Dr_Dave Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Have other soldiers not risked their lives in operations? That is the very nature of their job... Sure, but now you're extending the conspiracy to include the army, and since they're following orders without question, probably the very lowest echelons of the army as well. In a military where the polaroids of prisoner mistreatment at Abu Ghraib sneak out within weeks to appear on the world's media, I have a hard time believing that such an operation would remain secret for very long. Don't you? Fact is, you can posit any number of convoluted scenarios to explain finding metal spheres in the dust - at the moment, to keep the conspiracy theory alive, we have: silent explosives rigged in record time by super-secretive, super committed army grunts who managed to stealth into a burning building without being noticed by the world's media and the silence of the NYFD who had lost 350 colleagues already. You wouldn't believe it if it was a Die Hard film. What's wrong with "the metal spheres were produced in the welding process"? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Lingering doubts is fine, suggesting utter implausable explanations for lingering doubts is insane. I like this review from the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertai...bc2-861141.html Ultimately you will never persuade a conspiracy theorist to the cotrary as it is almost a religeous belief they have. Any proof to the contary they either ignore or include those providing the proof as being part of the conspiracy. I thought the documentary was fairly fair as both sides put their point of view and the viewer was left to make their own decision. I particularly liked the architect who on accepting that you could not have rigged the building in the time and without it being noticed came up with the idea that the explosives might have been included in the building when it was being built in the late 70's early 80's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Ultimately you will never persuade a conspiracy theorist to the cotrary as it is almost a religeous belief they have. Any proof to the contary they either ignore or include those providing the proof as being part of the conspiracy. Any copper investigating a crime, motive, and collecting evidence in the process, must be a 'conspiracy theorist' of sorts. I might agree with you and this article if all the facts were out, and the issue had been investigated properly. But that's the point isn't it, it hasn't been investigated properly. This is not a simple two sided argument i.e. terrorists or government. There are numerous dimensions to this such as: you believe it was solely terrorist driven; it was all the work of the government; a combination of the two; an insurance job, or there were simply many mistakes made - some of which may or may not have got covered up to protect the government, or a little of everything. Then there are all the other factors to consider: Iraq, Afghanistan, corporate finance investigation evidence housed in WTC7 and motive and opportunity in an economy and leadership driven by oil and the $ - all led by the son of a past president who failed to deal properly with Sadam Hussein even when the opportunity was handed to him on a plate. People are quick to try and assinate people who think differently. That's fine when the evidence is there, but until it is and has been investigated properly, hardly scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Any copper investigating a crime, motive, and collecting evidence in the process, must be a 'conspiracy theorist' of sorts. I might agree with you and this article if all the facts were out, and the issue had been investigated properly. But that's the point isn't it, it hasn't been investigated properly. You're confusing suspicion with conclusion. And the damn things been investigated to hell and back, the 'truthers' just wont accept any of them. NIST included wtc 7 for example. People are quick to try and assinate people who think differently. That's fine when the evidence is there, but until it is and has been investigated properly, hardly scientific. Na, there's plenty of evidence, it's just ignored by tin hatters, tin hatters like yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Yay! The 9/11 thread's back. People are quick to try and assinate people who think differently. That's fine when the evidence is there, but until it is and has been investigated properly, hardly scientific. People have been providing you with plenty of evidence and solid reasoning to account for what you see as descrepancies, and to dispell the so-called mysteries of 9/11. It's also not exactly scientific* to come up with phantom agents stealing into buildings and blowing them up with no evidence whatsoever - wild conjecture is not scientific. * On that subject, can I appeal for the term scientific to be forbidden in all contexts other than when explicitly referring to the sciences? Speculating about who caused 9/11 is not science, and it's breaking my poor little heart to see its name being dragged through the mud in order to bolster or undermine people's arguments without due cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 You're confusing suspicion with