Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 66
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    So you admit that the last 8 years of Bush Cheney bashing was all based on conspiracy theories. Thanks for finally coming clean!
    LOL

    If only that were the case.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Yes the Bush Cheney conspiracy theory that there Were weapons in Iraq was only believed by the naive. But the naive and dishonorable were running the government.

    That is the problem with idiotic conspiracy theories like were used to start the Iraq war, some people are dumb enough or have other agendas and they end up becoming justification fopr policy.
    Apparently there were a heck of a lot more naive individuals in this world than I had thought.

    Looking at the world today though, maybe I'd have to say you're right. They are everywhere.
  3. jewel's Avatar
    Posts
    638 Posts
    Global Posts
    666 Global Posts
    #23  
    Only a kook would believe that this is a conspiracy.
  4. AllWires's Avatar
    Posts
    11 Posts
    Global Posts
    12 Global Posts
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by fry8 View Post
    Did you listen to the video? Do you know the difference between explosives such as TNT vs.Thermate/thermite or nano thermite the latter which was probably used on the building? Nano thermite can produce extremely high temperatures to literally melt steel, it is an extremely advanced type of chemical. The melting of steel can compromise a building's structure. Nano thermite isn't some kind of TNT or dynamite. However, it is possible to use Nano thermite to produce a different type of explosion, one that can exert force.

    ...

    By the way where did you come up with the fact that no one heard explosions. You should read this Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories
    You keep contradicting yourself. You say thermite doesn't cause explosions, but then later on you post a testimony about people hearing explosions. So which one is it? Make up your mind.

    I get the feeling that conspiracy theorists never think for themselves. They just jumble a bunch of facts together and decide it is right, even when they end up contradicting themselves in the end.

    Thinking outside of the box and questioning known facts is a good thing (questioning if this might have really been an inside job), however it needs to be done logically and scientifically. The problem is that this is not how most conspiracy theorists think. Also, if you considered the evidence as to why the attacks were not an inside job, and then compare them to the "facts" as to why it was an inside job, I think you would find the conspiracies much less compelling.
  5. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by AllWires View Post
    You keep contradicting yourself. You say thermite doesn't cause explosions, but then later on you post a testimony about people hearing explosions. So which one is it? Make up your mind.

    I get the feeling that conspiracy theorists never think for themselves. They just jumble a bunch of facts together and decide it is right, even when they end up contradicting themselves in the end.

    Thinking outside of the box and questioning known facts is a good thing (questioning if this might have really been an inside job), however it needs to be done logically and scientifically. The problem is that this is not how most conspiracy theorists think. Also, if you considered the evidence as to why the attacks were not an inside job, and then compare them to the "facts" as to why it was an inside job, I think you would find the conspiracies much less compelling.
    I wrote a paper on this it's about 11 pages and clealry you haven't read in detail or any books pertaining to the alternate theory of 9/11. I'm just summing about some points, because I'm not going to write a novel discussing the inconsistencies with the official 9/11 report and then compare them to the alternate theory. And I am not contradicting myself, maybe you should read my post again. I said that thermite can either make an explosion or it can melt steel. It is possible that one or the other was used, a combination of the two, or a TNT like substance. I doubt a TNT substance was used I believe that a combination of the two effects of thermite were used, because the science clearly confirms that a highly advanced millitary version of thermite was used, which shouldn't have been there.
  6. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb View Post
    enjoy your fantasies, son. The rest of us still have to live in the real world.

    The real problem with this sort of thing is that there's no way to prove a negative. Conspiracy theorists can come up with all sorts of wacky "evidence" that's impossible to refute, even though there's no way to prove it, either. But since they enjoy conspiracies so much, they always choose to believe what fits their desired outcome, and dare us to prove them wrong.

    I can't prove there wasn't a second shooter in Dallas in 1963, so conspiracy buffs take that as evidence that there was. I can't prove there *wasn't* thermite in the buldings, so that's evidence that there must have been.

