Laugh . I'd like to see if Blues responds to that point though. Nice line. I've seen the same line mentioned in another forum (by someone defending the official story, no less ), but no attribution line there either. I'm not sure I've ever asked it of someone who believes the official story, so I'd like to see if Blue responds to this too.
to persuade young, impressionable minds from getting entranced by the disinformation coming from truther nation ... many years back, my youngest son tried to get me to watch Loose Change which I had already seen ... but I did with him and then showed him all the falsehoods and the trickery they used to make a fallacious argument ... If you want to talk about classified info and the "redacted pages" , I'm willing to listen but the CD BS and however it could have been done is the talk of fools ... I saw an earlier link you showed that AE911 Truth had confirmed that CD on all three towers is "confirmed" ... no it's not and not by a long stretch ... I only deal with facts ... not probabilities based on "it's never happened before" ... and "it looks like a controlled demolition" ... I'm not being unreasonable ... I just want factual evidence, not conjecture ...
1. There is no such thing as "truther nation". I know this demon is a biggie for OCT defenders such as yourself but everyone has an independent mind, even you, believe it or not. What is more dangerous to you, the US government or those who don't believe US government propaganda? 2. What "young, impressionable minds" do you suppose you're going to encounter in this forum? Did you ever spend any time with your son showing him all the falsehoods and trickery the US government uses to make a fallacious argument? Or do you believe the US government would never do such a thing? So why do you suppose the US government classified such a massive amount of information on 9/11? Why do you suppose NIST refuses to release the data they used to arrive at their THEORY and create their reports? Do you really believe that if that data were made public it would actually "jeopardize public safety"? Why do you impose a limitation for yourself as to classified info and redacted pages? It seems to me that's a classic symptom of cognitive dissonance (i.e. a closed mind with chosen exceptions). A legitimate open mind would have no reasonable limitations as to what to talk about in terms of 9/11. So since you're not being unreasonable and you actually want factual evidence, yet a huge amount of that "factual evidence" is classified, on what basis do you come to the conclusion that the OCT is fact? How would you know if any of that classified information contradicts the OCT or not? Is it REASONABLE to you that it is possible that the classified material could contradict the OCT or is that not even a remote possibility? If it's the latter, what basis do you have for arriving at that conclusion? And last but not least, have you ever asked yourself any of the above questions I asked you in this post or do you just not bother because 9/11 is a settled issue for you despite all that classified information? If you don't want to answer it's quite ok with me, I'm just curious as to what is REASONABLE to YOU.
I have smart, well educated kids ... 36, 32 and 27 , two with advanced degrees and the third on his way ... they have also learned a lot from Dad ... they are politically savvy ... they all have their opinions about the government and their shenanigans ... but they do not believe in the fairy tales of controlled demolition, mysterious pods on planes, a drone flying into the Pentagon, no plane crashed in Shanksville, planes full of passengers diverted and hidden or killed ... etc ... they live in the real world Bob ...
Congratulations but that doesn't answer much, if anything, of what I asked. But I take it they believe in the OCT fairy tale just like you, no? And you taught them well. So much for that "political savviness". Yeah everyone does regardless of what they believe. It's ok I never really expected you to answer any of my questions. And especially given they are questions you have obviously never asked yourself either.
It's not impossible. Do you think it was dealt with in a satisfactory manner? IMMHO (and nothing more, mind you), Mossad knew of the incoming attack, and didn't inform (or misinformed) the US about it. So technically, the Mossad joy crew wasn't guilty of any crime, but the event did push the US in Israel's way. I would have high-fived too, if I were them.
I agree about the high five, except that Mossad didn't need to tell anyone (or already did), a lot of people knew it was coming, the CIA, FBI, Bush, who was being informed nearly daily by his own intelligence agencies, many in his administration, etc. The Deafness Before the Storm By Kurt Eichenwald - The NY Times - Sept. 10, 2012 Excerpts ... I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administrations reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it. The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that a group presently in the United States was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be imminent, although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible. ... And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have dramatic consequences, including major casualties. ... Yet, the White House failed to take significant action. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=2 9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets [video=youtube;rukxI_GLc3w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rukxI_GLc3w[/video]
Ever hear of the saying that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? Israel security -did- warn the U.S. of imminent attacks, but that doesn't mean that some Israelies weren't complicit in those same attacks. Here's an article posted on September 16th, 2001, mentioning that Israeli security warned the U.S. of imminent attacks: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ing-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.html And here's evidence that -some- Israelies were deeply involved in 9/11: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
You are being deliberately obtuse as usual ... using logic and reasoning leads one to a conclusion ... I have never claimed to your the "OCT" hook, line and sinker and have many questions ... I just don't take it the the whackjob extreme of implausible theories ... in other words, I think your logic and reasoning is out of whack ...
