posted 12-18-2003 10:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the professor:
I don't quite think it is a missile because for one you can view this object exit the city.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
I think it was internal explosives...just like the twin towers.

---

Yeah, who knows? Unmanned spy craft, missile, internal explosion, whatever is was – SOMETHING happened and we don’t know the whole truth! It's frustrating!

posted 12-18-2003 10:20 PM            

Uhhhhhhhhhh...NO.

posted 12-18-2003 10:30 PM            

Bush Co?

"Yeah...get them Iz---lamIC "terrROAR ists"..we know how dirty they are".

"the Government would NEVER do nothing to us...love them!"

Big Government is GOOD!

posted 12-18-2003 10:41 PM            

Look, if you know that the intelligent people on this board argue for government intervention and complicity in the 9/11 horror, then why don't you just leave the board? No reason to come on here, if you know you hold the opposing position, is there? You know you won't read, you won't open to anything other than your own view, so why bother? A waste of your time, don't you think?

We've supported our opinions with ample evidence! Now you name call. Tutt Tutt!

Name-calling is so juvenile!

Bye!

posted 12-18-2003 10:43 PM            

Better yet..why dont YOU TAKE A CONSTITUTIONAL OATH and stop defeniding TYRANTS.

BETTER YET...YOU MOVE..MOVE to WHAT AMERICA WILL BECOME IF YOU JUST SIT ON YOUR @$$ AND THINK DUB-YA...GUN GRABBING BUSH IS LOVING AND GOOD.

posted 12-18-2003 10:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
End of "story?" Yes, for an Oliver Stone-like movie perhaps.

It's also not a matter of belief. This isn't religion. It's a matter of facts. Fact is, you don't need a conspiracy theory to explain what happened 9/11. In fact, the conspiracy theories are far more improbable than the publically accepted story. And even if you accept the circumstantial "evidence" and supositions, the facts of 9/11 don't support it.

I have no stake in how the whole 9/11 plays out. I really don't care if Bush is re-elected or not in 2004. If the evidence proves a conspiracy then I'll believe it. But not until. Don't ask me to "believe" anything. Prove it to me and then I'll help convince everyone else. But I've read dozen of conspiracy sites and what I've seen is just that: conspiracy sites with information far less credible than the mainstream information sources that those same conspiracy websites accuse of not being credible.

---

Many of us on this thread have spent hours going over the evidence to support the claims. I don't see you bringing any evidence to bear. Just like an essay, one needs to support one's thesis with logical rhetoric, supporting evidence, and expert testimony. So far, the evidence presented on this board supports the WTC collapse as helped by demolition and beyond that in the realm of the Pentagon and the situations behind the airliners themselves -- other threads on this board bear witness to the stated thesies!

Wolf and I spent hours and hours debating and of course he insists on his side and I on mine. But I remind you Wolf, I presented much more evidence than you and with much better quality of investigation. Hi! Wolfy!
I have to hand it to you Wolf, for presenting well thought-out and intelligent arguments! Smooch!

But, those who can read and take the time to read ALL the evidence offered on BOTH sides, will surely realize the demolition theory holds more weight.

It's not a matter of set pre-conceived opinions, it's a matter of supported logic and evidence. Period.

So all Newbies who want to participate must at least present their logical and supported arguments as well as Wolf Larson has!

Unsupported opinions are a dime a dozen!

"I really don't care if Bush is re-elected or not in 2004." This about says it all!

bc

posted 12-19-2003 12:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
Me: Even if we were to accept the frames/animated GIFs as being correct, it is clear by the angle that it would have landed nowhere near WTC6. It would have landed well north of the WTC area.
JerseyBlueEyz: I disagree.

---

Well that's strange since even the conspiracy websit at http://www.glennbeck.com/news/06062002.shtml shows the object continuing off to the north. Glad we agree that the conspiracy websites are wrong.

quote:

---

In that first image you posted, WTC 6 would not be anywhere in the frame.

---

No, but that huge dust plume should be visible. I see nothing but clean air in the lower part of the picture.

quote:

---

As far as the other two, could the smoke have settled? I don't know. Obviously from the image I posted and from the animated video above, SOMETHING occurred AND there was smoke. Why don’t you explain what happened to WTC 6 - why was there smoke and then there wasn’t?

---

Considering the dust/smoke from the twin towers didn't really clear the whole day I'd say no, it's not probable that WTC6 exploded at 9:04am and the smoke was then not visible in the rest of the pictures taken that day before the first tower fell. Heck, when I've seen a house fire the smoke pours out and even after the fire is put out the cloud is clearly visible for quite some time... certainly for more than half an hour!

In fact, all the images when the two towers are burning are quite incredible because there is nothing but clear sky and smoke pouring out of the two towers. I have yet to see a single picture prior to the collapse of the first tower that shows anything but clear air below the points of impact. Can you provide such pictures?