    No one heard any other explosions? That's because thermite explosions are slient, apparently (What? Do these people have a brain?) The visual, auditory, and eye-witness evidence doesn't support there being explosions prior to the planes impacting, but someone claims seismic readings refute that. So obviously the thousands of people who heard, saw and felt it are wrong, and the purported seismic traces are true. Oh, that's right, thermite exposions can't be heard or felt. But then what did they wouldn't be picked up by seismographs either, would they?

    You ask "why would al queda not just blow up the buildings if they put explosive in them?" Turn the question around: if it was an inside job, why would those "insiders" fly planes into the buildings (and hire Saudis to do it?) if they had alread planted explosives inside? Your logic (such as it is) works both ways.

    The entire conspiracy theory is a house of cards, built on conflicting evidence, conflicting theories, and a whole lot of supposition and wishful thinking. The evidence connecting Al Queda to 9/11 is overwhelming, including the admission of at least 2 people involved in the plot, as well as bragging by Bin Laden himself.


    Here's a suggestion: find a local college or university that offers a class in critical thinking, sign up for it, then apply the skills learned to the "evidence" of the conspiracy.
    Have you ever heard of a false flag operation? Clearly their is a distinction when one group blames another. Watch this video, you may get a better grasp on the idea of a false flag terror operation.

    Addressing some of your other points, clearly a new 9/11 independent investigation would be needed to get the entire realm of the truth to come out. The official 9/11 report/commission is full of insistencies, conflicts of interest, etc. Hell, they wanted Kissinger to run the investigation and they didn't even report on building 7. Can you please explain to me then why aren't all the building codes changed and why a building with a moderate fighers caused a near free fall collapse? If a fire could bring down a huge modern skyscraper, then the building codes would have been completely changed. The 9/11 commission didn't even report this. The nail has been hit through the coffin, the new independent investigation would be the formal burial so to speak. The evidence clearly suggests it was a false flag event, which is used over and over in history, unfortunately.

    I guess questioning the Reichstag fire is not logical then? I didn't really understand what you said in your last sentence.

    Watch this video (3 parts) detailing the funding and founding of al qaed. Here's part I

    Part II

    Part III
    Part
  7. #27  
    I think that this theory originated with this guy:

    I would suggest that anyone believing this 'theory' read the Popular Mechanics article that bclinger referenced, and perhaps cut down on the caffeine.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  8. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I think that this theory originated with this guy:

    I would suggest that anyone believing this 'theory' read the Popular Mechanics article that bclinger referenced, and perhaps cut down on the caffeine.
    Do you know that there is an entire book devoted to debunking popular mechanics hit piece on the alternate theory of 9/11?
    Amazon.com: Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory: David Ray Griffin: Books

    But here's something that you can read online that debunks popular mechanics. Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by fry8 View Post

    But here's something that you can read online that debunks popular mechanics. Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11
    Well, if you found it on the Internet, it must be true.

    Honestly, did you even look at that "serendipity" site? The author of the site:
    • refers to the initial Gulf War as the "Gulf Slaughter"
    • believes that the government attacked an innocent David Koresh at Waco
    • Has a section devoted to supporting Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel and
    • In referring to Jews: "Zionists are experts at propaganda, disinformation, denying facts and outright lying", and refers to Israel as a "terrorist state".


    It's always a good idea to check sources cited, to ensure that they are not total whackos.
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/30/2009 at 12:18 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  10. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Well, if you found it on the Internet, it must be true.

    Honestly, did you even look at that "serendipity" site? The author of the site:
    • refers to the initial Gulf War as the "Gulf Slaughter"
    • believes that the government attacked an innocent David Koresh at Waco
    • Has a section devoted to supporting Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel and
    • In referring to Jews: "Zionists are experts at propaganda, disinformation, denying facts and outright lying", and refers to Israel as a "terrorist state".


    It's always a good idea to check sources cited, to ensure that they are not total whackos.
    First off you never addressed 9/11, you just attack the author. This is a classical example of a straw man argument. To the "Gulf Slaughter" comment, I don't see how that is radical? People refer to wars as slaughter because it truly is barbaric and I'm not going to go over the details of the Gulf war.

