9/11 conspiracy debate

[Maki]

Whats even stranger is that someone would spend so much time researching alternative theories about 9/11 without researching Al Qaeda history. Up until a few posts ago you thought he was pissed at America because of their "freedom".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Un...bassy_bombings

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qloshSGAJ1s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiKyW...eature=related

Of course you wont believe it. If not US government, Al Qaeda then who do think did it?

"Up until a few posts ago you thought he was pissed at America because of their "freedom"."

Where did I say that I thought that? All I said is; that line of thinking is quite commonly presented in this context.

"Of course you wont believe it. If not US government, Al Qaeda then who do think did it?"

This is a long thread and I can understand why you would not bother reading it so I will indulge you by repeating myself. I don't know who did it and posting theories that I have no backing for would be foolish since I have no such theory. I don't know about Al Qaeda but as mentioned above the idea that Bin Laden did it seems absurd, particularly if you consider the comments of Dick Chaney and Rex Tomb above.

Al Qaeda has an evil history, no doubt about it but so do many others. The notion seems to be that they are bad so they must have done it. Don't you find that a tad infantile?

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Can't be arsed reading this whole thread so I'll just say it was:

The Jews
Blacks
US Govenment
Queers
Katman

....who blew those buildings up.

Unless them be aliems... ???

[The Stranger:Me]

This is a long thread and I can understand why you would not bother reading it...

Al Qaeda has an evil history, no doubt about it but so do many others. The notion seems to be that they are bad so they must have done it. Don't you find that a tad infantile?

It's a long thread, so indulge me please if you will.

What's Al Qaeda's position on this? Have Al Qaeda either claimed responsibility or denied responsibility for the deed?

Ok scratch that - I see from Wikipedia that it would appear that Al Qaeda did in fact accepted responsibility for the attacks of 911.
The yanks are satisfied that it was Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda seem satisfied that it was them. Just remind me what are we arguing over here again?

[Maki]

It's a long thread, so indulge me please if you will.

What's Al Qaeda's position on this? Have Al Qaeda either claimed responsibility or denied responsibility for the deed?

Ok scratch that - I see from Wikipedia that it would appear that Al Qaeda did in fact accepted responsibility for the attacks of 911.
The yanks are satisfied that it was Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda seem satisfied that it was them. Just remind me what are we arguing over here again?

That's very convenient. What you believe is up to you. I don't have a problem with people who believe things that seem implausible to me. If a kid believes in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy I am the last person to get into an argument about it.

[Laava]

If a kid believes in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy I am the last person to get into an argument about it.

What are you trying to say?

[marty]

Isn't it strange how many people still believe the Osama Bin Laden conspiracy theory when:

"The 'FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'. Vice President Cheney says, 'We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11'"

and

"When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.""

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html



Makes you wonder why so many people still believe that story...

I've just watched the video of OBL in which he himself admits that 'we calculated in advance the number of casualties' in relation to 9/11. He's either taking credit for something he wasn't involved in, or he planted the seed in his operatives. Apart from the US govt there are no other suspects.

Have a search for the interview of OBL by Peter Bergen in 1997, when the plans of AQ to attack the USA were laid out.

Have you ever thought about the logistics for the US Govt to organise something like this? Bush had only been in power since January 2001, and you really think Clinton would have started it?

And 2 years before 9/11, OBL was already on the FBI's 10 most wanted list.

[Maki]

"I've just watched the video of OBL in which he himself admits that 'we calculated in advance the number of casualties' in relation to 9/11. He's either taking credit for something he wasn't involved in, or he planted the seed in his operatives. Apart from the US govt there are no other suspects."

That video has been shown to be a fraud, more information farther back in this thread.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________

Have a search for the interview of OBL by Peter Bergen in 1997, when the plans of AQ to attack the USA were laid out.

AQ planned to attack the USA. Well, I don't think that is news to anyone...

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________

"Have you ever thought about the logistics for the US Govt to organise something like this? Bush had only been in power since January 2001, and you really think Clinton would have started it?"

I already said I don't think the US Govt organized this.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________


"And 2 years before 9/11, OBL was already on the FBI's 10 most wanted list."

That was not for 911, obviously, since it was 2 years before 911 even happened... He never was wanted by the FBI for 911 since they did not see any reason to believe he was responsible, unlike some others...

[The Stranger:Me]

That's very convenient. What you believe is up to you. I don't have a problem with people who believe things that seem implausible to me. If a kid believes in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy I am the last person to get into an argument about it.

The difference in this case is that the kid, santa and the tooth fairy are all in agreement. Only some clown in never never (believe) land is having trouble grasping reality.

You are quite right, you are the last person to get into an argument about it.
You simply take the winston peters approach - knock everything from the outside yet offer nothing concrete at all. I would suggest you stand up for your conviction and posit a viable alternative.

But then I already know you can't.