Until proven otherwise, it seems entirely probable that that plume wasn't WTC6 exploding but rather the growing plume from when the first tower fell. That's by far the simplest explanation of why we see no dust plumes near the base of the towers after 9:04am and before the first tower fell: Because there WASN'T a dust plume until the first tower fell.

The whole assumption that that "explosion" was WTC6 comes from some conspiracy website that supposedly contacted CNN and asked them what time it happened and they supposedly said 9:04am. Well, I guess maybe I should call CNN myself. But when the whole "proof" here is based on the assumption that a conspiracy website verified this information with CNN I have to take it with a grain of salt. Maybe even a boulder of salt. If that conspiracy website is wrong or perhaps talked to someone at CNN who didn't realize which video clip they were being asked about and said it was 9:04am when it was actually the first tower collapsing, the whole premise of the theory is blown to bits.

quote:

---

Are you kidding me? There is nothing in that crater that would have created a hole that size!

---

You'd be surprised how small something can be and do a huge amount of damage when accelerating from 1300ft. And I'm not saying a falling chair leveled WTC6--but I see a lot of debris in there and there's no way you can tell me whether that debris is from WTC6 itself or debris that fell from one of the towers. But the amount of concrete we see in the hole is certainly enough to punch that hole into the building when gaining momentum from 1300ft.

quote:

---

I’ll tell you what this is. This is educated people thinking for themselves, looking at and studying evidence presented, finding the discrepancies and trying to makes sense of a story that does not make sense.

---

This is a case of people looking and studying conspiracy websites, ignoring most conflicting evidence, seeing missiles and conspiracies where none exist. That's not an educated repsonse, although I will agree that 9/11 doesn't make sense. How humans could do that to other humans is beyond comprehension. That doesn't mean Bush did it, though.

quote:

---

This reason there are different versions of “conspiracies” is because lies and deception abound.

---

Yes, and much of it in the conspiracy world. So we have an "offical version" which is what 99.9% of the population believes and what makes logical sense. People believe it not because they're stupid or brainwashed, but bcause it's right.

Then we have any number of conspiracy theories that conflict among themselves. The only thing the conspiracy theories have in common is that they don't like the official explanation. But we have theories of it being an elaborate gold heist, an excuse to make war in Afghanistan and Iraq to build pipelines, a way to collect the insurance money on the WTC, a way to destroy evidence in the Silverado investigation, an Israeli attempt to provoke us into war with the Arabs, a way to put us under martial law... Have I missed any?

If the conspiracy theories can't even get their story straight, why exactly am I supposed to believe ANY of them? Which do you suppose is right? Why is it a more educated decision to believe one of a half dozen conspiracy theories--all of which are based on conjecture and contradict each other--than with the publically accepted version of events that doesn't contradict anything?

I'm sorry, I just don't see that being a rational, educated decision.

posted 12-19-2003 12:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
I don't see you bringing any evidence to bear. Just like an essay, one needs to support one's thesis with logical rhetoric, supporting evidence, and expert testimony.

---

So far I haven't brought anything new to the discussion because Wolf has done an excellent job in doing so. I'm not going to rehash what Wolf has done. Now, if I get into an educated disagreement with someone about some point of fact, I'll be happy to back up my position with facts.

For example, I provided pictures for JerseyBluEyz in a previous post. JerseyBlueEyz seems to suggest that WTC6 exploded at 9:04am. So I provide pictures for him that were taken after 9:04am and before the first tower collapsed and simply ask: Where is the smoke from the WTC6 explosion? If it happened at 9:04am we should see that smoke. We don't. The absence of smoke supports my position that, most probably, the supposed "explosion" footage of WTC6 was really of the first tower collapsing. That's the most logical explanation for the lack of smoke in other pictures after 9:04am--because there simply wasn't any until the building collapsed.

So I *DO* bring comments and logical explanations to the discussion when needed. And if I need to provide links in the future, I will do so. But so far simply providing a few pictures is about all the evidence that has been needed to refute JerseyBlueEyz.

quote:

---

But, those who can read and take the time to read ALL the evidence offered on BOTH sides, will surely realize the demolition theory holds more weight.

---

It's amazing that you can say that with a straight face (I assume you did have a straight face when you said it??). I am new to this forum. I signed up specifically because after reading all the material I can tell you that, on balance, Wolf takes the cake. You're obviously biased. I was a disinterested reader and can assure you that a normal person reading this thread will go with Wolf 10 times out of 10. Unless they already have images of conspiracies jumping around in their head.

quote:

---

So all Newbies who want to participate must at least present their logical and supported arguments as well as Wolf Larson has!

---

And I will do so as people engage me on points of fact, as I have already refuted JerseyBlueEyz's statements with links to pictures that show a complete lack of smoke.

