re: Man Demonstrates A Big Flaw In 911's Jet Fuel Argument

quote:

---

The Matrix wasn't a fiction movie, it was a documentary

---

Ever seen that documentary about Lincoln Hawk?

Supposedly, the guy could arm wrestle his arse off, paid off his truck and got his son back.

That was back in the 80s before doc film makers sold out

quote:

---

Iraq and Afghanistan and its controlled by the Rothschilds

---

Before I I have to ask, are you being serious or are you trying to be humorous?

If it's the former, then WOW!!

If it's the latter then, and well done!

quote:

---

Nah, many ways of doing it that wouldn't require so many things which could be easily debunked. Hell, just explosives in the building would do it.

---

Nope. That would have opened up a whole new can of worms. How did Muslim terrorists get access to those buildings with such regularity.

It's a lot easier to simply hijack a couple of planes and fly them into buildings. No muss, no fuss.

quote:

---

A plane may have hit the Pentagon, but I am sure there were no people aboard the plane that hit the Pentagon.




quote:
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

---

Why would you think this source is any better than April Gallop or any of the other sources who say there was no plane?

That's EXACTLY what I said the U.S. did...
IN THE 80s! Not 12 or 15 years later in Oct., 2001.

You can't possibly be this retarded. You've got to be fricking with me.

quote:

---

You just needed a couple masterminds, some patsy "hijackers", people at the WTC that could be trusted, and an airport to swap planes at.

---

This assumes all of this can occur in a complete vacuum, though. I don't think you are considering how many individuals would have tangential knowledge of all of this (or even just some of this, enough to figure "it" out, or figure something out) if it is occurring as you suggest.

quote:

---

That's EXACTLY what I said the U.S. did...
IN THE 80s! Not 12 or 15 years later in Oct., 2001.

You can't possibly be this retarded. You've got to be fricking with me.

---

Calm down, it'll be alright.

America fought with the terrorists in Afghanistan to make sure Russia didn't control what they went back in a decade later to control.

It's why Afghanistan didn't want us helping them in the first place. They knew we'd be back to do more damage to them than the Russians could.

It's why we had to send in an operative to talk them into it.

Any idea who that CIA operative was?

quote:

---

The Rothschilds are opium addicts....and apparently there's TRILLIONS! of dollars worth of that shite over there.

---

The only problem with his logic is both Iraq and Afghanistan had central banks prior to the U.S. going into both countries.

If he's wrong about something so easily verifiable with a quick Google search, then he has no credibility with anything else he posts about the topic.

quote:

---

Da Afghanistan Bank (Pashto: ?????????? ?????; Persian: ???? ????? ????????? ) is the central bank of Afghanistan. It regulates all banking and money handling operations in Afghanistan. Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB) is one of the leading & government recognized bank of Afghanistan which was established in 1939.

---

LINK

quote:

---

The National Bank of Iraq became the Central Bank of Iraq in 1956.

In March 2003, on several occasions beginning on March 18, the day before United States forces entered Baghdad, nearly US$1 billion was stolen from the Central Bank of Iraq. This is considered the largest bank heist in history.

---

LINK

I'm familiar with both of those central banks. I was offered a consulting contract by USAID to work in both of them. I declined.

Perhaps I should have accepted the offers just to get a chance to meet the Rothschilds....

quote:

---

This assumes all of this can occur in a complete vacuum, though. I don't think you are considering how many individuals would have tangential knowledge of all of this (or even just some of this, enough to figure "it" out, or figure something out) if it is occurring as you suggest.

---

A. Compartmentalization took care of a lot of that.
B. Those who spoke out (see Sibel Edmonds) were gagged or relieved of their duties (see John O'Neill), or worse.

quote:

---

That's EXACTLY what I said the U.S. did...
IN THE 80s! Not 12 or 15 years later in Oct., 2001.

You can't possibly be this retarded. You've got to be fricking with me

---

You can't convince these people. Mentally, they are wired to believe whacked out theories.

LINK

quote:

---

These characteristics consist of backing one or more conspiracy theories unrelated to 9/11, frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook.

“Often, the proof offered as evidence for a conspiracy is not specific to one incident or issue, but is used to justify a general pattern of conspiracy ideas,” Swami says.

His conclusion echoes a 1994 proposal by sociologist Ted Goertzel of Rutgers–Camden in New Jersey. After conducting random telephone interviews of 347 New Jersey residents, Goertzel proposed that each of a person’s convictions about secret plots serves as evidence for other conspiracy beliefs, bypassing any need for confirming evidence.

A belief that the government is covering up its involvement in the 9/11 attacks thus feeds the idea that the government is also hiding evidence of extraterrestrial contacts or that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman.

Goertzel says the new study provides an intriguing but partial look at the inner workings of conspiracy thinking. Such convictions critically depend on what he calls “selective skepticism.” Conspiracy believers are highly doubtful about information from the government or other sources they consider suspect. But, without criticism, believers accept any source that supports their preconceived views, he says.

---

quote:

---

Over the past 50 years, researchers and observers of social dynamics have traced beliefs in conspiracy theories to feelings of powerlessness, attempts to bolster self-esteem and diminished faith in government. Some conspiracy beliefs — such as the widespread conviction among blacks that the U.S. government concocted HIV/AIDS as a genocidal plot — gain strength from actual events, such as the once-secret Tuskegee experiments in which black men with syphilis were denied treatment.

---

quote:

---

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

---