[The Stranger:Me]

"I've just watched the video of OBL in which he himself admits that 'we calculated in advance the number of casualties' in relation to 9/11. He's either taking credit for something he wasn't involved in, or he planted the seed in his operatives. Apart from the US govt there are no other suspects."

That video has been shown to be a fraud, more information farther back in this thread.

So has Osama denied it anywhere?

[onearmedbandit]

Maki - Don't click on this link. Your head will explode.

[Maki]

The difference in this case is that the kid, santa and the tooth fairy are all in agreement. Only some clown in never never (believe) land is having trouble grasping reality.

You are quite right, you are the last person to get into an argument about it.
You simply take the winston peters approach - knock everything from the outside yet offer nothing concrete at all. I would suggest you stand up for your conviction and posit a viable alternative.

But then I already know you can't.

You are the one with convictions. How can I stand up for convictions I do not have? You asked for a viable alternative. I might be able to provide one if there had in fact been a proper investigation of what really happened on 911. There has not been one, so where to you want this alternative from? Thin air? The north pole? Your imagination?

[The Stranger:Me]

You are the one with convictions. How can I stand up for convictions I do not have? You asked for a viable alternative. I might be able to provide one if there had in fact been a proper investigation of what really happened on 911. There has not been one, so where to you want this alternative from? Thin air? The north pole? Your imagination?

Whoa, didn't see that one coming, fancy you offering nothing at all - again. Who could have predicted that?


Oh that's right, me in the post you quoted.

[Maki]

It's a long thread, so indulge me please if you will.

What's Al Qaeda's position on this? Have Al Qaeda either claimed responsibility or denied responsibility for the deed?

Ok scratch that - I see from Wikipedia that it would appear that Al Qaeda did in fact accepted responsibility for the attacks of 911.
The yanks are satisfied that it was Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda seem satisfied that it was them. Just remind me what are we arguing over here again?

You might enjoy the following article since it nicely explains why you think the way you do.

http://www.naturalnews.com/032293_gullible_minds.html

"(NaturalNews) In light of the string of the blatant falsehoods being announced by the U.S. government these days (FDA, DHS, White House, etc.) it's interesting that so many people still believe whatever they are told by "official" sources. It brings up the question of the functioning of their brains: How could a person swallow official information so gullibly and so completely without even asking commonsense questions about the reliability or factual basis of that information?"

"Interestingly, the Gullible Mind is also inwardly gullible because it does not recognize its own gullibility. Instead, it believes it is operating as a Rational Mind. This false Rational Mind believes it functions as a critical filter of incoming information, but even this is self deception. In truth, this false Rational Mind is on "auto filter" so that it filters out any information that conflicts with the information it is receiving from official sources."

"At this point, their rational mind is completely shut off on the topic. No accumulation of facts can, at that point, rattle their "reality." For example, a person who believes the government's story of 9/11 has already embraced the Easter Bunny version of terrorists flying airplanes into the World Trade Center towers. So how did this act cause the WTC 7 building to collapse in a demolition-style free-fall a few hours later, when WTC 7 was never struck by airplanes? How can a steel and concrete building suddenly and magically collapse in perfect structural synchronicity merely from being on fire?

The answers don't matter to The Gullible Mind, you see. There is no room for facts inside their heads, because all the space has been taken up with what is essentially a cult-like belief in institutions of authority."

"That's why the Gullible Mind is more than merely gullible: It is a cowardly mind. It is afraid to ask questions on its own, and it simultaneously attacks those who have the courage to stand up and actually ask those questions (like Jesse Ventura)."



I am not telling you who did it because I don't know. All I am really trying to get you to do is open up your own mind and stop believing everything you hear that comes from what you think is an "official source". And does the fact that I posted an article that mentions falsehoods announced by the US government mean that I think the US government is responsible for 911? NO.

[scumdog]

You might enjoy the following article since it nicely explains why you think the way you do.

http://www.naturalnews.com/032293_gullible_minds.html

"(NaturalNews) In light of the string of the blatant falsehoods being announced by the U.S. government these days (FDA, DHS, White House, etc.) it's interesting that so many people still believe whatever they are told by "official" sources. It brings up the question of the functioning of their brains: How could a person swallow official information so gullibly and so completely without even asking commonsense questions about the reliability or factual basis of that information?"

.

So where does one go to get the real 'facts' - you know, the ones sourced from organisations with NO axe to grind and can provide information devoid of expressions like "it is believed" "sources say" "it is not possible" and "common sense tells you"???

[Maki]

So where does one go to get the real 'facts' - you know, the ones sourced from organisations with NO axe to grind and can provide information devoid of expressions like "it is believed" "sources say" "it is not possible" and "common sense tells you"???

I wish I knew... Knowing the real facts might make things like the deaths of NZ soldiers in Afghanistan a lot easier to swallow, or ideally entirely avoidable.