I've been here a grand total of 1 day. Give me a few more hours to get engaged in the debate. I'll be looking forward to Jersey's response to the lack of smoke in the pictures I provided. It's not for me to have to explain the lack of smoke since I don't think there was any smoke at 9:04am coming from the base of the Trade Center. It's up to those that believe that WTC6 exploded at 9:04am to explain the LACK of smoke in all other pictures up until the time the first tower fell.

posted 12-19-2003 01:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lies..all lies:

If you don't love this country, then my friend LEAVE.

---

You of course left for the eight years clinton was president.

Or perhaps stayed here and told everyone how wrong it is to criticize the president.

posted 12-19-2003 01:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lies..all lies:
Oh, and by the way, if you don't like who is running the country, then we have a process called voting. Get out and vote for who you think is best to run the country.

---

We also have an extreme court that prevents States from counting their own votes and appoints a winner instead.

I was an eyewitness to the fraud of Florida 2000.
I saw with my own eyes police "Safety Check Points" on the road to the polls.
As my van with it's middle aged white guys got waved through while blacks got strip searched alongside the road.
Later that same day, I saw the same police roadblocks in Mississippi.
Again on the road to the polls, and again blacks doing a U-turn to avoid the strip searches by just not voting.

It does no good to vote if preprogrammed machine results are substituted for an actual honest vote count.

Try the "bush count" next time you shop.
Hand the clerk your money and then demand they just trust you and refuse to let them recount it.

An honest count comes out the same every time. (no matter how often it is repeated)
The only reason to prevent a recount is to keep fraud from being exposed.

posted 12-19-2003 11:15 AM            

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, those who can read and take the time to read ALL the evidence offered on BOTH sides, will surely realize the demolition theory holds more weight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's amazing that you can say that with a straight face (I assume you did have a straight face when you said it??). I am new to this forum. I signed up specifically because after reading all the material I can tell you that, on balance, Wolf takes the cake. You're obviously biased. I was a disinterested reader and can assure you that a normal person reading this thread will go with Wolf 10 times out of 10. Unless they already have images of conspiracies jumping around in their head.

---

First of all, I come from a position of KNOWLEDGE, much more than you do. I was careful to be objective in my research and I was skeptical to begin with. Of course I take the side of the argument that bears the most evidence and this is why you have an emotional response to it. Until and unless you spend an equal amount of time researching and have done your work on the subject, you are only expressing from your own ignorant and biased position. This is the case with any subject matter that takes time and objectivity to research. I was not biased in my researching and in fact, held the same beliefs as you when I started. You MUST take the time to read all the links offered and to reign in your own personal biases. You see me as biased because you are projecting your own bias. OBJECTIVITY is a must! Can you testify in all honesty that you have read the links offered in this thread on BOTH sides? There are archived files on this thread as well. After one day, I cannot believe that you have done such work. It takes time.

Shatoga is a vet and a fine, educated citizen. He is passionate, and his links and recommendations are well worth your study.

It will take you weeks, if not months, for you to catch up in your research on this subject. I recommend you do the work if you truly want to be able to see both sides. I sense your curiosity and sincerity, so please do yourself a favor, and do your work! Remember to remain objective.

I once started a formal ten page essay in the late nineties for a college research paper on the subject of the death penalty, capital punishment. I went into the research in favor of it, and ended up with an opposite thesis. This is the outcome of objective and intelligent, time-consuming research for me on this subject. I'm not assuming you will do the same on this subject, but I assure you that if you are intent on finding the truth of the matter, you will see the evidence, scientific explanations, and logic from various theorists and be able to make a sound judgment. At this point, you are basically ignorant to the resources that are available.

I didn't even believe that chemtrails existed last year! It took me months of research and reading to finally become educated on the subject and now I'm taking pictures and seeing it over my own town!

Learning is a process, so take your time and please take the effort.

If you can't do that and don't have the time, then maybe that would be the time to decide not to participate in such board threads. You and JBE are free to joust with logic, but many of us have gone through this particular element of argument already, and it's not worth my time to enter into it again, especially when the opportunities to learn are all on the net. Without research, and links or pics to support your arguments, it's just a lot of hot air. You know?

We care that people know about the subject and we don't want to turn people off, but like shatoga said, it's frustrating when new members come onboard and don't know the subject matter at hand -- won't read the links. Please do the work involved and come back to intelligently argue your points, like Wolf Larson. Unless you have done YOUR OWN reading of even Wolf's links verses the opposing links, you've not done the work necessary. I refuted most of Wolf's links and so did shatoga quite logically and with more information weighing on our side. And in order to judge that, you need to read what we read! Period! No way around it!

OK?

posted 12-19-2003 11:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
First of all, I come from a position of KNOWLEDGE, much more than you do.