    Alot of people believe the ATF were the bad guys in waco. This video explains alot of it.

    The author doesn't deny the holocaust ever happened. Read it again. Anti zionism is different than anti semitism. I don't think he means the majority of the population of zionism are even bad, but people that are opposd to zionism, which there are many, believe that is only the very few elites at the top that are the ones doing wrong. Noam Chomsky explains in in alot of his material. Here is just a tiny fragment Israel, the Holocaust, and Anti-Semitism, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Chronicles of Dissent)

    Noam Chomsky is no whacko, his ideas may not be mainstream in America, but his ideas are increasing traction both abroad and are starting to get bigger in America.

    I am not saying I agree with the author of serendipity's other research, I am not saying I disagree, but it isn't outlandish or cooky, there are a lot of high level elites so to speak, that do not disagree with some of the points you addressed. However, none of this is the point.

    The article cites many sources and is very in depth and I like the format that it's in (Popular Mechanics Statement and then a rebuttal).

    David Ray Griffin's book is very well written and I posted something that was in depth and that could be read online that is a lot shorter than Griffin's book. There are many articles debunking popular mechanics as well.

    Speaking of credibility you do realize that popular mechanics is a Hearst publication. I don't need to remind of that "credible" yellow journalism do I? I should also note that the senior researcher for popular mechanics is Ben Chertoff. Does the last name sound familiar? If it does it's because he is a cousin of the former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

    If you need more articles I can post them, but for some reason I think you aren't interested in looking at all the claims and fact checking.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by fry8 View Post
    First off you never addressed 9/11, you just attack the author. This is a classical example of a straw man argument.
    You need to brush up on your terminology if you're going to try this. It's called argumentum ad hominem, i.e. argument against the person. A straw man argument is when you attribute an easily defeated argument to your opponent when it's not really the argument they're advancing.

    That being said, while argumentum ad hominem doesn't necessarily disprove an argument directly, it can color the validity of the assumptions that one can make in establishing their argument.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #32  
    That being said, while argumentum ad hominem doesn't necessarily disprove an argument directly, it can color the validity of the assumptions that one can make in establishing their argument.
    In other words, if you cite a source that has no credentials or credibility, with opinions that are far out of the mainstream of opinion, that lack of credibility greatly undermines your argument.

    I personally feel no need to "address 9/11". It's very clear what happened, and has been supported by sources far more reliable than the conspiracy theorists you cite (such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology). Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that the entire idea that 9/11 was an inside job is an insult to the people who died that day, and deserves no more attention.
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/30/2009 at 04:37 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  13. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    In other words, if you cite a source that has no credentials or credibility, with opinions that are far out of the mainstream of opinion, that lack of credibility greatly undermines your argument.

    I personally feel no need to "address 9/11". It's very clear what happened, and has been supported by sources far more reliable than the conspiracy theorists you cite (such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology). Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that the entire idea that 9/11 was an inside job is an insult to the people who died that day, and deserves no more attention.
    How is it insulting? You do realize that many family members whose loved ones died on 911 question the official version of 911. Do you have any clue about this? Here Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
  14. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You need to brush up on your terminology if you're going to try this. It's called argumentum ad hominem, i.e. argument against the person. A straw man argument is when you attribute an easily defeated argument to your opponent when it's not really the argument they're advancing.