conclusion. And the damn things been investigated to hell and back, the 'truthers' just wont accept any of them. NIST included wtc 7 for example. ...Na, there's plenty of evidence, it's just ignored by tin hatters, tin hatters like yourself. What conclusion, when it hasn't been investigated properly? WTC7 has still not been fully investigated and reported on by the commission. As to tin-hatter - why don't you just take your ball home then. Unless you can answer these specific unanswered questions and back them with official evidence, simply spouting 'tin-hatter! tin-hatter!' hardly adds anything to the debate. As nearly seven in 10 Americans believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a Washington Post poll in 2003, it makes me think people on both sides of this debate just want to hear what they want to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Any copper investigating a crime, motive, and collecting evidence in the process, must be a 'conspiracy theorist' of sorts. I might agree with you and this article if all the facts were out, and the issue had been investigated properly. But that's the point isn't it, it hasn't been investigated properly. Yes they do but they look at the evidence and deduct a reasonable conclusion from that evidence and investigate that the conclusion is correct. They do not review that evidence deduct a reasonable and then think of as many implausible reasons as they can think of to ignore and investigate add finitum additional implausible concluions everytime one of the other is disproved People are quick to try and assinate people who think differently. That's fine when the evidence is there, but until it is and has been investigated properly, hardly scientific. Yes but you have to investigate what is plausible or rational. Ww do not investigate eveytime there is a murder wether a little green man in a space suit came down from Mars and did it as a quick rational review states that it is implausible. We do not argue that it is is a possibility until we investigate otherwise. I would accept that there maybe something in the conspiracy theory re WTC 7 if somebody could put together what I would consider to be a reasonable rational case that would stand up to five minutes thought. As yet nobody has explained how it could have been rigged in the time available without anyone noticing and without the explosion to bring down the building being picked up. In all this I do believe there is much to investigate and that is not the collapse of the buildings etc, but the incompetance of the USA intelligence authoritites in the build up and the Governments reaction afterwards. There is plenty there for people to dig their teeth into but no instead we have silly conspiracy theories. I would almost be tempted to believe that the USA Govt promote and encourage the conspiracy theories just to stop their other being looked at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 How about starting a list of great conspiracies? My contribution: Princess Diana - killed by British Secret Service, Coventry - Churchill did not alter the Luftwaffe X-Gerat direction beams to protect ULTRA, Lusitania - was deliberately not protected from known presence of U-boat off Ireland to bring America into WWI, Anything to do with UFOs and Roswell AFB, JFK - assassinated either by the Cubans or by the US Right, The Hollocaust - never happened, Neil Armstrong - filmed walking on the Moon in a studio, Pearl Harbour - the US Government allowed it to happen to overcome opposition to entering WWII, Oklahoma bombing - Timothy McVeigh was helped by the Iraqi Intelligence Service Pam Crowe has a 'black book' that has allowed her to stay on as a postie The internet - created by a US government ‘Black Ops’ programme primarily for the dissemination of conspiracy theories! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumble Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Great list - and I think at least 5 of them WERE real conspiracies that will probably never be revealed. And I'm no tin-hatter, but the older I get the less I trust political leaders. I watched the doc too and thought much of what the Truthers said was perfectly plausible (even if THEY weren't). I reckon Bush had every intention of launching a crusade against Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran, securing oil reserves, looking tough to get re-elected, producing a more compliant electorate and empowering his government to do everything short of impose martial law. He succeeded. And a thought - many floors of WTC 7 were rented out to Government. What's to say one of the lower floors was rented to Uncle Sam for months prior to 9/11, and a CIA/special ops military team went in every day in suits to rig demolition explosives. The first controlled demolition expert had no hesitation in saying the building had been blown down. The second is on the Government payroll, so is bound to toe the line. Finally - motive. Maybe the owner of the WTC (who had recently insured the whole site pretty comprehensively) knew there were building defects that would cost billions to put right. Money talks... I think it was a conspiracy to some extent. I think GWB knew about it beforehand - at least in principle. But we'll never