---

Oh, you do? And what position of knowledge are you ASSSUMING I come from? Seems like once again a conspiracy theorist is basing their decisions on conjecture and assumptions rather than fact given you have no idea what my background and knowledge on the topic is.

quote:

---

Of course I take the side of the argument that bears the most evidence and this is why you have an emotional response to it. Until and unless you spend an equal amount of time researching and have done your work on the subject, you are only expressing from your own ignorant and biased position.

---

Again, you are expressing your own ignorant and biased position when you assume that I haven't spent an equal amount of time researching the topic. On what do you base your assumption that I haven't spent a significant amount of time researching the matter? Or do you just assume that if I don't agree with you it's because I obviously haven't spent any time investigating?

quote:

---

You MUST take the time to read all the links offered and to reign in your own personal biases... Can you testify in all honesty that you have read the links offered in this thread on BOTH sides?

---

Believe me, over the last two years I've read more links than I can count. When a new link is presented I usually visit it and if it contains new material I haven't seen, yes, I read it. If it's just a rehash of material I've already read then, no, I don't re-read it. Re-reading what I've already read does not do anything to enhance my knowledge of the topic.

quote:

---

There are archived files on this thread as well. After one day, I cannot believe that you have done such work. It takes time.

---

I said I've been participating for one day in this particular forum. That doesn't mean I started reading this forum a day ago or that I've only been interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories for one day. Again, you are making rash assumptions and jumping to conclusions--and I hope that's not indicative of the the way you investigated this topic.

quote:

---

You and JBE are free to joust with logic, but many of us have gone through this particular element of argument already, and it's not worth my time to enter into it again, especially when the opportunities to learn are all on the net.

---

The problem with debating with conspiracy theorists is often you have to simply use logic. Why? Because often when you cite references in the news media the theorists will say, "Yeah but that's just proapaganda for the administration." So often you can't win with anything but logic. Unfortunately, often conspiracist theorists ignore logic, too, but that is often where it is most painfully obvious that they are too attached to their theory.

A good example of this is the fact that Mech yesterday posted an article where Kean, the 9/11 investigation chairman, supposedly blamed the Bush administration for 9/11. Last night, the same man explained more fully what his original comments meant on Nightline (which I watched and recorded). Yet, apparently, some conspiracy theorists don't accept his words. They say he was pressured to backstep by the administration. This is a perfect example of where conspiracy theorists will use one man's words to help their conspiracy theory but will ignore the same man when his words don't help their theory. And this is, in large part, why conspiracy theorists believe what they do. It is THEY that are only looking at one side of the story, not me.

quote:

---

It will take you weeks, if not months, for you to catch up in your research on this subject.

---

Please do me the favor of omitting your arrogant, condescending tone. I've been following the conspiracy theories since day 1, when that first "Where is the plane in the Pentagon" hoopla came out. I'm not a newbie to the topic, thank you. I'm just new to this forum. Please treat me with the proper respect and not as the me inexperienced, uneducated, and uninformed person you assume I am.

posted 12-19-2003 01:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
Please do me the favor of omitting your arrogant, condescending tone. I've been following the conspiracy theories since day 1, when that first "Where is the plane in the Pentagon" hoopla came out. I'm not a newbie to the topic, thank you. I'm just new to this forum. Please treat me with the proper respect and not as the me inexperienced, uneducated, and uninformed person you assume I am.

As I hope you are learning, assumptions are dangerous and lead to inaccurate conclusions.

---

I stand corrected and I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions. It did seem as though you hadn't read much.

Your conclusion that all conspiracy theorists claim: well that's just propaganda, I have to disagree with. At no time did I ever use that term or think it in my research or responses. I've never heard Mech or shatoga claim that statement unless they had proof to back it up. Both of these guys are extremely intelligent and knowledgable, in case you may be assuming. If you question any of their statements, ask for proof! They sometimes make brash statements, but because I've read their offerings over a period of several months, I know they're not talking from simply bias.

I guess the only way for me to assess your amount of reading is for you to post the links that you indeed have read with an objective purpose. We took the time to list our links here and our arguments for the opposing links involved reading them and arguing on facts presented in the articles to the best of our ability.

I tried to find evidence to refute the theories of the experts on the side of complicity, but I couldn't find enough evidence and on the basis of logic and opposing scientific and other evidence, I had to disagree.

To a certain extent, you're right about logic being a main way of dealing with the various propositions and indeed I use my own logic in this too. But when the logic and scientific knowledge that I possess is corroborated by the experts that I read, for example, physicists, professors, and the common sense involved in interpreting photos and videos, not to mention first-hand witness accounts, I weigh in on the side with the most logical evidence. The only thing left is the documents that the government is withholding to further confirm the theories and observations. To me it's obvious.

To you, it may not be.

