Jimcalagon Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 You simply cannot generalise like that...ask Woodward and Bernstein, who uncovered Watergate which led to the downfall of a president and the jailing of many. Yes but Woodward and Bernstein conducted a real investigation and found the real undeniable facts which changed it from a conspiracy theory to a real conspiracy - despite the best efforts of the U.S. President. If there were undeniable and provable facts behind any of the theories then they wouldn't just be theories any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 i see plenty of facts jim.. facts like the unusual amount of financial activity in associated shares etc. engineering evidence which is without doubt given by experts in their field. the laws of physics being broken. video footage that clearly disputes official versions etc.. and a whole plethora of circumstancial evidence .. and when it is all boiled down there were coverups by the us gov .. covering up what is another thing altogether .. however those planes were real and as china rightly points out .. billion dollar insurance claims are investigated with the utmost zeal by the very best experts in their fields .. and if they cannot link/string a plausible alternative theory together there isnt one .. however for national security reasons they could be persuaded to overlook certain aspects of the day as a whole. if governments did not routinely lie to their populaces then these fires of suspicion would cease to exist.{maybe} we have not had the truth about the day as a whole...imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Here are some photos taken from a guy flying a small plane around new york that day. http://englishrussia.com/?p=501 Not too much to do with the conspiricy thing but interesting none the less. Never seen them in the msm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Not too much to do with the conspiricy thing but interesting none the less. Never seen them in the msm. I don't know, he seems to believe in some conspiracy theory - The author of the photos says he doesn’t believe at all that this maneur could be done by some rookie who just graduated from “Florida Flight School”. According to his opinion it was some very experienced millitary pilot making his last kamikaze mission. I wonder if his last kamikaze mission was better than his first, which was presumably a failure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 You simply cannot generalise like that...ask Woodward and Bernstein, who uncovered Watergate which led to the downfall of a president and the jailing of many. Yes but Woodward and Bernstein conducted a real investigation and found the real undeniable facts which changed it from a conspiracy theory to a real conspiracy - despite the best efforts of the U.S. President. If there were undeniable and provable facts behind any of the theories then they wouldn't just be theories any more. By that analogy, every unsolved crime investigated would be a conspiracy theory. Woodward and Bernstein were lucky enough to have a copious paper evidence trail to follow once they knew where to look. Regardless of whether there is evidence or not regarding conspiracy and 911, anyone would have to admit that it is entirely possible that there could have been some form of conspiracy - regardless of whether it was a conspiracy or not. If you believe there is sufficient evidence that it was not, fair enough, but some people believe that the evidence does not 100% guarantee that there was not - and hold the opposite or some variant view. Chances are, I suspect, you haven't got all the evidence re 911 sat in front of you for instance, nor have you read through it all - though more importantly in the opinion of many, nor have all the possibilities been throughly investigated. You just have 'a feeling' based on what you have seen or heard and choose to trust what you currently believe. Shouting 'tin-hatter' at someone else isn't a legal or evidential argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 engineering evidence which is without doubt given by experts in their field. You say this, but you'd expect the conspiracy theorists to go and question to top engineering minds and organisations in the USA. This they did not do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 i see plenty of facts jim..facts like the unusual amount of financial activity in associated shares etc. Even if there was a significant amount of unusual trading, which there wasn't, none of that has been linked with the Government. Some who knew about the attacks may have dabbled, the attacks were planned for some time. Why does that suggest government involvement? engineering evidence which is without doubt given by experts in their field.the laws of physics being broken. video footage that clearly disputes official versions etc.. and a whole plethora of circumstancial evidence .. None of this is cut and dry, none of this suggests government involvement. You've got discrepencies in a very chaotic event, you've got unknowns, you've not got evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 i see plenty of facts jim.. They aren't 'facts' though. They are inferences, non-sequiturs, suppositions, rumours, things which are just plain wrong and downright lies. Woodward and Bernstein had cast iron proof. Do you really think that an enterprising journalist who wanted to make a name for themselves nowadays wouldn't be able to get the same sort of incontrovertible proof for this massive conspiracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Regardless of whether there is evidence or not regarding conspiracy and 911, anyone would have to admit that it is entirely possible that there could have been some form of conspiracy - regardless of whether it was a conspiracy or not. If you believe there is sufficient evidence that it was not, fair enough, but some people believe that the evidence does not 100% guarantee that there was not - and hold the opposite or some variant view. Yes, there is the possibility that it could have been a conspiracy. There is no conclusive (or even half convincing) evidence that it was though. You are confusing possibility with probability. It is possible that reptiloid aliens on the moon actually destroyed the WTC buildings with a massive particle cannon, but it is not particularly probable. It is not for me to prove that that there was a conspiracy, it is for the proponents of that conspiracy to prove that there was one. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and to date there has been no "extraordinary evidence". "If you believe there is sufficient evidence that it was not, fair enough" - My position is that there is no credible evidence that it was a conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Regardless of whether there is evidence or not regarding conspiracy and 911, anyone would have to admit that it is entirely possible that there could have been some form of conspiracy - regardless of whether it was a conspiracy or not. If you believe there is sufficient evidence that it was not, fair enough, but some people believe that the evidence does not 100% guarantee that there was not - and hold the opposite or some variant view. Shouting 'tin-hatter' at someone else isn't a legal or evidential argument. Ditto religious beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Regardless of whether there is evidence or not regarding conspiracy and 911, anyone would have to admit that it is entirely possible that there could have been some form of conspiracy - regardless of whether it was a conspiracy or not. If you believe there is sufficient evidence that it was not, fair enough, but some people believe that the evidence does not 100% guarantee that there was not - and hold the opposite or some variant view. Yes, there is the possibility that it could have been a conspiracy. There is no conclusive (or even half convincing) evidence that it was though. You are confusing possibility with probability. It is possible that reptiloid aliens on the moon actually destroyed the WTC buildings with a massive particle cannon, but it is not particularly probable. It is not for me to prove that that there was a conspiracy, it is for the proponents of that conspiracy to prove that there was one. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and to date there has been no "extraordinary evidence". "If you believe there is sufficient evidence that it was not, fair enough" - My position is that there is no credible evidence that it was a conspiracy. I'm exactly not confusing probability and possibility. If something has a probability of 0 then it is impossible, any other probability and it's possible. I'm saying even if you say there was a 0.0000000001 chance it was a conspiracy and a 0.9999999999 chance it wasn't - then by definition it's still possible, that's all. Fact is, people simply do not have the resources/power to prove that something on that scale was or wasn't a conspiracy - only governments could do that. And you can't say it wasn't a conspiracy for exactly the same reasons IMO. The word conspiracy is a red herring in reality, actually used by many as a derogatory term to hide the basic fact that there is insufficient evidence to prove otherwise. My position is that there has been insufficient investigation and I am open minded on many aspects of this, enough to think at the moment there is room for a credible (at least part) conspiracy i.e. that a group of people with the motives to go into the middle east and Iraq etc. could credibly have been involved. Motive and opportunity are basic ingredients for most crimes. Until I see evidence of sufficient investigation into that, I will hold that view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I'm exactly not confusing probability and possibility. If something has a probability of 0 then it is impossible, any other probability and it's possible. I'm saying even if you say there was a 0.0000000001 chance it was a conspiracy and a 0.9999999999 chance it wasn't - then by definition it's still possible, that's all. If it is an infinite universe then literally anything is possible but one has to go on the basis of probabilities. I do not see any persuasive evidence that the WTC attacks were anything other than an Islamist plot which was allowed to come to fruition through US Government complacency and incompetence. Fact is, people simply do not have the resources/power to prove that something on that scale was or wasn't a conspiracy - only governments could do that. Rubbish. All it takes is ONE person who was involved in a conspiracy to come out with cast iron proof. I find it almost impossible to believe that out of all the hundreds (or thousands) of people who would have had to have been complicit in a government conspiracy there wasn't just ONE who, for whatever reason, wouldn't afterwards come out and say "I was involved and I can prove it"*. How many people were involved with Watergate? That