    That being said, while argumentum ad hominem doesn't necessarily disprove an argument directly, it can color the validity of the assumptions that one can make in establishing their argument.
    A straw man is a general term. When someone attacks something that is easy to take down and doesn't actually attack the real issue, that is a form of a straw man. By saying that this guy believes ideas that the mainstream doesn't believe or whatever and not attacking the acutal evidence brought up, that is a straw man. A straw man doesn't necessarily have to be relating to the topic per se. I was also referring to straw man when he used the term holocaust denier, because he wasn't denying that the holocaust took place.
    Last edited by fry8; 05/30/2009 at 05:45 PM.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by fry8 View Post
    I was also referring to straw man when he used the term holocaust denier, because he wasn't denying that the holocaust took place.
    I was pointing out that the other positions that the author you cited has posted on his site make him not at all credible, including support for Ernst Zundel, who was indeed a Holocaust denier:

    Ernst Zundel sentenced to 5 years for Holocaust denial
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/30/2009 at 08:31 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by fry8 View Post
    Speaking of credibility you do realize that popular mechanics is a Hearst publication. I don't need to remind of that "credible" yellow journalism do I? I should also note that the senior researcher for popular mechanics is Ben Chertoff. Does the last name sound familiar? If it does it's because he is a cousin of the former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
    I always wondered about this, how a "respectable" magazine would publish such an article and why the article was necessary at all (to be published). I'm sure they had quiet a few of "converts" merely because the article was published in PM. At that time, the treatment appeared quiet superficial instead of false (at least to me).
  17. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I was pointing out that the other positions that the author you cited has posted on his site make him not at all credible, including support for Ernst Zundel, who was indeed a Holocaust denier:

    Ernst Zundel sentenced to 5 years for Holocaust denial
    A lot of people disagree with that decision. The idea is that people can express their opinions in anyway they see fit, it is up to people to set them straight. That is the idea of the the 1st amendment in the bill of rights. It is also to be noted that Ernst Zundel does not say the holocaust never happened, he is saying that he believes that the holocaust was misrepresented and does not believe the official events. I'm not saying I agree with him nor is the author of serendipity. The author is saying that he shouldn't be in prison for saying what he believes about the holocaust rather factual or not.

    The Canadian Association for Free Expression Stated, "Mr. Zundel is quite literally a political prisoner," said director Paul Fromm, who also served as Zundel's legal representative in his detention hearings. "He is being held in solitary confinement solely for the non-violent expression of his political views."

    That is what the author of serendipity is basically arguing.

    It is important to understand that those who reject the Holocaust story do not dispute that large numbers of Jews were deported to concentration camps and ghettos, and that many Jews were killed during the Second World War. Every serious revisionist acknowledges that Europe's Jews suffered a catastrophe during the Hitler years. They were ruthlessly uprooted, taken from their homes, and herded into horribly overcrowded ghettos and miserable concentration camps, where many of them perished. Their property and their rights were taken away.....

    Whether or not one agrees with Ernst Zündel's views on what happened during World War II the fact remains that everyone has a right to express their opinions as long as that expression is not an incitement to violence (and an examination of historical evidence is never an incitement to violence). It is a gross violation of human rights that Ernst Zündel was locked up in solitary confinement for two years in Canada and denied basic legal rights for stating what he believes (based on evidence he has presented in his writings) to be the truth. It is also a gross violation of human rights that he is now on trial in Germany, where, if convicted, will likely spend more years in jail.



    -serendipity

    You are misrepresenting both sides and are attacking the author of serendipity for supporting for free speech. That is illogical to associate this with "quackery."
  18. #38  
    You are misrepresenting both sides and are attacking the author of serendipity for supporting for free speech. That is illogical to associate this with "quackery."
    You conveniently left out the part above that was written directly after "Their property and their rights were taken away.....", which was "While conceding all of this, the men and women who have testified on Zündel's behalf have articulated their reasons for rejecting the idea that there was a German program to exterminate Europe's Jews, and for disbelieving the stories about mass killings in gas chambers." I think quackery would be a kind description for the sites you refer to. The fact that you cite them as sources invalidates any point you're trying to make.

    The serendipity site also included this: "Israel was involved in the planning for the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Bush was instructed as to how he was to behave on the morning of 9/11 when informed of the WTC impacts. This meeting was captured on video by the Israelis, who have given Bush a copy of the tape. If Bush does not give Sharon everything he wants the Israelis will leak the video and Bush will be dead meat." Frankly, that statement reads like the rantings of someone quite insane.

    You have a right to read and believe any thing you'd like. You have a right to believe any conspiracy theory that you'd like, without regard to logic. However, once you start citing and defending hate-mongers, it's no longer fun and you'll have to play without me.
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/30/2009 at 09:59 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  19. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    You conveniently left out the part above that was written directly after "Their property and their rights were taken away.....", which was "While conceding all of this, the men and women who have testified on Zündel's behalf have articulated their reasons for rejecting the idea that there was a German program to exterminate Europe's Jews, and for disbelieving the stories about mass killings in gas chambers." I think quackery would be a kind description for the sites you cite. The fact that you cite it, and other similar sites, as sources invalidates any point you're trying to make.

    Your source also included this gem: "Israel was involved in the planning for the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Bush was instructed as to how he was to behave on the morning of 9/11 when informed of the WTC impacts. This meeting was captured on video by the Israelis, who have given Bush a copy of the tape. If Bush does not give Sharon everything he wants the Israelis will leak the video and Bush will be dead meat." Frankly, that statement reads like the rantings of someone quite insane.

    However, you have a right to read and believe any thing you'd like. However, once you start citing and defending hate-mongers, it's no longer fun and you'll have to play without me.
    He's referring to the gas chamber murders and said those didn't happen, but not the concentration camps and the killings that went on their.

    I don't think the author is stating exactly how the Israelis were involved in 911, the author is stating a possible scenario, that is why he says "consider" this explanation. He is not saying he has hit the nail in the coffin so to speak in how they were involved, it merely is there to illustrate how America is taking orders from Israel. That's why he cited than CNN article right above it CNN.com - Big win for Israel's Sharon - Apr 16, 2004

    This is a short brief article explaining the possible Israel connection Investigative Reporter Breaks Israeli 9/11 Foreknowledge

    There are many more sources I can site as well this isn't the only guy in the world debunking popular mechanics, but it's fairly in depth. Would you like me to cite more articles? This article is pretty good. Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth

    It's always about the messenger never about the facts is it?
  20. #40  
    He's referring to the gas chamber murders and said those didn't happen, but not the concentration camps and the killings that went on their.
    Well, that makes it less crazy, then.

    Zündel also wrote, in his book The Hitler We Loved and Why: "We loved Hitler because he was a White Man. He practiced our White virtues of forthright honesty and his actions matched his words. If something was filth, he disposed of it as filth with sanitary thoroughness....We loved him because he taught us the truth about Race and proved, even to skeptics, that the White Race is the founder of all great cultures and civilizations and that race-mixing is the great destroyer."

    Do you really consider authors who support him as credible? And you really don't see why that source undermines any argument that you are making?

    The idea is that people can express their opinions in anyway they see fit, it is up to people to set them straight. That is the idea of the the 1st amendment in the bill of rights.
    That case was in Germany.... I'm assuming that you realize that the Bill of Rights doesn't really apply there. Beside, he wasn't convicted for express his opinions, but for "inciting racial hatred".

    There are many more sources I can site as well this isn't the only guy in the world debunking popular mechanics, but it's fairly in depth. Would you like me to cite more articles? This article is pretty good.
    Popular Mechanics has a bit more credibility than random conspiracy theorists. You can also read a source from Scientific American...although I'm certain that they've joined Popular Mechanics in the CIA / FBI / Rotary Club / Illuminati cabal:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ahrenheit-2777

    Free advice before I let this silliness drop altogether: credibility of sources is not a trivial matter, when trying to justify points. Just because you find sites on the Internet doesn't make them true. For example, it's easy to find evidence that:

    Aliens actually were responsible for 9/11: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread35492/pg1
    A laser beam caused 9/11 (this one is actually from the serendipity site you referenced above): http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn1.htm
    There are humanoid reptilians living among us: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/su...reptiles13.htm
    George W. Bush is an alien clone ( I actually sort of believe this one): http://spaceport666.tripod.com/newsbush.html
    Definitive evidence the Earth is flat. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...latWhyFlat.htm
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/31/2009 at 10:01 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions