ever given up the high altitude pay and extravagant retirement for a woman. If anything it would be the other way around. They also have some of the best medical benefits around. Or he never worked in an high altitude sector.

Evidently you prefer hearsay over fact.

 

Ah, well that settles it then -.-

Actually, I prefer facts over speculation. Should I give up hoping that you'll answer my question?

 

Yeah, see my signature, that's probably what it will take.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

I really wasn't trying to persuade you or anyone about anything, I was stating my position. It's each one's personal choice of course as to how they feel about NIST and 9/11. All I can do is lay out the facts as I've learned them. The rest is up to each individual, OCT defender or not.

I prefer them as well, as well as many others who are responsible for maintaining this site:

“September 11, 2001 seems destined to be the watershed event of our lives and the greatest test for our democracy in our lifetimes. The evidence of government complicity in the lead-up to the events, the failure to respond during the event, and the astounding lack of any meaningful investigation afterwards, as well as the ignoring of evidence turned up by others that renders the official explanation impossible, may signal the end of the American experiment. It has been used to justify all manner of measures to legalize repression at home and as a pretext for behaving as an aggressive empire abroad. Until we demand an independent, honest, and thorough investigation and accountability for those whose action and inaction led to those events and the cover-up, our republic and our Constitution remain in the gravest danger.”

Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps (ret.)

http://www.consensus911.org/

To me and to the title it still is what it is.

For you sure. I don't debate, I discuss.

 

Few errors??? Is that serious??? Who believes this stuff???

The NIST "investigation" and reports are the heart of the official story.

Post #126 is a quick summary if you'd rather not see/hear the gory details.

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

 

Correction.

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

 

So why do you present hearsay instead of fact?

 

Agreed. Still hoping for that peaceful revolution though .

Alright.

Nice quote and looks like a good site.

I certainly believe that some people in the U.S. intended to deceive the American public regarding the true facts of 9/11, but as to who they were, that's trickier to ascertain in my view. I definitely think that Cheney and Rumsfeld were involved at any rate.

How would you define the difference between debating and discussing?

 

Hoosier clearly claims to...

When it comes to the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. I think he's more interested in the air traffic control element though.

 

Sigh -.-. If you didn't rely on "hearsay" regarding 9/11, you probably wouldn't be able to talk about it at all; you've never mentioned that you were at any of the events of 9/11, after all. Perhaps I really should give up on you answering my question. But I'll give it one more go. It's been a while, perhaps you've forgotten what it was.

A while back, I posted the following article:
Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job

You immediately decided to attack the messenger instead of the message with a lot of negative speculation on him, which left me unsure as to whether or not you had even read the article. So I immediately asked you the following:
**The point is, he's a former air traffic controller that came to believe -within hours- of the events of 9/11 that 9/11 was an inside job. Did you even bother to click on the link to find out why?**

There is my question once again. Will you answer it this time, or will you go on about hearsay?

 

The truthers ignore things like the novel construction of the towers and usually compare them, apples to oranges, to other differently constructed buildings. The truthers use their disbelief as if that were evidence of something else then they go on to say, no planes. It gets bizarre.

- - - Updated - - -

Real world evidence compared to truther hearsay.

 

There are quite a few we know about. Most of the Bush administration including key figures such as Zelikow, the orchestrator of the 9/11 Commission Report, John Gross and Shyam Sunder, who were directly responsible for the NIST 9/11 reports. Between the 9/11 Commission, NIST and the Bush administration, you have just about all the official 9/11 storytellers. There is also the puppet MSM but it's a bit tougher to identify responsible individuals within the MSM. We do know some, which include those at Popular Mechanics who ran with NIST's early myths about WTC7 and never retracted any of them even after NIST did. And more generally those MSM outlets responsible for trying to shut down any opposition to the OCT by ridiculing "conspiracy theorists" using faux documentaries, such as the BBC, the History Channel, National Geographic, etc.

A debate is sort of a competition where there are two opposing sides and there might be a winner and a loser. A discussion is a sharing of opinions/ideas/information by various individuals, no one is or should be competing even if some of these opinions/ideas/information could be contradictory.

 

"Truthers" is a rather broad term. Personally, I think Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth make a compelling case that the WTC buildings were not brought down by airplane impacts and fires. To whit:
**Since 9/11, however, independent researchers around the world have assembled a large body of evidence that overwhelmingly refutes the notion that airplane impacts and fires caused the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. This body of evidence, most of which FEMA and NIST omitted from their reports, instead supports the troubling conclusion that all three skyscrapers were destroyed in a process known as “controlled demolition,” where explosives and/or other devices are used to bring down a building.**

They then provide a list of 10 points of key evidence. Each point links to an article that elaborates on the point. Feel free to check it out here:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/evidence.html

You apparently know very little of why truthers desbelieve the official story. For some info on why they disbelieve the official story concerning the collapse of the WTC buildings, I suggest you take a look at the link above.

Ah, so it's alright if it's non truther hearsay, is it ? You're something else -.- You also still haven't answered my question.

 

I think some of those individuals (especially within the MSM) may have actually believed the official story, but it's possible that they didn't.

Not everyone defines debate that way though. Google defines it as:
"a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward."

I suppose it could be argued that we are not arguing very formally. You could perhaps even argue that you aren't arguing, though by the google definition, I think you are:
"an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one."

You may refrain from getting too heated or angry, and that I certainly think is good, but the bottom line is that there is certainly a lot of exchanging of diverging or opposite views in this forum...

 

Even if they believed it, the ones I listed all produced publications and "documentaries" on "conspiracy theories", rather than legitimately address the official conspiracy theory, as if the OCT was all 100% true. This is the height of fakery. The 4th estate is supposed to hold government's feet to the fire, not try to ridicule those who don't buy government propaganda. That is one of the functions of a free press, to publish fair and balanced news. Otherwise it's just a government propaganda mouthpiece. There was a PBS documentary a few years that actually televised the AE911T CD and C-Span interviewed Richard Gage and there was a section where viewers were able to call in and ask him questions. So not all MSM outlets are government puppets.

Well we each may have our own definition but for me, I just see it as discussions and/or an exchange of information with posters who hold many different personal views/opinions. I've seen posters post things like "game, set & match" or "checkmate", as if they've won some kind of victory. This falls into the nonsense category for me, I have no interest in any competition in a discussion forum.

 

Agreed on the puppets bit. As to the rest, all I can say is that there's a big difference between knowing the truth, but promoting a lie, and believing the lies oneself.

I can go with that. What I want is for the truth to prevail, and I think that discussion and/or debating can lead to that end.

 

Of course at the end of the day, that's all I'm looking for too. I have never read in any forum that any OCT defender has ever changed their mind and started questioning the OCT. It doesn't matter how many facts are thrown at them and how clearly it's shown that the OCT is a crock of manure, they always continue to defend it and ridicule all those who don't buy it.

 

I have. Not only have I read stories of former OCT supporters, but I think atleast one PF member who is now on our side said that originally, he was on the other side of the debate. I myself originally believed the OCT until I read a book from an author I trusted named Jim Marrs called "The Terror Conspiracy" who I believe made a very compelling case that the official story was full of holes. It was his book "Crossfire", plus Garrison's autobiography "On the Trail of the Assassins" that were the major inspirations for Oliver Stone's JFK film, which I definitely think was a very well done film. That being said, I have no hard evidence that I have ever personally swayed an OCT believer into literally coming over to the "non OCT" side. Nevertheless, I definitely think that I have expanded the amount of knowledge that some OCTers have had in regards to various aspects of 9/11. This may have even led to them questioning the official story a little more then they used to.

 

I guess it's possible then, I've never come across one. I've come across some who believe a good deal of the OCT is true but have many questions and are dissatisfied with the 9/11 investigations.

So did I for the first 3 years but it's one thing to believe it and quite another to defend it religiously.

I think we've both done that although some will never admit it.

 

You may have, in this very forum no less. You may just not be aware of it . I can no longer remember who in this forum I believe said it (I've been skimming a lot of posts recently). Eleuthera, was it you -.-?

And you've also come across some in this forum who have a few questions and may well be slightly dissatisfied wih the 9/11 investigations. As you may recall, Blues himself stated he'd like to see some new investigations. I believe Shinebox has also said he has a few niggling concerns. In my mind, it's all a matter of degree.

Sure. But people are defending all sorts of inane things all the time, from the religious to the political. I just chalk it up as one more of these things.

Many may not even be consciously aware that it happened. So goes the existence of The Dark Knight, laugh ...

 

Perhaps I should rephrase. I've never come across any poster who changed from being an OCT defender to overtly claiming it's not true. Some OCT defenders have expressed that they would be ok with a "new" investigation but usually saying it would be just to confirm the OCT. Some have stated they would like to see the 28 pages declassified but are confident it would change nothing about the OCT. But all of them just continue defending the OCT afterward.

 

Former OCT defender, show yourself, lol .

To be sure. But why do they feel the need for confirmation?

So why are they so keen on having those pages declassified?

The OCT encompasses many narratives; a lot of things happened on 9/11, as well as before it. Changing a single narrative may not look like such a big deal, especially when the full impact of the changes is currently unknown and can thus be minimized. But -any- change in the direction of what I think we can both agree is a more truthful narrative is a good one, no matter how small.

 

The ones that have said that have done so only after being asked why they would object to a "new" investigation, they claimed they were confident the OCT is true.

I can't speak for them so I can't answer that, also each person would have his/her reasons that may not be the same.

Partial truths are often misleading but sometimes they do open a can of worms. For example, if the 28 pages reveal unquestionable funding of 9/11 by the Saudi royal family, there might be a backlash from many Americans (those who bought the OCT) as to why this was covered up by the Bush administration, why the government waged war with Afghanistan and Iraq when it should have declared war on the Saudis instead and what is going to be done about it now that we know the Saudis were complicit in 9/11 and perhaps what else did the Bush administration coverup about 9/11 and also perhaps a demand to declassify much more as a result.

 

The fact that some, like Blues, would like a new investigation suggests that despite their general support of the OCT, they have some concerns. Sometimes I find that OCT supporters are most candid about their doubts when speaking to other OCT supporters. Margot, for instance, doesn't seem persuaded that all the identities of the 19 hijackers are real and made this clear while speaking to Blues. Blues, speaking with Margot, seemed to hold the same doubts. But when talking to -me- concerning a plane explosion proof, identity morphing passport found by an alleged anonymous person (first it was alleged to be Mohammed Atta's and then morphing to that of another alleged hijacker), he said he didn't find the story surprising at all -.-

To be sure. It's no secret, however, that even many die hard OCT supporters have doubts concerning the official story's suggestion in the 9/11 Commission that Saudi officials played no part in 9/11. Not that that story has fully died just yet. Just 4 days ago, the CIA chief John Brennan insisted that the 28 pages exonerate Saudi Arabia of involvement:
CIA chief: Missing report pages exonerate Saudi Arabia in 9/11 attacks | CNN

That's essentially how I feel as well. The truth flourishes in an environment where information is readily available and dies where it isn't. Ironically, even -deceptive- information can at times be quite helpful; put simply, the more information on a story there is, the harder it is to maintain any lies in it; unlike the truth, which is consistent because the truth doesn't change regardless of what angle you're looking at it from, lies falter precisely because at their root, they aren't based on anything in reality. While from one angle, they may appear solid, viewed from different angles, it becomes apparent that they are false, much like the penrose steps in Inception film:
[video=youtube;dvSD1EAlAUQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvSD1EAlAUQ[/video]

The work required for illusions is not easy, and just as in the above video example, viewing things from a different angle reveals the illusion for what it is. For anyone wanting to see just how much work that one illusion was, you can see this video:
[video=youtube;n2funNjIXhY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2funNjIXhY[/video]