got out. Is it possible? - anything is possoble. Is it credible or plausible? In my opinion, no. I am open to new evidence but I haven't seen anything so far which stands up to even a cursory examination. * and the same goes for the moon landings 'hoax' theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 i see plenty of facts jim.. facts like the unusual amount of financial activity in associated shares etc. engineering evidence which is without doubt given by experts in their field. the laws of physics being broken. video footage that clearly disputes official versions etc.. Chinahand sighs - The trouble is Manxman2 alot of what you are saying is very disputed. Shortly after 911 newspapers reported that the amount of short selling in Sept 01 vrs Sept 00 was different - they speculated that terrorists had manipulated the stock exchange to profit from the market drops the attacks would create. These old stories are still going around the internet feeding the conspiracy theorists. But these reports ignored that 00 was at the top of the tech boom - when many investors thought the sky was the limit; and hence few investers were betting it would fall and so were selling short - while in 01 the tech boom had turned to bust and lots of people were betting on further falls - hence lots of people were selling short. The disadvantage for terrorists is that selling sort requires a paper trail - you have to borrow the shares from someone else. Now the Feds went away and examined the short selling records - various insurance companies (some of the biggest short sellers if I remember correctly were German comanies) had taken up short positions in early September and made a huge profit from doing this, but they were legitimate businesses. As far as I'm aware there is no reliable evidence that there were any unusual stock trades connected with 911 - oh and 911 truth isn't reliable evidence, and alot of evidence that this has been investigated and found baseless. I was studying an MBA over the period of 911 and followed the financial side of the story reasonably extensively - its a myth that has been well and trully busted - but the conspiracists aren't interested in the reports that it was busted and still peddle the old stories which weren't fully fact checked or investigated - and of course they answer that the Fed is part of the conspiracy, as are the German traders who's accounts have been published etc. The same is very very much the case in your comments about engineering experts and laws of physics being broken - videos of collapses don't cover the full period of collapse etc etc. The main "expert" spouting about thermite is very much discredited: his analysis isn't much different from saying dynamite contains carbon, I've found carbon in the samples therefore its dynamite - lots of other things contain carbon. The department he worked for disassociated itself from his work, he then took early retirement and is now on the speech circuit. The trouble with all this sort of thing is that it makes the conspiracy ever larger - the journalists who initially published the erroneous stories: heros. Those who fact check and do the clarifications - part of the conspiracy (even when they are the same journalist!). The scientists who discredit sloppy science - conspirators attacking the "good" work trying to get the "truth" told. I find the whole thing totally unconvincing. What is amazing is that the conspiracy theorists now say that the debunking of the conpiracy is part of the conspiracy, and the more stupid claims of the conpiracy theory are also part of the conspiracy - ie the conspiracists deliberately spread stupid stories like the pentagon being attacked by a missile to distract people from the real conpiracy. People obbsess about WTC7 - now try and fit in WTC7 to a meaningful explanation of what the conspiracy was trying to achieve - I've challenged people repeatedly to do this, but I just get bollox back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Fact is, people simply do not have the resources/power to prove that something on that scale was or wasn't a conspiracy - only governments could do that. Rot - as you've already said Watergate was brought down by two journalists, Enron was blown open by a single analyst. Insurance companies lost billions in the attacks and had a huge interest in showing they didn't have to pay out due to fraud etc. The Democrats now control the CIA etc etc Oh but all of these actors are part of the conspiracy too of course. Starting at the top level - what was the conspiracy and what did it do and how is it immune from people talking etc. Don't pretend people aren't looking - 911 would be the story of the millenium if it was a government coverup. The claim that the conspiracy theorists are being ignored by the mainstream press etc is just untrue - the truth is the theorists can't uncover anything to interest people who fact check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Fact is, people simply do not have the resources/power to prove that something on that scale was or wasn't a conspiracy - only governments could do that. And you can't say it wasn't a conspiracy for exactly the same reasons IMO. The word conspiracy is a red herring in reality, actually used by many as a derogatory term to hide the basic fact that there is insufficient evidence to prove otherwise. Surely you don't want to prove that it isn't a conspiracy, you want to prove that it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.