I suppose to prove to us you've read the links that we've read is to present the links to us that you have indeed read. Just telling us you've studied the subject, which has improved in its body of evidence during the last two years, is simply not enough.

I don't want to be condescending or arrogant, and I apologize for that, but still, there's no way for me to know just by your saying you've studied, is there?

I have proof that I've studied and posted the links and argued to prove it as well. I'm done and tired. It's a done deal for me, not because I'm biased, though. It just came through a logical thinking process which I know I possess and can rely on.

I respect you, yet you have a certain responsibility to earn it. Wolf earned my respect, even though I disagree with him.

When you find a point on this thread that you wish to argue or debate, I will be reading with interest. If you could present your reading links, that would help me and the others to understand your position more precisely.

If you have no desire to put any effort into proving your level of knowledge, than I don't know what to say. It's a board on which to debate and use one's mind. And you know what I think of unsupported opinion. Time will tell.

Best to you.

bc

posted 12-19-2003 02:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
I stand corrected and I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions. It did seem as though you hadn't read much.

---

I appreciate the apology, despite the slap you added with the second sentence.

quote:

---

Your conclusion that all conspiracy theorists claim: well that's just propaganda, I have to disagree with.

---

Let me make clear that it's not my conclusion that all conspiracy theorists claim that proof I present is just propaganda. It is my observation in debating these topics in other forums that most of the conspiracy theorists I have debated have that reaction. When I've backed them into a corner and provided links they have in every case either changed the subject (to another aspect of the conspiracy) or simply rejected my link as "That's from CNN, you can't believe CNN." And I see Mech accusing those that disagree with him to be "Bushites" or on the take from the administration, or whatever.

I am hopeful that things will be different here, but some of the posts I see cause me to suspect that they will be the same.

quote:

---

I've never heard Mech or shatoga claim that statement unless they had proof to back it up. Both of these guys are extremely intelligent and knowledgable, in case you may be assuming.

---

As far as I know, I haven't told anyone they were uneducated here and I certainly don't assume that of anyone. Our arguments will speak for themselves without anyone having to speak of or about the education any particular person has.

However, I do know that last night when I posted the message regarding Kean's further comments on Nightline where he essentially clarified the comments that Mech and CBS News had misinterpreted earlier in the day, Shatago responded that CBS had refused to apologize and quoted the same story that CBS had posted on December 18, 2003 07:38:02, at least 12 hours before the Kean clarified his comments on Nightline. So it wasn't that CBS refused to apologize, he was just quoting an old story that CBS hadn't updated to include new information.

Stating that CBS "refused to apologize" suggests that the other media were being apologists for the administration and following the "party line," so to speak, and that CBS was being brave and defending the truth. No, they were just slower to update their story with current news. Interestingly, they still haven't.

But I'm not sure whether Shatago intentionally and unknowingly posted an old story in reply to my comments, or intentionally posted the old story and deceptively portrayed it as "CBS refusing to apologize." I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

quote:

---

If you question any of their statements, ask for proof!

---

Well, I'm still waiting for a response on why, if WTC6 exploded at 9:04am, there are no pictures of smoke rising from the base of the twin towers in any of the pictures taken while both towers were burning. There should have been smoke rising from the base of the towers, yet I have yet to see any such pictures.

quote:

---

I guess the only way for me to assess your amount of reading is for you to post the links that you indeed have read with an objective purpose.

---

I have bookmarked a few links that I found particularly interesting (including a few I found in this forum), but I definitely can't give you every link I've browsed on the subject in the last two years. I don't bookmark most of them--I read, absorb, and learn and then move on.

I'll certainly be happy to provide links that support me when appropriate. If someone here says that the first tower was hit at 10:30am, I'll certainly provide link(s) indicating it was hit at 8:46am. But I'm not going to dump a list of hundreds of links that add nothing to the discussion and don't prove that I actually read them anyway.

quote:

---

I tried to find evidence to refute the theories of the experts on the side of complicity, but I couldn't find enough evidence and on the basis of logic and opposing scientific and other evidence, I had to disagree.

---

It is often logically impossible to find evidence to *refute* the theories of conspiracies. The absence of evidence which refutes a conspiracy is not proof of a conspiracy.

I can't prove I wasn't involved in the Enron scandle, but that doesn't prove I was involved. Even if the main figures in the scandals were personal friends of mine and even if I actually made some money off of Enron, the fact that I can't prove I wasn't involved doesn't prove that I was.

quote:

---

To a certain extent, you're right about logic being a main way of dealing with the various propositions and indeed I use my own logic in this too.

---

I'm glad we understand each other on that. This is also why I won't always post a dozen links. If I'm arguing on the basis of logic, the logic speaks for itself. But, again, when there are factual issues on debate I will certainly bring links to the discussion when appropriate.

quote:

---

I don't want to be condescending or arrogant, and I apologize for that, but still, there's no way for me to know just by your saying you've studied, is there?

---

No, there's no way for you to know. And there's no way for me to know that YOU have done all the research you say you have. That you have a collection of links doesn't mean you read them anymore than me posting a collection of links means that I read them.

So how about we stop worrying about that and debate the topic and we'll all bring our material to the table. It's not like I'm a doctor and have to prove my credentials. If you don't want to debate me, fine. But please don't suggest that I'm not "qualified" to debate because I haven't proven the amount of research I have done. You haven't proven your research either, and either of us can post a hundred links and that doesn't mean we actually read them.

quote:

---

I'm done and tired.

---

So am I. But I came to this forum because it looked fun and interesting. Sure, we may debate things you have debated here before and things I may have debated elsewhere before. If you're done and tired feel free not to engage me. But that's the purpose of the forum--to discuss it. If you're tired, don't participate. I'm not forcing you.

quote:

---

When you find a point on this thread that you wish to argue or debate, I will be reading with interest.

---

As I already stated elsewhere, I'm still waiting for a response from Mech as to the lack of smoke from WTC6 (which he claims collapsed at 9:04am) in all other pictures prior to the first tower collapse. I'm also wondering why Shatoga misrepresented the CBS report as "refusing to apologize" when in fact it was just an old story.

Feel free to chime in on any of those topics. Otherwise, I'm sure we'll run into points of debate in the future and I welcome your participation.

quote:

---

If you could present your reading links, that would help me and the others to understand your position more precisely.

---

Like I said above, I have a few bookmarks but I don't save every link I ever visit. And even if I did, posting a message with hundreds of links does not prove to you that I read them. It could just prove I found some website with a bunch of 9/11 links.

quote:

---

If you have no desire to put any effort into proving your level of knowledge, than I don't know what to say.

---

Let me answer you: I have NO desire to put any effort into proving my level of knowledge. That will become evident as we debate issues of importance. If you feel I'm unworthy to debate, ignore me.

posted 12-19-2003 09:09 PM            

As for the CBS interview:
I stand firm that they presented the actual words as spoken.
Visit the links and hear with your own ears.

Kean's backtracking, in fear of retribution, does not change or delete the origional statements.

I've seen three controlled demolitions in person.
have seen half a dozen on video or tv.

Have participated, as an expert, in post fire investigation of several high rise structures that collapsed.
(all fell to one side instead of into their own footprint BTW)
The weakened structure collapses in the direction of the damage in every incident.

I appreciate any who wish to visit all links;
examine all evidence,
and then post commentary or post opinions.

Parroting the party line proBush conspiracy theory crap is irritating.

But then, I know your purpose is to irritate until people stop trying to ferret out the truth and just give up instead of being constantly attacked by bush minions.

Doesn't work with me;
because I was once an RNC Team leader and know the rightwing from the inside.

Those RNC talking points may impress the non thinking, but we who doubt all sides and are sceptical about all claims and all evidence will eventually win.

Truth will out!

Visit all links undecided freethinkers!

Let the unbiased evidence convince you!

Doubt all claims by all sides, and just trust your own eyes, your own ears, and form your own opinions.

posted 12-19-2003 09:40 PM            

Let me make clear that it's not my conclusion that all conspiracy theorists claim that proof I present is just propaganda. It is my observation in debating these topics in other forums that most of the conspiracy theorists I have debated have that reaction. When I've backed them into a corner and provided links they have in every case either changed the subject (to another aspect of the conspiracy) or simply rejected my link as "That's from CNN, you can't believe CNN." And I see Mech accusing those that disagree with him to be "Bushites" or on the take from the administration, or whatever.

I am hopeful that things will be different here, but some of the posts I see cause me to suspect that they will be the same.

OK, good clarification. Let's learn something from this. Why do you think those who mistrust the regular media outlets, mistrust them? Given and assumed that all are reasonable and intelligent people (and I realize there are always fanatics in every bunch)but on this board, why would you think the references to main media reports are not respected as valuable? The message is: those who study media and the messages and compare the quality and accuracy of such reports find that indeed the other world newspapers and alternate news sources, such as alternet, truthout, citizens for legitmate gov., moveon, information clearing house, serendipity, guerilla news, people for the American way, vets, military news online, government documents, CSpan, and other alternative news sources are simply more reliable and truthful. One must learn to discern and I, frankly, listen to "unspun" news on CSpan for television, and when listening to CNN or MSNBC or any major news outlets, I just get the basic facts and validate them on my alternate sources. Some is accurate on the major outlets and much is not accurate. The study of propaganda itself is a worthy read. Mech, shatoga, and many who have realized the level of propaganda that our media is putting out are coming from a studied position. Their passion comes from observation and realization. They don't mean to be rude or brusk. They honestly, and so do I, feel that we who see the level of control through media (and there are millions who see this) are the true patriots of freedom and democracy. The major media as a controlled outlet for government messages from fear mongering on terrorist attacks to not releasing information, such as the recent bill signed by Bush on Saturday, expanding the powers of the FBI (HR 4217), which no major media outlet covered (and there are many, many examples of both kinds of media manipulation and many more kinds of manipulation) cannot be trusted anymore. Even European countries comment upon our lack of information on the major airwaves. Our recent FCC legislation was influenced by activists who care and who believe that all information should be available on all airwaves (conservative and liberal) from radio to TV and thus, we fought monopolization and monstrous takeovers of the radio and TV stations. It worked. The bill that the Republicans tried to pass was defeated due to the public outcry. In these days of spin journalism and hype, the once dedicated journalist, dedicated to observation without opinion -- is a dying species! You have more of a chance of finding non-spin and non-governmentally influenced and spoon fed pablum on the internet than you have a chance of finding on major American television outlets. On cable, the ones that are most notorious for spin, hype, and other forms of public influence happen to be FOX News and CNN, FOX being the worst. It is a well-known fact and the subject of media propaganda (influence peddling) has been written about ad finitum in both articles, journals, and books. College courses (which I have taken), high school areas of curriculum in political science and history, all cover the subject of media "propaganda." One can start with commercials as the obvious kind of example.

So what all this discussion leads to, is the view and paradigm of those who KNOW that the major outlets don't tell the whole story, the government (especially on Iraq coverage) is only airing that which promotes their party, their affiliated corporate interests and their agendas (sacrificing truth in the process), is reflecting the fury so many people feel. You should be able to understand the passion and patriotism in the reactions you've received from other boards, in this light, and not take it personally nor judge those with a passion as totally nutzoid conspiracy theorists -- out in "left field" and not possessing sense.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never heard Mech or shatoga claim that statement unless they had proof to back it up. Both of these guys are extremely intelligent and knowledgable, in case you may be assuming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I know, I haven't told anyone they were uneducated here and I certainly don't assume that of anyone. Our arguments will speak for themselves without anyone having to speak of or about the education any particular person has.

Through experience with these two people, I am testifying to their knowledge base. This should be taken as informative insight for your benefit -- nothing more -- nothing less.

However, I do know that last night when I posted the message regarding Kean's further comments on Nightline where he essentially clarified the comments that Mech and CBS News had misinterpreted earlier in the day, Shatago responded that CBS had refused to apologize and quoted the same story that CBS had posted on December 18, 2003 07:38:02, at least 12 hours before the Kean clarified his comments on Nightline. So it wasn't that CBS refused to apologize, he was just quoting an old story that CBS hadn't updated to include new information.

Stating that CBS "refused to apologize" suggests that the other media were being apologists for the administration and following the "party line," so to speak, and that CBS was being brave and defending the truth. No, they were just slower to update their story with current news. Interestingly, they still haven't.

But I'm not sure whether Shatago intentionally and unknowingly posted an old story in reply to my comments, or intentionally posted the old story and deceptively portrayed it as "CBS refusing to apologize." I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Again, many of the arguments on this thread have already taken place. As far as Mech and shatoga, you need to question them as to what they mean and get their responses. I am supporting their credibility and not their arguments or statements. You have to work it out with them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you question any of their statements, ask for proof!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I'm still waiting for a response on why, if WTC6 exploded at 9:04am, there are no pictures of smoke rising from the base of the twin towers in any of the pictures taken while both towers were burning. There should have been smoke rising from the base of the towers, yet I have yet to see any such pictures.

OK.

I don't know about this particular situation and how I researched any point was to go and study the photos myself, on more than three sites, and see for myself. It's the only way and I never left anything up to anyone else. If you question how someone could see something you don't, ask them about their links and check them out. Perhaps their links have more credible footage and perhaps they don't. You would have to decide.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the only way for me to assess your amount of reading is for you to post the links that you indeed have read with an objective purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have bookmarked a few links that I found particularly interesting (including a few I found in this forum), but I definitely can't give you every link I've browsed on the subject in the last two years. I don't bookmark most of them--I read, absorb, and learn and then move on.

I'll certainly be happy to provide links that support me when appropriate. If someone here says that the first tower was hit at 10:30am, I'll certainly provide link(s) indicating it was hit at 8:46am. But I'm not going to dump a list of hundreds of links that add nothing to the discussion and don't prove that I actually read them anyway.

I hear you. As far as knowing whether someone reads links or not, when we refer to them, we post them, sometimes quote parts of the articles, and therebye support our positions or refute them. Not only do we use logic, but we use other expert logic and supporting math, physics, or whatever the subject entails in order to boost credability of position. Through this method, Larson and I, as well as shatoga and mech have used links in a way that is obvious that we've read them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried to find evidence to refute the theories of the experts on the side of complicity, but I couldn't find enough evidence and on the basis of logic and opposing scientific and other evidence, I had to disagree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is often logically impossible to find evidence to *refute* the theories of conspiracies. The absence of evidence which refutes a conspiracy is not proof of a conspiracy.

When it comes to the kind of research I was referring to, such as physicists' and engineers' statements, to be clear, the other more simple theories, such as pancaking due to weight, and high temps due to jet fuel, simply weren't there and didn't have any expert support. I was looking for it, but couldn't find it. Larson posted some articles, but they were never as complete and never as accurate, even concerning the towers' blueprints. Why isn't the absence of evidence proof that a theory is weak? One theory is this (with evidence) and the other theory is that (without evidence) -- which would you tend to accept? Let's not split hairs here and get off into nonsensical rhetoric, OK?

I can't prove I wasn't involved in the Enron scandle, but that doesn't prove I was involved. Even if the main figures in the scandals were personal friends of mine and even if I actually made some money off of Enron, the fact that I can't prove I wasn't involved doesn't prove that I was.

We're not talking simplistic examples such as this. We're talking complicated engineering subjects, photos showing explosions, and the evidence of steel girders missing due to radically disappearing evidence that might have shown explosive residue. The logic of this is: why did the steel get shipped elsewhere so quickly? Why? How does rapidly burning jet fuel melt steel trusses evenly enough to simply collapse when no other building in any fire ever collapsed like that before and collapsing so perfectly at that? (scientific) Were those who saw, heard, and photographed explosions simply liars? I'm not asking you to answer any of these, I'm only throwing out the scientific questions along with the logic based ones.

Weak theories verses strong theories!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To a certain extent, you're right about logic being a main way of dealing with the various propositions and indeed I use my own logic in this too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm glad we understand each other on that. This is also why I won't always post a dozen links. If I'm arguing on the basis of logic, the logic speaks for itself. But, again, when there are factual issues on debate I will certainly bring links to the discussion when appropriate.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to be condescending or arrogant, and I apologize for that, but still, there's no way for me to know just by your saying you've studied, is there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, there's no way for you to know. And there's no way for me to know that YOU have done all the research you say you have.

Yes there is! For every position I stated, and every area of debate, I used articles by quoting them, by questioning the opposing side based on them, and it was obvious that I simply didn't post a link without reading it -- obvious to everyone. Larson did the same thing. For many articles presented, we would quote parts of the article and argue with them or use them to support our position -- all with quotes! This proves we read our stuff!

That you have a collection of links doesn't mean you read them anymore than me posting a collection of links means that I read them.

Oh contraire!

So how about we stop worrying about that and debate the topic and we'll all bring our material to the table. It's not like I'm a doctor and have to prove my credentials. If you don't want to debate me, fine. But please don't suggest that I'm not "qualified" to debate because I haven't proven the amount of research I have done. You haven't proven your research either, Yes I have! and either of us can post a hundred links and that doesn't mean we actually read them.

In order to debate on this thread, the links are given for support of claims and quoted as well! It is important. And just as important is reading the other person's link and dissecting it!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm done and tired.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So am I. But I came to this forum because it looked fun and interesting. Sure, we may debate things you have debated here before and things I may have debated elsewhere before. If you're done and tired feel free not to engage me. But that's the purpose of the forum--to discuss it. If you're tired, don't participate. I'm not forcing you.

OK.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you find a point on this thread that you wish to argue or debate, I will be reading with interest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I already stated elsewhere, I'm still waiting for a response from Mech as to the lack of smoke from WTC6 (which he claims collapsed at 9:04am) in all other pictures prior to the first tower collapse. I'm also wondering why Shatoga misrepresented the CBS report as "refusing to apologize" when in fact it was just an old story.

Feel free to chime in on any of those topics. Otherwise, I'm sure we'll run into points of debate in the future and I welcome your participation.

OK.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you could present your reading links, that would help me and the others to understand your position more precisely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I said above, I have a few bookmarks but I don't save every link I ever visit. And even if I did, posting a message with hundreds of links does not prove to you that I read them. It could just prove I found some website with a bunch of 9/11 links.

But if you're offered a link to read, you will read it. Right?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have no desire to put any effort into proving your level of knowledge, than I don't know what to say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me answer you: I have NO desire to put any effort into proving my level of knowledge. That will become evident as we debate issues of importance. If you feel I'm unworthy to debate, ignore me.

Point taken.

I'll be reading with interest. You're right, if I find something meaty to argue with in your contributions, I'll chime in, but remember that when I do, I'll probably list a site or two for you to read in order to support my side. Or, I may simply agree with you or not chime in at all!

Welcome!