What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2016, 12:29 PM
RE: What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy theory?
(30-11-2016 12:09 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I'm speaking of which was an orchestrated attack that took place in four different areas causing maximum collateral damage in terms of lives lost but almost no damage in terms of military setback.
Who said it had to be an attack directed at military installations? Is there a rule about this or so?
Wouldnt the collateral damage be even higher if not 3000 but all 50000 people in WTC had been killed? Or 40000? Or 30000? or 20000? Or 10000?

Are you saying that an organisation like Al Quaeda wasnt able to orchestrate a conspiracy involving 20 men flying airliners into skyscrapers?
Have you ever heared about the events involving the kidnapping of B737 "Landshut", the RAF terrorists imprisoned in a high security prison facility in Stuttgart Stammheim and the abduction and killing of Hans Martin Schleyer?

(30-11-2016 12:09 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  where as the attacks on the twin towers did not benefit them anyway strategically speaking.
Bin Laden, Al Quaeda in general and most of the radical muslim world seem to disagree with you. Are you aware that one of the "strategc" goals of a terrorist is......to create terror? Facepalm
How do you generate terror? By attacking well trained well equipped soldiers, or by targeting random untrained unaware people who feel completely safe?
Are you aware that terrorists, like anyone who is outmanned and out-equipped, typically resort to "asymetric warfare"?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
30-11-2016, 12:51 PM
RE: What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy theory?
(30-11-2016 12:19 PM)skyking Wrote:  They created widespread terror in the US and abroad, on behalf of their cause

Quote:They took flight training in several schools. Common undisputed knowledge.
But what is disputed is their dedication to the courses.

Quote:they had tested the security and knew what they could get onboard. They had trained in using the box cutters to injure and kill, and nobody but the few on flight 93 stood up to them. It will never work again.


Quote:the military does not scare like the public. Not even close. They inflicted massive terror on symbols of US prosperity in the biggest most prosperous city.

Precisely my point.

Quote: it was not the first time they tried to blow up or burn those buildings you know that right?

You and I suspect different culprits, but yes I know.

not even a close thing. When you kill in the offices and bedrooms, you create terror. Attacking a military target is expected.

Only if you go through the front gate is it expected, don't go through the front gate.


Quote:please think critically. one base or another does not matter. They are not waging actual war here on our soil, but in the minds of the public.

And who does benefit more?

Quote:that was a start of a real war, mo shit sherlock.

So Al-Qaeda wasn't expecting any reprisals for their actions?


Quote:The same plane crashed into a military facility would have A) damaged far less than you think. The equipment is dispersed by nature.
B) not intimidated the public nearly as much.


Once again, use your brain. a few F-16s are but a drop in the bucket. how many would you get with a jetliner? 10? Take a look at a base. There have been 4500 F-16's delivered worldwide. A couple of dozen is nothing.
A really good pilot might take out a dozen or more. hitting a building on the fly is a relative piece of cake. I happen to be a pilot, and hitting things on the ground can be a PITA Smile


Who said anything about flying a jetliner or hitting something on the ground from the air? or one base for that matter? I'm talking about feet on the ground sort of option 19 people, 19 bases, satchel full of c4 with remote detonation and striking on say a holiday like christmas or the new year. All they really need is a pair of wire cutters to get inside a base.

And F-16's are a bit of a smaller target but, yes you could sabotage them too I suppose if you wanted. Since it isn't a suicide mission you'd probably have more volunteers as well. The most important thing would be to set the charges on the fuel tank I believe. And the biggest problem to do this is that you might need a ladder.

You could also go for a naval base, probably need some scuba gear, but you could probably pull it off.

You said you were/are a pilot right? and you made it sound like you had military training right? Would you not say that the defenses for an air base are lacking?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 12:55 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2016 12:58 PM by skyking.)
RE: What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy theory?
<So Al-Qaeda wasn't expecting any reprisals for their actions?>
Al Queda is not a country or a target. They are dispersed small groups of terrorists and as such, have several advantages over conventional forces.
<But what is disputed is their dedication to the courses.>
Flying a plane that is already airborne is very easy. The hard work is done.

Try and get on a base. Let me know how that works out.
For a long time now they have employed passive sensors on the perimeter. They are not obvious, nor do they advertise them. The fence keeps the drunks from blundering in but the real security is electronic in nature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 01:02 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2016 01:09 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy theory?
(30-11-2016 12:29 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Who said it had to be an attack directed at military installations? Is there a rule about this or so?
Wouldnt the collateral damage be even higher if not 3000 but all 50000 people in WTC had been killed? Or 40000? Or 30000? or 20000? Or 10000?

Terrorism is for attention sabotage is for results.

Quote:Are you saying that an organisation like Al Quaeda wasnt able to orchestrate a conspiracy involving 20 men flying airliners into skyscrapers?
Have you ever heared about the events involving the kidnapping of B737 "Landshut", the RAF terrorists imprisoned in a high security prison facility in Stuttgart Stammheim and the abduction and killing of Hans Martin Schleyer?

Are you saying that an organisation like the CIA wouldn't be able to orchestrate a similar event? Which one is better equipped to do so?

Quote:Bin Laden, Al Quaeda in general and most of the radical muslim world seem to disagree with you. Are you aware that one of the "strategc" goals of a terrorist is......to create terror? Facepalm

That is also one of the tenets of the strategy of tension.

Quote:How do you generate terror? By attacking well trained well equipped soldiers, or by targeting random untrained unaware people who feel completely safe?
Are you aware that terrorists, like anyone who is outmanned and out-equipped, typically resort to "asymetric warfare"?

I'd be a lot more worried about an organization that could successfully sabotage a military outpost than I would be about an organization that hijacked a few planes. Mainly because I'm not afraid of knives as much as I am random explosions.

(30-11-2016 12:28 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Easy isn't it? Seventy something virgins and a penthouse apartment in Allah's kingdom all expenses paid. This is why I find CWs responses so flawed as to be almost childish he seems to see patterns everywhere even where there are none.

If Muslims and Christians were so sure of their faith, they would not mourn the death of their loved ones.

(30-11-2016 12:55 PM)skyking Wrote:  <So Al-Qaeda wasn't expecting any reprisals for their actions?>
Al Queda is not a country or a target. They are dispersed small groups of terrorists and as such, have several advantages over conventional forces.
<But what is disputed is their dedication to the courses.>
Flying a plane that is already airborne is very easy. The hard work is done.

Try and get on a base. Let me know how that works out.
For a long time now they have employed passive sensors on the perimeter. They are not obvious, nor do they advertise them. The fence keeps the drunks from blundering in but the real security is electronic in nature.

Like back in 2001 long time? I figured they probably had some electronic sensor but didn't know to what extent. Certainly.

Tell me what do you think of the chances are of successfully infiltrating Area 51 with nothing but a camera attached to a camouflaged toy car made to look like a rock? I mean you could just set it into position during the night and wait for the day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 01:06 PM
RE: What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy theory?
farther back than that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 01:11 PM
RE: What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy theory?
<Terrorism is for attention sabotage is for results.>
I'm no longer able to participate in the face of this.
Stopping the entire country's and a large part of the world's air traffic transportation was the biggest result any one could achieve. It was the grand slam of results. It ushered in a year of recession. The cost was billions of dollars.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes skyking's post
30-11-2016, 01:19 PM
RE: What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy theory?
(30-11-2016 01:11 PM)skyking Wrote:  <Terrorism is for attention sabotage is for results.>
I'm no longer able to participate in the face of this.
Stopping the entire country's and a large part of the world's air traffic transportation was the biggest result any one could achieve. It was the grand slam of results. It ushered in a year of recession. The cost was billions of dollars.

It may have had a little impact on the economy, but they were not far as bad as what Bush's policies would lead to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 01:22 PM
RE: What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy theory?
(30-11-2016 01:02 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(30-11-2016 12:29 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Who said it had to be an attack directed at military installations? Is there a rule about this or so?
Wouldnt the collateral damage be even higher if not 3000 but all 50000 people in WTC had been killed? Or 40000? Or 30000? or 20000? Or 10000?

Terrorism is for attention sabotage is for results.
A terrified population is a result. Ask any terrorist, ask any terrified citizen.

(30-11-2016 01:02 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:Are you saying that an organisation like Al Quaeda wasnt able to orchestrate a conspiracy involving 20 men flying airliners into skyscrapers?
Have you ever heared about the events involving the kidnapping of B737 "Landshut", the RAF terrorists imprisoned in a high security prison facility in Stuttgart Stammheim and the abduction and killing of Hans Martin Schleyer?

Are you saying that an organisation like the CIA wouldn't be able to orchestrate a similar event? Which one is better equipped to do so?
I dont have to convince you of my version, you are here to convince us, right? Im not impressed. Its not about which organisation can do something, but which one actually did. Im my case it demonstrably was the RAF and its supporters (down to Lybia), which supports my point that well coordinated terrorist activities are possible, hereby countering your original claim.

(30-11-2016 01:02 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:Bin Laden, Al Quaeda in general and most of the radical muslim world seem to disagree with you. Are you aware that one of the "strategc" goals of a terrorist is......to create terror? Facepalm

That is also one of the tenets of the strategy of tension.
Oh, was that another one of your "evidence"? Im still not impressed/convinced. Your proposition needs to be a bit more than just be kind of plausible or possible. More like "most probable". Your reasoning is far from showing this (imho).

(30-11-2016 01:02 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
Quote:How do you generate terror? By attacking well trained well equipped soldiers, or by targeting random untrained unaware people who feel completely safe?
Are you aware that terrorists, like anyone who is outmanned and out-equipped, typically resort to "asymetric warfare"?

I'd be a lot more worried about an organization that could successfully sabotage a military outpost than I would be about an organization that hijacked a few planes. Mainly because I'm not afraid of knives as much as I am random explosions.
Again, nice that you believe in your own rationalisations, but why should everybody else do? My point is at least as valid as yours.

(30-11-2016 01:02 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(30-11-2016 12:28 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Easy isn't it? Seventy something virgins and a penthouse apartment in Allah's kingdom all expenses paid. This is why I find CWs responses so flawed as to be almost childish he seems to see patterns everywhere even where there are none.
If Muslims and Christians were so sure of their faith, they would not mourn the death of their loved ones.
And this is evidence for what exactly?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
30-11-2016, 01:26 PM
RE: What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy theory?
(30-11-2016 01:19 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(30-11-2016 01:11 PM)skyking Wrote:  <Terrorism is for attention sabotage is for results.>
I'm no longer able to participate in the face of this.
Stopping the entire country's and a large part of the world's air traffic transportation was the biggest result any one could achieve. It was the grand slam of results. It ushered in a year of recession. The cost was billions of dollars.

It may have had a little impact on the economy, but they were not far as bad as what Bush's policies would lead to.
You are backpedaling. First it was "attention and no result", now its "little impact on the economy" (the biggest fucking one on this planet by a large margin if i may add). Bush....is a red herring. If you werent such a nice guy id be thinking you are starting to becom disingenuous.
Not a good move to convince others of your version. You should starting to ask yourself if your version is actually true or even plausible.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 01:35 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2016 01:42 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy theory?
(30-11-2016 01:22 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  A terrified population is a result. Ask any terrorist, ask any terrified citizen.

I'm more terrified of the CIA than I am of ISIS.

Quote:I dont have to convince you of my version, you are here to convince us, right? Im not impressed. Its not about which organisation can do something, but which one actually did. Im my case it demonstrably was the RAF and its supporters (down to Lybia), which supports my point that well coordinated terrorist activities are possible, hereby countering your original claim.

The RAF had to have been back by the soviets, its in the name Red Army Faction.

Soviets and Terrorism

The CIA was the western equivalent of the KGB, and both have notorious reputations. To say that the KGB did something the CIA didn't or vice versa... that'd be a stretch.

Quote:Oh, was that another one of your "evidence"? Im still not impressed/convinced. Your proposition needs to be a bit more than just be kind of plausible or possible. More like "most probable". Your reasoning is far from showing this (imho).

At this point I'm only responding in turn.


Quote:Again, nice that you believe in your own rationalisations, but why should everybody else do? My point is at least as valid as yours.

Yep, and no one has to believe what I do, I'd like the to but it's not a necessity.

Quote:And this is evidence for what exactly?

That the 72 virgins is mostly just propaganda.

(30-11-2016 01:26 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(30-11-2016 01:19 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  It may have had a little impact on the economy, but they were not far as bad as what Bush's policies would lead to.
You are backpedaling. First it was "attention and no result", now its "little impact on the economy" (the biggest fucking one on this planet by a large margin if i may add). Bush....is a red herring. If you werent such a nice guy id be thinking you are starting to becom disingenuous.
Not a good move to convince others of your version. You should starting to ask yourself if your version is actually true or even plausible.

Are we talking about the 18 trillion dollars in debt? Because I don't think we can blame that one on the terrorists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: