9/11: The Ultimate Con
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-12-2011, 06:38 PM
RE: 9/11: The Ultimate Con
(26-12-2011 06:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  OK, those are not hard-wired, those are programmed.

Hard-wired means instinctual, built-in.

The beliefs you mention were all taught to you.

Sure I can see where you are going with that.........and I think you are correct in your summary.

So I rephrase the question where do you draw the line with being open minded with regards to logic and our programming.........its a question I dont really think I have pondered, I dont think I have an answer just yet Huh

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2011, 06:48 PM
RE: 9/11: The Ultimate Con
(26-12-2011 06:38 PM)bemore Wrote:  
(26-12-2011 06:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  OK, those are not hard-wired, those are programmed.

Hard-wired means instinctual, built-in.

The beliefs you mention were all taught to you.

Sure I can see where you are going with that.........and I think you are correct in your summary.

So I rephrase the question where do you draw the line with being open minded with regards to logic and our programming.........its a question I dont really think I have pondered, I dont think I have an answer just yet Huh

I am open to new ideas; I then consider the evidence for and against. If the evidence is overwhelmingly one way or the other, I toss the idea in one of the bins (ridiculous, silly, paranoid, impossible, unlikely, etc.). However, I am open to new evidence and to re-examination of evidence.

If one is not skeptical, does not question ideas, does not ask for evidence, does not examine evidence, does not examine the claimers motivations, then that's the brain-falling-out kind of open-mindedness.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
28-12-2011, 11:02 PM
RE: 9/11: The Ultimate Con
Whilst I don't believe that it was facilitated or actioned by the US Government, I certainly believe that knowledge of an attack was prevalant within the CIA, FBI and NSA and that it was essentially 'allowed to happen' by these agencies under direction of the Government. So, no, I don't believe the almighty conspiracy theory about controlled demolition, drone aircraft and missiles but I do believe that upon learning of the details of the impending attack (as revealed by Israeli and French forces) the Government did not act in order to allow the attack to occur.

In fact, I believe the same accusation has been made of the Pearl Harbour attack. It was known of, it was impending and no pre-cautions were taken. There were a lot of Americans unwilling to enter the war but the Government needed it. How else do you facilitate it?

"The Japs are coming? By jove, this might just be what the doctor ordered!"

I do, actually, hold the belief that the pentagon flight and pennsylvanian flight were most likely shot down by military aircraft and that fact has been covered up.

"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter!"

-Yoda-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2011, 02:14 AM
RE: 9/11: The Ultimate Con
(26-12-2011 04:23 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  I feel as if the Spirits of Christmas have moved me from The Thinking Atheist forum into some strange Mysterious Conspiracy Forum filled with whack job ultra fundies and their godless counterparts.

See how we are, Chas? I'm the whack job and you're my godless counterpart. Big Grin
(With the theme of the Odd Couple playing in the background)

Such does not offend me; I actually consider this to be an advantage of this medium of communication. If one gets "heated" or one's comments "bring heat," then all one need do is back away with the fire. Now what do we have added to the mix? Instinct.

My instinct is for strategic assessment. Chas keeps trying to toss me into the "truther bucket," and I keep jumping out. When I say, "9/11 was enabled," I don't speak of "conspiracy theory;" as far as I recall, when I watched it live on TV I was the only one who was calling it "revisionist history in the making, live!" I wasn't thinking tactical - such as controlled demolition - I was thinking strategy such as cui bono?

What doesn't make any sense to me is a billionaire Muslim thinking this is gonna be advantageous to Islam. That's my hypothesis - Johnny bin Laden. I got martyrs, I got aircraft, I got a plan - White House. That's an Islamic plus. Make them imperialist fucks drop a couple of civilian airliners in the Atlantic because my jihadists got the stick and are gonna drop 'em in the Rose Garden otherwise. That gets the imperialists attention without a declaration of war. For the simple rationale that - look what happened? Of course it's fucking war when three thousand civilians die. No one benefits in war but the war mongers like Bush and the materiel contractors. Which is exactly who benefited. If my chieftains argued New York then I'd counter with Liberty Island or Wall Street after dark - because terror is a game of inches - and this bit of reach wasn't for terror but for war.

I see often my fellow Americans dehumanizing the Muslim; I refuse. It is not good strategy to think of "the enemy" as anything other than human, so what does the jihadist have against me to make me "the enemy?" A foreign policy of meddlesome interference in the middle east that confuses democracy with dictatorship; and because people like Johnny Cantor are American, it seems to me such is not the enemy but rather the ally of the jihadist. Yet what just happened to me? I express my consideration as a strategist from zero hour - yet I'm classified as a "conspiracy theorist with a non-functioning brain" by Chas who should know better. I call that "effective strategy;" and it ain't Muslim strategy.

To think like a jihadist is to think Islam could just rise up and sweep across the globe; and any kind of strategist worth the title is gonna back the fuck away from that kind of fanaticism. The logistics just ain't there. Look at the stuff they get away with - public protests waving signs declaring "death to those who disrespect Islam." That is a defensive, not offensive position. There's a big difference between faith and fanaticism; it can be realized in the terms of one being strategy and the other tactics. Where do these tactics fit into an Islamic strategy? They don't; rather they fit into an economic strategy.

I have this book called Fiasco: American Adventurism in Iraq; lemme tell ya, strategic assessment does not trust to such a resultant as this publication. This is why I do not trust any "extant conspiracy theory" for the simple reason that if there were conspiracy, then the military would have had a strategy. "Enabled" means "spook happened." Plausible deniability happened. Euphemism happened. There was an adviser to the president telling Bush that "scenario 316-J" would be enacted on Monday morning; resulting in Bush conferring with "committee x" about, "what does scenario 316-J mean again?" Because we all know Bush is an intellectual superstar. So "committee x" assumes the executive office for a few crucial hours while a live-action simulation is played out on the world stage.

"Conspiracy theorists" wanna blame somebody - believe that "someone should be held accountable." I think that's naive as fuck. The ends always justify the means because those at the end rewrite history to glorify their means - it's simple fucking math - so what the fuck am I barking about?

Persia. You might know it as Iran. Bemore posted links from what? Last week? Indicating a 9/11 connection. But I was there last month, listening to an "ex" CIA spook "spelling it out." Where if one fills in the vowels of his consonant laden speech, one clearly gets the sense that Iran is being served up to the American populous. Now it's a civil suit? Yeah, I'll remain skeptical.

Why Persia? Israel. Are we communicating yet? Is there modern day Saladin to protect Islam from an American crusade? I'm not seeing it. Remember, correlation is not causation; there doesn't have to be a "conspiracy' to 'cause' this effect. I see it as compartmentalization. That "committee x" is made up of an alphabet of variables whose knowledge of "scenario 316-J" was on a "need to know" basis. Bush gets reelected. The hawks get Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. The mass media gets a show. The American citizen gets an enemy. Who is lacking from this feast of plenty but the Muslim?

And rather than applying skepticism at the fulcrum, we're bickering among ourselves. We're looking at our own little pictures of "what will the neighbors think if I support/deny "9/11 Truth?" Tell you what. "9/11 Truth" is a bunch of fucktards, does that help? I don't want vengeance, I want counter-strategy. I would like American counter-strategy, but if America invades Persia; then I just might fabricate a non John Cantor identity and GTFO America. Not causation, correlation; there's only so much bullshit I'm going to tolerate before "American" clearly differentiates between what I mean and what the government means.

In such manner, it does not offend me if Chas is American of different perspective; it doesn't offend me if Exormai sees this as egoistic posturing. The only thing that could offend is that for which I am directly responsible. I'm quiet on 9/11 about 9/11 out of respect for the dead. Any other day, out of respect for my life, I'm gonna flap my fucking gums.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
29-12-2011, 05:00 AM
RE: 9/11: The Ultimate Con
It's really funny if anyone thinks that ignorant, stupid, brainwashed Muslim fundamentalist crawled from some cave in the bottom of the Himalayas, somewhere around Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then he decided to go to USA, kidnap a JUMBO-JET, fly it (!!), make extremely difficult maneuvers to crash it into a building...

Everything else is irrelevant, if you can believe in this bullshiting without questioning, then no other evidence is needed for you.

And there is one other "proof" I find hilarious, it is the passports of the terrorists, the whole buildings have collapsed, the steel pillars have been incinerated (also fun fact...), nothing remained, but the passports were intact, just slightly burned. Really? This is the proof that those were the terrorists they say. C'mon, my imaginary friend could have done a better job in framing someone for this horrible act.

I don't trust anyone.

Smile

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Filox's post
29-12-2011, 06:18 AM (This post was last modified: 29-12-2011 06:27 AM by Malleus.)
RE: 9/11: The Ultimate Con
(29-12-2011 05:00 AM)Filox Wrote:  It's really funny if anyone thinks that ignorant, stupid, brainwashed Muslim fundamentalist crawled from some cave in the bottom of the Himalayas, somewhere around Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then he decided to go to USA, kidnap a JUMBO-JET, fly it (!!), make extremely difficult maneuvers to crash it into a building...

I also found it intriguing when I saw a 10 year-old doing a decent job flying a plane that was already in the air on a flight simulator. Personally, it took me about 3 minutes to figure out what all the controls do in a Boeing plane on a detailed simulator. The company who made it claims that it is sometimes used by real life pilots for training. The fact that all the dials and buttons are labelled telling you exactly what they do also helps. I also managed to land it the first time I tried. I guess a few of my passengers must have passed out, but at least I did not go down in flames. Crashing into a building would have been much, much easier.

I had stolen that simulator from the internet. That's right. Stone me. After 3 different software companies rejected my credit cards because they were issued by Romanian banks, I thought that I don't have to force people to accept my money. If they make me do more work to make the payment than I needed to earn that money, maybe they don't need my money all that much. Anyway, do you think terrorists would be able to do something *that* dishonest?

A plane that's already in the air is not that easy to crash and you have enough time to react and to get the hang of the controls.

Quote:Everything else is irrelevant, if you can believe in this bullshiting without questioning, then no other evidence is needed for you.


Oh, I'm questioning and a bunch of scientists answered. And the rest of the scientists around the world seemed to agree with their explanations. I, a moron sitting in front of my PC, picking my nose, don't think that I am justified to decide by myself that "these people are wrong and/or dishonest. All of them". Not without more evidence.

Quote:And there is one other "proof" I find hilarious, it is the passports of the terrorists, the whole buildings have collapsed, the steel pillars have been incinerated (also fun fact...), nothing remained, but the passports were intact, just slightly burned. Really? This is the proof that those were the terrorists they say. C'mon, my imaginary friend could have done a better job in framing someone for this horrible act.

Yeah, that sounds very much like a way for the secret services to cover their ass. When they couldn't stop something THIS big, they needed to at least point the finger at someone, anybody, even if they are later proven to be innocent. With that much media attention, they couldn't afford to look that incompetent. Which is scary, because they are this incompetent and, rather than getting better, they use even more of their misspent resources trying to make it look like they're smarter.

Of course, I can't prove this either, but it looks plausible.

But judging by the silliness of their cover-up, can you actually tell me that these morons were the same people who managed to fool the international scientific community with the perfectness of their conspiracy? They managed to plant explosives in 3 full busy buildings, thermite to cut the steel structure (nobody noticed), suicide agents to fly the planes into buildings, a perfect collapse at the right calculated timing so it looks normal to scientific inquiry and a very trust-worthy Osama bin Laden who never, ever, ever came out to blow the whistle on the secret services' implication in the event.

Quote:I don't trust anyone.

Good! Me neither. But that's not a good reason to stop thinking and go with the first thing that comes to your mind.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Malleus's post
29-12-2011, 08:42 AM
RE: 9/11: The Ultimate Con
(29-12-2011 06:18 AM)Malleus Wrote:  Oh, I'm questioning and a bunch of scientists answered. And the rest of the scientists around the world seemed to agree with their explanations. I, a moron sitting in front of my PC, picking my nose, don't think that I am justified to decide by myself that "these people are wrong and/or dishonest. All of them". Not without more evidence.

Well, since I have sixty one more IQ points than you do... Big Grin

No, I don't have a problem with you if you accept the scientific evidence. I'm thinking you're a good guy, just don't do the evil. I do evil. It was never my intention to be evil, but the way my life played out; well Gwyneth is good - obviously, she's all sweet and adorable and popular and stuff - so I gots to be the evil. Shit happens. Wink

What I see that you miss is the way science works. When this 9/11 dragon reared its ugly head again I went to this site called debunking 9/11 because I'm always questioning my morality. And here we go, front page news:

...Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 “truth movement” has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning.[ /i]

Absolutely, positively incorrect. This "9/11 truth movement" ground to a halt because [i]they were good
. They want to do good, to be seen as good, and when the public responds by saying that's no good they break weak.

Here's one for ya: Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless - from the above site. Doesn't consider nano-thermite (which explodes, is consistent with the evidence of particulate iron at seventy nm and aluminum at thirty nm found on-site) and uses this lack of consideration to disavow the testimony of something like a hundred on-site witnesses, including firemen - who are expert enough in knowing what the fuck an explosion sounds like - and you know, the actual broadcast tapes.

One, that I just clicked; because I wuz just wondering about the thermite...

And if I go through and rip that site to shreds, what happens? Nothing, because I'm evil; because the issue will not be 9/11, the issue will become me. Get it?

I got no horse in some "conspiracy" race, I got the original opinion of "enabled" that just never seems to get challenged. I used to be assistant construction superintendent doing TIs in these kind of structures. If I wanted to do some shit like They managed to plant explosives in 3 full busy buildings, thermite to cut the steel structure (nobody noticed) nobody would have noticed. That's the only "question" I have, did "scenario 316-J" include demolition... the scientific evidence tells me, yeah.

But it doesn't even matter to my "scenario 316-J." I'm not gonna go back to that site to see what kind of fluff they use to confuse the issue of "apparent free fall" because parsimony works in my favor, not theirs. And I'm evil.

You're not a moron, you're a skeptic. I'm not a truther, I'm a strategist. The evidence is tainted by virtue of the majority of it being shipped to China double-time. What remains is questionable, in such quantity as to be excusable; just as strategy would dictate. The rest is inertia. Good always triumphs over evil, it is the nature of the universe. Thing is, I don't "wanna be right." 9/11, I'm gonna continue to see as enabled; that's not what i mean about "being right." I don't wanna be right about Persia, or 2013, or none of that shit... but it is all the same kinda shit, and I'm feeling damn prophetic lately.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
29-12-2011, 11:59 AM
RE: 9/11: The Ultimate Con
(29-12-2011 08:42 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Here's one for ya: Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless - from the above site. Doesn't consider nano-thermite (which explodes, is consistent with the evidence of particulate iron at seventy nm and aluminum at thirty nm found on-site) and uses this lack of consideration to disavow the testimony of something like a hundred on-site witnesses, including firemen - who are expert enough in knowing what the fuck an explosion sounds like - and you know, the actual broadcast tapes.

Uhm, just one little niggle; it was a huge modern skyscraper, is it really that odd to find all kinds of steel and aluminium in the remains of the building? I mean, those substances aren't exactly rare.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2011, 01:11 PM
RE: 9/11: The Ultimate Con
(29-12-2011 11:59 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  
(29-12-2011 08:42 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Here's one for ya: Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless - from the above site. Doesn't consider nano-thermite (which explodes, is consistent with the evidence of particulate iron at seventy nm and aluminum at thirty nm found on-site) and uses this lack of consideration to disavow the testimony of something like a hundred on-site witnesses, including firemen - who are expert enough in knowing what the fuck an explosion sounds like - and you know, the actual broadcast tapes.

Uhm, just one little niggle; it was a huge modern skyscraper, is it really that odd to find all kinds of steel and aluminium in the remains of the building? I mean, those substances aren't exactly rare.

The kicker is the thirty nanometer aluminum fragments - that's nanotech. Could it have arrived on-site without infamous legacy? Sure. If the scientific evidence I'm referencing has been interpreted with "truther" bias, then it's crap. There is both too much and too little; too much secondhand referencing, too little original material.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2011, 01:13 PM
RE: 9/11: The Ultimate Con
Just dare to face it , guys :

There are a lots of unanswered questions & serious doubts concerning the official version of the 9/11 :

Listen to the experts in that regard in the video below on topdocumentaryfilms.com : there a lots of 9/11 top docus in the same great site you can watch as well :

"9/11: Explosive Evidence : Experts Speak Out "



http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-explo...speak-out/


You cannot deny those facts proved as such scientifically

Happy new year
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: