"No Planes Hit The Twin Towers" claims ex-CIA agent

[pap]

Apart from a bit of gentle ribbing, you've been alright on this thread, so here's a bit of an expanded timeline. 9/11 was exactly the event the neo-conservatives needed to further the aims of their policy document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, which was essentially a blueprint for achieving and retaining US supremacy in the 21st century (summary | full).

 

The hawkish aims in the PNAC policy document could now be pursued

After the New Pearl Harbor, we got the multiple theater wars and by going to war with a nebulous concept like terrorism

 

My biggest problem with all of this is the way that 9/11, and events like it, have been used to justify draconian and frankly terrifying legislation. Since 2007, there has been a mechanism in place that could turn Britain into a dictatorship with a few amendments - no Parliamentary debate required. We have specific, separate anti-terror legislation which means due process can be suspended if I accuse you of being a terrorist instead of a murderer. We've seen, especially in America, the militarisation of the police to the point where they look as if they are ready for war with their own people, the demonisation of certain groups based on their faith, and the constant reminders that terrorists are amongst us.

 

They said the terrorists wouldn't change the way we lived; they were right - we did that to ourselves, or allowed it to happen with fear.

 

9/11 was a catalyst that sent the world down a very dark path, seemingly with no resolution. Whatever your view on the culpable parties, I think that's inarguable. Look at the way it allowed groups like the EDL to maintain a veneer of legitimacy, the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation and the thus self-fulfilling prophecy of radicalisation.

 

Afghanistan and Iraq were both strategic objectives. Like PNAC's document said, there is no way the US public would have signed up for either if 9/11 had not happened. They got their New Pearl Harbor, and their way.

 

My points.

 

Your point being the only way the US government could facilitate an increase in military spending was by planning, organising, executing and covering up the greatest terrorist atrocity in the history of mankind, killing hundreds of its own innocent civilians.

 

Why couldn't they just increase military spending without doing that, like Reagan did? A few scare stories in the paper, bit of media briefing, that kind of thing.

 

You know, just a weird way of planning stuff really. At best, unnecessary and ill thought through, you know? I reckon they could have got away with buying a couple more warships without the whole organised mass murder of own people thing. But I'm a brainwashed-by-the-mass-media idiot, so what do I know?

 

Your representation of my points.

 

 

-----

 

This is a double. You may wish to swap it with someone who needs it (but really, who needs it?)

 

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

[Fowllyd]

Returning to 9/11 and your questions on planes, I'm honestly not feeling a need to expand on my previous answer. They were decoys; this very thread is about a chap claiming they never existed.

 

But who then was at the controls? Somebody flew two planes into the WTC towers, knowing full well that they would die. So who was persuaded to do that? Or were those planes flown by actual terrorists, who did so not knowing that their entire plot was actually hatched, funded and controlled by the very people they were seeking to hurt?

[Saint Paul C]

The increase in military spend post 2001 was relatively minor. Certainly less than Reagan's in the 1980's. Like most conspiracy guff, this one doesn't survive even cursory inspection.

 

 

Lies, damned lies and statistics

 

[CB Fry]

My points.

 

 

 

Your representation of my points.

 

 

-----

 

This is a double. You may wish to swap it with someone who needs it (but really, who needs it?)

 

Pap, your post is a Strawman you fool.

 

The entire 9/11 conspiracy is a strawman.

 

Yoking together post 2001 increased defence spending/tighter police controls and the attacks on the twin towers and then concluding that the US government planned, carried out and then covered up the greatest terrorist atrocity in history as the only means to achieve those measures is frankly the strawiest strawman in the history of straw.

 

And your evidence is whimsical, flimsy, half thought through nonsense fragments about things you know nothing about, because you know absolutely nothing about what would happen if a commercial airliner hit a skyscraper.

 

Miniscule fragments of inconsequential "inconsistencies" (lets call them straw) that you and your conspiro-idiots then have worked up into a whole heap of meaningless man of straw.

 

The US government did not plan and execute mass murder by flying planes into the world trade centre.

 

You calling that statement of fact a strawman shows what a deluded and gullible child you really are.

 

Strawman me up.

[pap]

Pap, your post is a Strawman you fool.

 

The entire 9/11 conspiracy is a strawman.

 

Yoking together post 2001 increased defence spending/tighter police controls and the attacks on the twin towers and then concluding that the US government planned, carried out and then covered up the greatest terrorist atrocity in history as the only means to achieve those measures is frankly the strawiest strawman in the history of straw.

 

And your evidence is whimsical, flimsy, half thought through nonsense fragments about things you know nothing about, because you know absolutely nothing about what would happen if a commercial airliner hit a skyscraper.

 

Miniscule fragments of inconsequential "inconsistencies" (lets call them straw) that you and your conspiro-idiots then have worked up into a whole heap of meaningless man of straw.

 

The US government did not plan and execute mass murder by flying planes into the world trade centre.

 

You calling that statement of fact a strawman shows what a deluded and gullible child you really are.

 

Strawman me up.

 

Not bad. You got 3 of the 25 rules of disinformation:-

 

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

 

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

 

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

 

A few DI traits too:-

 

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

 

Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

[John Smith]

Not bad. You got 3 of the 25 rules of disinformation:-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few DI traits too:-

 

Quality, I haven't read all this thread, apologies, but do you have a link for those rules, I would really enjoy the read.

 

The reason I wanted to post here though is on a slightly different tangent to the normal conspiracy, did they didn't they, sort of questioning. Unfortunately, many people lost their lives, a real tragedy, and like war, where many casualties also occur, advancements in technology filter into the mainstream and make our lives better or easier in some way. What I'm trying to say is that there is a very clear message here. Let's assume that the CIA agent affidavit 'report' is fictitious and, as many have pointed out, the character of this former CIA agent is holy questionable, therefore, his report will be proved wrong. THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR EVERYBODY!!!!!

 

Basically, the long held views of gravity and Newtons theory and physics have all been proved wrong. If anything, what has come from this obvious terror attack is that we now know passenger planes DO NOT have to fly at 40,000 feet. This climbing to a specific altitude is unnecessary and the theory is wrong. I understand that the theory showed planes needed to fly at this height and speed has never been tested and that the clear eye witness accounts of 9/11 prove Newton was just wrong and plane safety experts HAVE TO rethink this now. Clearly, these Boeing Passenger Jets CAN fly at the same speeds at ground level that they do at the purported safe height of thousands of feet. Think of Ryan Air, on the back of this clear and documented 'experiment', they don't have to fuel the planes to fly in excess of 20,000 feet, which, breaking through gravity constraints to get to the 'easier' height, is no longer necessary, this is a massive fuel saving for you and me. Now, I'm not advocating flying at 500 feet over cities or resedential area's, but, over the sea, why not only 500 or a thousand feet? And if you're travelling to America or Australia, think of the massive savings.

 

So, when this affidavit is rebutted and the evidence is provided that backs up what we all saw with our own eyes, expect planes to be flying a hell of a lot lower and be prepared to slash the prices of air travel, fantastic!!!!!

[pap]

Quality, I haven't read all this thread, apologies, but do you have a link for those rules, I would really enjoy the read.

 

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

[John Smith]

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

 

That is awesome, cheers!

 

Another question that this throws up, assuming that this Newton guy is dillusional (has anyone got any dirt on this Newton guy to help this process along, the quicker he's made to look like a child molester, the sooner we get cheaper flights!), why does the land speed record not exceed 500mph yet, I mean, is it just a case of bad tyres? Come on Michelin/Dunlop, get with the anti Newton programme and start ignoring the laws of physics. And don't talk to me about formula 1 cars. As for drag racing, what drag, there is no drag, it's just a conspiracy. Now, who's got the theory that replaces gravity, gotta be quick though, I think we're all going to drift off into space! What the heck is atmosphere? Does this also disprove atoms and molecules? All those years of believing Newton, look where it's got us!It's the same as when a man carrying a flag had to walk in front of cars or when we believed we'd die if cars went above 40mph, haha comical. Bring on the new age of Polarity! YAY!

[pap]

That is awesome, cheers!

 

No problem.

 

Another question that this throws up, assuming that this Newton guy is dillusional (has anyone got any dirt on this Newton guy to help this process along, the quicker he's made to look like a child molester, the sooner we get cheaper flights!), why does the land speed record not exceed 500mph yet, I mean, is it just a case of bad tyres? Come on Michelin/Dunlop, get with the anti Newton programme and start ignoring the laws of physics. And don't talk to me about formula 1 cars. As for drag racing, what drag, there is no drag, it's just a conspiracy. Now, who's got the theory that replaces gravity, gotta be quick though, I think we're all going to drift off into space! What the heck is atmosphere? Does this also disprove atoms and molecules? All those years of believing Newton, look where it's got us!It's the same as when a man carrying a flag had to walk in front of cars or when we believed we'd die if cars went above 40mph, haha comical. Bring on the new age of Polarity! YAY!

 

No real idea what that's all about.

[OldNick]

As an aside I always wonder why they didnt do the White House first, surely that would have been even more dramatic

[RedArmy]

I love the way pap makes you feel special that he was so kind to reply to your post and share his superior knowledge with you.

 

It doesn't come across as condescending at all.

[buctootim]

Its alright guys, the WTC planes were just holograms. Phew!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jCiQVnbwfc

[pap]

I love the way pap makes you feel special that he was so kind to reply to your post and share his superior knowledge with you.

 

It doesn't come across as condescending at all.

 

Most people find it annoying. I'm glad you enjoy it.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just a couple of points today...

 

The land speed record is over 760mph

 

Planes can fly fast and low but they use more fuel.

[RedArmy]

Most people find it annoying. I'm glad you enjoy it.

I do, I really do!

 

I also can't wait to get home and watch the video above about holograms, I hope the guy explains how they added the sound.

[Halo Stickman]

As an aside I always wonder why they didnt do the White House first, surely that would have been even more dramatic

 

Perhaps UA Flight 93 was heading for the White House as a sick dramatic grand finale?

 

One of the things I struggle to understand about the conspiracists’ take on 9/11 is their seeming obsession with the towers collapsing. Justified or not, surely the ‘war on terror’, increased police powers, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq etc. were instigated the moments the planes struck their targets, not the moments the towers collapsed?

[Whitey Grandad]

I do, I really do!

 

I also can't wait to get home and watch the video above about holograms, I hope the guy explains how they added the sound.

 

If they're that good these holograms must be all around us now. It would explain a lot.

[buctootim]

Just a couple of points today...

 

The land speed record is over 760mph

 

Planes can fly fast and low but they use more fuel.

 

Quite. The speed they are allowed to fly at at low altitude, the speed its technically safe to fly at, and the speed its technically possible to fly at are three different things.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/speed-likely-factor-in-wtc-collapse-25-02-2002/

[pap]

I do, I really do!

 

I also can't wait to get home and watch the video above about holograms, I hope the guy explains how they added the sound.

 

I'm flattered that you've chosen to use 2/3 of your peasant post quota to address me.

 

Come on, go for the hat-trick.

[pap]

Perhaps UA Flight 93 was heading for the White House as a sick dramatic grand finale?

 

One of the things I struggle to understand about the conspiracists’ take on 9/11 is their seeming obsession with the towers collapsing. Justified or not, surely the ‘war on terror’, increased police powers, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq etc. were instigated the moments the planes struck their targets, not the moments the towers collapsed?

 

C'mon now, Halo.

 

The war on terror started the moment the 19 hijackers were named.

[View From The Top]

Perhaps UA Flight 93 was heading for the White House as a sick dramatic grand finale?

 

One of the things I struggle to understand about the conspiracists’ take on 9/11 is their seeming obsession with the towers collapsing. Justified or not, surely the ‘war on terror’, increased police powers, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq etc. were instigated the moments the planes struck their targets, not the moments the towers collapsed?

 

That is what has been suspected, that or the Capitol Building.

[CB Fry]

C'mon now, Halo.

 

The war on terror started the moment the 19 hijackers were named.

 

Surely it started before that, you know, when the government were planning the mass murder of hundreds of their own innocent people?

 

Come on, I know you struggle with gathering up your little pieces of straw but come on.

[buctootim]

Pap. Can you start accusing posters of being paid government agents and typing "Shill! shill!" over and over again?

 

I liked that part. It was entertaining.

[pap]

Surely it started before that, you know, when the government were planning the mass murder of hundreds of their own innocent people?

 

Come on, I know you struggle with gathering up your little pieces of straw but come on.

 

I've been fairly clear on who I believe are the responsible parties.

 

Keep doing the "whole government" thing though, yeah?

 

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

[pap]

Pap. Can you start accusing posters of being paid government agents and typing "Shill! shill!" over and over again?

 

I liked that part. It was entertaining.

 

We've moved on from that, Tim.

 

The cryptome stuff is less effort. Would you like me to start scoring your posts?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What I find more intriguing is that so many people want to believe in a conspiracy rather than accept the obvious explanation.

 

When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras's.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I generally am - You (As you know) pished me off with the Lee Rigby stuff which I found offensive. Which maybe makes me a hypocrite for indulging in this thread, but 911 isn't quite so raw.

 

So anyway thanks for your reply (genuinely) but it doesn't really answer the question.

 

Again - Let's assume that everything you posted is correct (In your reply) - What difference did the planes make?

 

After 911, the rules of flying changed, the skies were and are policed in a very different way post 911 and Jo public can feel safer than they ever have being up in the air.

 

Imagine if it was just explosives? That fear would live forever, AQ getting into the heart of America and blowing up two of it's most important building? What would be their next target, who would be safe? That strikes me as having more of an impact than a boxed off, new form of terrorism.

 

Then there is this energy weapon (I wont pretend to have a clue what this actually is) lets say that's how it was done - Can you imagine the hysteria around the world if terrorists were thought to have such weapons - The whole world would have fed out of the Americans hands to hunt them down and punish them.

 

I could be wrong but the idea of hysteria, panic and retaliation strikes would have been better served without the planes.

 

I think people are more scared of a new Boston Marathon bombing than a new 9/11, for instance.

[RedArmy]

I'm flattered that you've chosen to use 2/3 of your peasant post quota to address me.

 

Come on, go for the hat-trick.

Back of the net!

[pap]

Back of the net!

 

Good lad

[CB Fry]

I've been fairly clear on who I believe are the responsible parties.

 

Keep doing the "whole government" thing though, yeah?

 

Who is it, then?

 

Who's the head on your strawman?

[pap]

Who is it, then?

 

Who's the head on your strawman?

 

All on the thread. Learn to read.

[CB Fry]

All on the thread. Learn to read.

 

Who is it then?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

CB Fry, stop being obtuse. This is actually an interesting debate. Pap is allowed his opinion on things, there's nothing wrong with that, but you seem to be abusing him a little too much for what just seems to be quite an inoffensive opinion.

[Verbal]

Its alright guys, the WTC planes were just holograms. Phew!

 

As someone who's met and interviewed, among others, the widow of the captain of American Airlines Flight 11, the husband of one of the flight attendants calling from the plane as it headed for the North Tower, and the ground staff member to whom she was talking as this first hijack unfolded, I must say they seemed real to me - including their palpable sadness and grief. But then maybe I'm a hologram too. And you. And (almost) everyone. And the Matrix is a documentary.

 

The only thing real in this entire wide world is an IT plumber stranded and earthbound in some Liverpool 'burb.

[CB Fry]

CB Fry, stop being obtuse. This is actually an interesting debate. Pap is allowed his opinion on things, there's nothing wrong with that, but you seem to be abusing him a little too much for what just seems to be quite an inoffensive opinion.

 

I'm not bring obtuse when a conspriro-idiot tries to accuse others of building strawmen.

 

I am waiting for Pap to answer the question - who was in the meeting when this atrocity was planned, and how did they manage to engage all the people they would need to carry it off without one single person ever challenging the stupidity, pointlessness or pure sodding evil of the idea. How did everyone nod along, they were all that convinced about the catalysing event, and they were all, immediately and without debate convinced that was the catalysing event required. The planes into the tower block. That's the one. Because I've been in meetings about stuff slightly less important like that, and had loads of opposing views to deal with. Just strange how popular that idea was.

 

You wallies can have a jolly interesting debate about the melting point of metal, or what happens when you drop a bag of sugar, or Pap ' s apparent expertise of knowing precisely what would actually happen if a "real" passenger jet flew into a skyscraper. And Pap can do his catalysing event routine because it all justifies everything after the fact, the ultimate convenience for the conspriro-idiot.

 

But what about before the fact.

 

Who was in the room when they planned it?

 

Gimme some straw Papster.

[buctootim]

As someone who's met and interviewed, among others, the widow of the captain of American Airlines Flight 11, the husband of one of the flight attendants calling from the plane as it headed for the North Tower, and the ground staff member to whom she was talking as this first hijack unfolded, I must say they seemed real to me - including their palpable sadness and grief. But then maybe I'm a hologram too. And you. And (almost) everyone. And the Matrix is a documentary.

 

The only thing real in this entire wide world is an IT plumber stranded and earthbound in some Liverpool 'burb.

 

My favourite part from that hologram vid is just after 1.00mins when he claims holograms have shadows.

[pap]

I'm not bring obtuse when a conspriro-idiot tries to accuse others of building strawmen.

 

I am waiting for Pap to answer the question - who was in the meeting when this atrocity was planned, and how did they manage to engage all the people they would need to carry it off without one single person ever challenging the stupidity, pointlessness or pure sodding evil of the idea. How did everyone nod along, they were all that convinced about the catalysing event, and they were all, immediately and without debate convinced that was the catalysing event required. The planes into the tower block. That's the one. Because I've been in meetings about stuff slightly less important like that, and had loads of opposing views to deal with. Just strange how popular that idea was.

 

You wallies can have a jolly interesting debate about the melting point of metal, or what happens when you drop a bag of sugar, or Pap ' s apparent expertise of knowing precisely what would actually happen if a "real" passenger jet flew into a skyscraper. And Pap can do his catalysing event routine because it all justifies everything after the fact, the ultimate convenience for the conspriro-idiot.

 

But what about before the fact.

 

Who was in the room when they planned it?

 

Gimme some straw Papster.

 

Just a score. Diminishing returns, lad.

 

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

[pap]

As someone who's met and interviewed, among others, the widow of the captain of American Airlines Flight 11, the husband of one of the flight attendants calling from the plane as it headed for the North Tower, and the ground staff member to whom she was talking as this first hijack unfolded, I must say they seemed real to me - including their palpable sadness and grief. But then maybe I'm a hologram too. And you. And (almost) everyone. And the Matrix is a documentary.

 

The only thing real in this entire wide world is an IT plumber stranded and earthbound in some Liverpool 'burb.

 

Apologies for repetition. Didn't get an answer yesterday.

 

Talking about footprints, a genuine 9/11 conspiracy would put you personally in a bad spot, wouldn't it?

 

At best, your work would look like garnish. At worst, outright propaganda.

 

Enjoy these, you've earned them:-

 

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

 

 

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

 

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

[igsey]

Apologies for repetition. Didn't get an answer yesterday.

 

 

 

Enjoy these, you've earned them:-

 

Pap, I feel with you giving out all these awards, you're neglecting yourself; it's not healthy. Here, cherish these:

 

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

 

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

 

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

 

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

 

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

 

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

 

Hey. You earned them.

[John Smith]

I'm not bring obtuse when a conspriro-idiot tries to accuse others of building strawmen.

 

I am waiting for Pap to answer the question - who was in the meeting when this atrocity was planned, and how did they manage to engage all the people they would need to carry it off without one single person ever challenging the stupidity, pointlessness or pure sodding evil of the idea. How did everyone nod along, they were all that convinced about the catalysing event, and they were all, immediately and without debate convinced that was the catalysing event required. The planes into the tower block. That's the one. Because I've been in meetings about stuff slightly less important like that, and had loads of opposing views to deal with. Just strange how popular that idea was.

 

You wallies can have a jolly interesting debate about the melting point of metal, or what happens when you drop a bag of sugar, or Pap ' s apparent expertise of knowing precisely what would actually happen if a "real" passenger jet flew into a skyscraper. And Pap can do his catalysing event routine because it all justifies everything after the fact, the ultimate convenience for the conspriro-idiot.

 

But what about before the fact.

 

Who was in the room when they planned it?

 

Gimme some straw Papster.

 

For me, the 'Official Story' is a wash. Whatever you think happened and whomever you think responsible and behind the funding of this expensive operation (who ever executed it), the official story and guidelines are so flawed it would take a marathon post to ask them all. So, to save these threads from always going on and the conspiracy theorists rolling out question after question without official evidence to back up the responses, please view this clip and answer all questions asked. Then, when you have formulated an answer to every question and can prove without a shadow of doubt that you are correct, then I will believe what the United States of America Government says. What gaws me most about this is ththe way the american congress stood by and watched the evidence of a crime scence be removed and never seen of again for testing. Whatever your thoughts on who did what, think of those that died that day, they were not given the most basic of rights in the investigation of the reasons they were maliciously killed. Whoever did this should have been traced by the best scientists and the best services (secret or otherwise) and explained to us all. Not a list of 19 names who many were not actually part of the hijacking but still alive. And as to who funded the training and so on, the government didn't think it was important to find out who paid for these terrorists!!!! ????????? Criminal investigations were criminal.

 

So, watch if you want a debate or just think about the illegal nature in which these murdered people were treated before people start spouting think of the families who lost loved ones. They were not given justice and illegally swept away. Disgraceful.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6pEZf8P_RE

[aintforever]

One of the things I struggle to understand about the conspiracists’ take on 9/11 is their seeming obsession with the towers collapsing. Justified or not, surely the ‘war on terror’, increased police powers, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq etc. were instigated the moments the planes struck their targets, not the moments the towers collapsed?

 

The truther nut jobs seem to miss this obvious fact (among numerous others). Wether the towers collapsed or not made zero difference to what would have followed so there is no reason why the US government go through some risky, far fetched demolition job.

[CB Fry]

Just a score. Diminishing returns, lad.

 

I'm not demanding a complete solution. I think you'll find that kind of thing is the domain of yer average rent a gob conspiro-idiot. And you are a pretty average one, lets be clear.

 

The world is a little more complicated than you and your strawman army see it, Pappy.

 

This is all a delicious opportunity to reel you on your pitiful lack of self awareness, though. Great fun.

 

Now, who was in that first planning meeting?

 

That meeting is step one on planning the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known. Step one of a huge project, involving tens, probably at least a hundred people.

 

The fact you think me asking that of you is asking for "the complete solution" is a really quite sweet insight into how your brain processes how the world works.

 

So, who was in that meeting?

[pap]

I'm not demanding a complete solution. I think you'll find that kind of thing is the domain of yer average rent a gob conspiro-idiot. And you are a pretty average one, lets be clear.

 

The world is a little more complicated than you and your strawman army see it, Pappy.

 

This is all a delicious opportunity to reel you on your pitiful lack of self awareness, though. Great fun.

 

Now, who was in that first planning meeting?

 

That meeting is step one on planning the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known. Step one of a huge project, involving tens, probably at least a hundred people.

 

The fact you think me asking that of you is asking for "the complete solution" is a really quite sweet insight into how your brain processes how the world works.

 

So, who was in that meeting?

 

Four. Assessed on these, you've got a long way to go. Can you work on getting some others? I'm annoyed with copying and pasting the same stuff.

 

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

 

 

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

 

 

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

 

 

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

[aintforever]

I've not really got a position on the planes. We saw planes at WTC. We were told that there was a plane at the Pentagon, and yet despite that being inbound for quite some time, there's no footage. Five frames of fúck-knows-what, but it really doesn't look like a passenger airliner.

 

There is loads of footage from numerous different angles of the second plane hitting the tower, it looked like an airliner to me.

 

Surely, even you must admit that if the US government did decide to commit the mass murder of it's own people, live on TV to millions worldwide, in a major city in front of thousands of onlookers all with the ability to record the event on their phones - THEY WOULD USE THE SAME TYPE OF PLANE?

[pap]

Pap, I feel with you giving out all these awards, you're neglecting yourself; it's not healthy. Here, cherish these:

 

Hey. You earned them.

 

Top man, igsey.

 

It's always nice to be appreciated.

[Whitey Grandad]

For me, the 'Official Story' is a wash. Whatever you think happened and whomever you think responsible and behind the funding of this expensive operation (who ever executed it), the official story and guidelines are so flawed it would take a marathon post to ask them all. So, to save these threads from always going on and the conspiracy theorists rolling out question after question without official evidence to back up the responses, please view this clip and answer all questions asked. Then, when you have formulated an answer to every question and can prove without a shadow of doubt that you are correct, then I will believe what the United States of America Government says. What gaws me most about this is ththe way the american congress stood by and watched the evidence of a crime scence be removed and never seen of again for testing. Whatever your thoughts on who did what, think of those that died that day, they were not given the most basic of rights in the investigation of the reasons they were maliciously killed. Whoever did this should have been traced by the best scientists and the best services (secret or otherwise) and explained to us all. Not a list of 19 names who many were not actually part of the hijacking but still alive. And as to who funded the training and so on, the government didn't think it was important to find out who paid for these terrorists!!!! ????????? Criminal investigations were criminal.

 

So, watch if you want a debate or just think about the illegal nature in which these murdered people were treated before people start spouting think of the families who lost loved ones. They were not given justice and illegally swept away. Disgraceful.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6pEZf8P_RE

 

I started watching it but the commentary shows such a poor understanding of the physics involved that I gave up.

[CB Fry]

Four. Assessed on these, you've got a long way to go. Can you work on getting some others? I'm annoyed with copying and pasting the same stuff.

 

Who was in that meeting?

[CB Fry]

I started watching it but the commentary shows such a poor understanding of the physics involved that I gave up.

 

I let it burble on for about twenty minutes while I made lunch. The usual rag bag of half truths and constructed inconsistencies with the guy affirmatively stating "it wouldn't have been like that" from a position of zero knowledge.

 

My favourite bit was when he said "there were no skid marks". I mean, LOLZ. After that I switched off as realised it was 90 odd minutes long.

 

Back to mainstream media brainwashing for me. Oh, I'm such a narrow minded sheep. I'm terrible.

[badgerx16]

In relation to all the 'it wouldn't have happened like that' style dismissal of what everybody watching on TV clearly saw, ( or were tricked into seeing ); how many experiments had been conducted to garner empirical evidence of what happens when an airliner flies into a 100+ storey skyscraper ? How many computer simulations had been carried out prior to 9/11 ? ( Having looked at a few of the 'truther' sites it's amazing that they tend to start their "evidence" with "I am not a structural engineer, but.....". )

[Whitey Grandad]

In relation to all the 'it wouldn't have happened like that' style dismissal of what everybody watching on TV clearly saw, ( or were tricked into seeing ); how many experiments had been conducted to garner empirical evidence of what happens when an airliner flies into a 100+ storey skyscraper ? How many computer simulations had been carried out prior to 9/11 ? ( Having looked at a few of the 'truther' sites it's amazing that they tend to start their "evidence" with "I am not a structural engineer, but.....". )

 

From what little I read a couple of days ago it appears that any calculations about aircraft impact did not take into account the effect of the fires caused by the fuel. In these buildings the fuel had an almost unimpeded path over several floors, partly due to the open design of the office spaces which were a characteristic of the building design.