know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutley Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 How about starting a list of great conspiracies? My contribution: Princess Diana - killed by British Secret Service, Coventry - Churchill did not alter the Luftwaffe X-Gerat direction beams to protect ULTRA, Lusitania - was deliberately not protected from known presence of U-boat off Ireland to bring America into WWI, Anything to do with UFOs and Roswell AFB, JFK - assassinated either by the Cubans or by the US Right, The Hollocaust - never happened, Neil Armstrong - filmed walking on the Moon in a studio, Pearl Harbour - the US Government allowed it to happen to overcome opposition to entering WWII, Oklahoma bombing - Timothy McVeigh was helped by the Iraqi Intelligence Service Pam Crowe has a 'black book' that has allowed her to stay on as a postie The internet - created by a US government ‘Black Ops’ programme primarily for the dissemination of conspiracy theories! Albert Tatlock - Once had a good thing to say about someone/something. Isle of Man - Owned by a Russian billionaire with a roundabout fetish. Wagon Wheels - Haven't really gotten smaller. IOM Tourist Dept - Secretly run by Dandara to obliterate the tourist industry thus enabling them to snap up hotels and entertainment venues cheaply. Mount Murray - The Govt knew all along what the sketch was there but ignored it. IRIS system - Actually imports sewage from the UK which is dried and burned in the incinerator - which in turn gives all MHK's free electricity. DOT - Secretly trying to cut off Douglas from the rest of the island by creating roadblocks on the major roads and designing unusable traffic systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 DOT - Secretly trying to cut off Douglas from the rest of the island by creating roadblocks on the major roads and designing unusable traffic systems. But that's not a conspiracy - that's just how it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Is it true the CIA have a rendition facility at Jurby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovenotfear Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Hey, this is getting way to serious! How about some light entertainment?! http://www.edgemediatv.com/icke/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*daniel* Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I think it was a conspiracy to some extent. I think GWB knew about it beforehand - at least in principle. But we'll never know for sure. Well it is documented isn't it that they had several warnings that something like this was going to happen. The head of security man from the WTCs did say that he raised the fact that this was going to be the most likely form of attack. It boils down to one of two things for me, absolute, utter and unforgivable incompetence or a thoughtful, detailed, well prepared plot (either by the terrorists of the government). I don't know, it's hard to fathom how people from the middle east COULD pull it off. With all the training, all the plotting, all the financing and all without being stopped at any point. I don't know which is more logical to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Albert Tatlock - Once had a good thing to say about someone/something.Isle of Man - Owned by a Russian billionaire with a roundabout fetish. Wagon Wheels - Haven't really gotten smaller. IOM Tourist Dept - Secretly run by Dandara to obliterate the tourist industry thus enabling them to snap up hotels and entertainment venues cheaply. Mount Murray - The Govt knew all along what the sketch was there but ignored it. IRIS system - Actually imports sewage from the UK which is dried and burned in the incinerator - which in turn gives all MHK's free electricity. DOT - Secretly trying to cut off Douglas from the rest of the island by creating roadblocks on the major roads and designing unusable traffic systems. Close, but you just missed out on the cigar: Albert Tatlock - Once had a good thing to say about someone/something. Correct...but now having met you in person... Isle of Man - Owned by a Russian billionaire with a roundabout fetish. Nearly, I won the Nigerian Lottery...again...and only currently own about 0.003% of the island, and one roundabout. Bruce Hannay has all the rest - though few people realise from the air, manx roundabouts actually look like pogs and are internationally swapable. Wagon Wheels - Haven't really gotten smaller. Correct - your mouth just got bigger. IOM Tourist Dept - Secretly run by Dandara to obliterate the tourist industry thus enabling them to snap up hotels and entertainment venues cheaply. Completely Correct. Mount Murray - The Govt knew all along what the sketch was there but ignored it. Nearly. The real answer is the government are an ongoing sketch starring 24 MHKs. IRIS system - Actually imports sewage from the UK which is dried and burned in the incinerator - which in turn gives all MHK's free electricity. Nearly - actually imports MHKs. DOT - Secretly trying to cut off Douglas from the rest of the island by creating roadblocks on the major roads and designing unusable traffic systems. Nearly - secretly trying to cut off everyone, run by 16 scots armed with lashes of lager and one pair of compasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.