Yeah I noticed. The only questions you've ever asked in this forum were directed at those who haven't bought the OCT. Don't be a hypocrite, that's exactly what the OCT is. Considering you bought the OCT, that's quite understandable.
I see. That's good. I imagine you will like to look at Longknife's new thread... We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. It certainly seems that -you- don't find the evidence persuasive. But I question how much of it you have actually seen and understand... The evidence is far greater then those statements. As to facts, I'd say that the controlled demolition theory has a lot more evidence then the government's planes and/or fires theory for the WTC buildings... As do I. But based on your comments above, I question how much evidence you have actually seen. A screening of "loose change" is not exactly a lot of research on alternative theories to what happened on 9/11. Not that it couldn't be used as a starting point. Feel free to bring up any statements made in it that you found to be unpersuasive...
No, but it lacks evidence and it does sound a little 'crazy'. Yes, much ado about nothing as usual. Speculation is not my thing.
Ok, argument from ignorance. However, I still believe my first appraisal, as many quote this in that form. I don't care about the media and I rarely use it for source material as it is unreliable. I understand the random nature of these events and I realise that odd things can happen in these situations. (I'm the son of a highly decorated and educated fire officer) I don't see it as incredible, or 'hard to believe'. I think the notion that it was planted when it wasn't needed is absurd. Your conclusion is erroneous and based upon incredulity. I don't care what the media states and I'm surprised you do. Nor do I, but it is immaterial to my point. Perhaps. Have you investigated it and filed a FOIA request? Perhaps there is nothing to find out. Have you contacted any outlets regarding your concerns? Yet 9/11 truth have been going on about it since the discovery (that being my point). I don't care about the media. I have no reason to believe otherwise. If you don't believe its authenticity can you provide evidence? OMG that site is so bad. No, I'm not concerned. Why should I be? There is nothing but confirmation bias and incredulity behind the 'concerns'. Confirmation bias noted. Can you prove the document is a fake? Can you prove the trial was fraudulent, or are you just poisoning the well? And there it is. If 9/11 truth want to be taken seriously, then yes, they do need to prove their claims, otherwise it's just vacuous blather. I'm here to stop the spread of lies by 9/11 truth, not that it is anyone's business.
And yet, here have been precedents. Lots of smoke for no fire. Then you are quite easy to please. Too bad most conservatives don't think like you - most of them hated the Palestinians to their gut when they were dancing in the streets. Now imagine them doing it with a purpose... Nor is independant thinking, it seems.
Yes, I'm well aware of the rhetorical devices employed in the promotion of hysteria. Not at all. I'm not easily persuaded by the rhetoric of hysteria and partisanship, and I have high standards of evidence. True, I wish there were more rational individuals around, but alas. [...] And there it is. When CTists can't come up with an answer, they need to resort to this sort of attack. It's so tedious in its banality and tactically puerile.
If it's just hysteria, then why are all of your Presidents are doing a pledge to AIPAC as soon as elected? I have no looked into it directly, but I am pretty sure many people in the US governemental apparel are all but dual Israeli citizens. The elephant's right there, in the living room. It won't be the first time Israel successfully makes you a fast one. Need I repeat here what you already know? ... And you don't think, per your standards, that these five happy Mossad agents had some interesting history behind their out-of-place joy? If there was nothing there, then why this haven't been made public? What's to hide, if everybody is innocent? Ain't the smell of rat bothering you even a little? Man, the official explanation for 9-11 is a CT. No need to get so pejorative.
classic anti-Semitic bull(*)(*)(*)(*). didnt know you were also a 9-11 Truther. It all make sense now. do yuo think 9-11 was done by the Jews?
Fine. No need to further devoluate - I'm not here to proselytize. Forget about it. Go back to your regular schedule.
