What proof do you have that these Arabs did it? I can point to PNAC, you can point to Al Qaida.
I could point to the Salvation Army too, based on your standards. Al Qaeda, however, is the only group that claims responsibility. And it is the only group who those 19 hijackers were funded by. Regardless, you didn't answer my questions so I'll just assume you missed them. Here they are again:
Do you have evidence that suggests those plans were put together in the US? What US citizen put them together? In which state were they put together?
All of the evidence gathered so far in support of the 9-11 conspiracy theories fits this definition.
Actually, no. The conspiracy theory (at least most of them) still require the evidence that the buildings themselves collapsed. That isn't circumstantial.
Yet you only ask the "question" in one fashion. You ask "was Larry Silverstein's first statement proof of an inside job theory?" You never ask "was Larry Silverstein's second statement a negation of the inside job theory?" Why is that?
It would be one thing if I didn't think he may have slipped up in saying the first statement. He was obviously not slipping up when he made the second and i have no reason to believe anything this man says.
"So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?"
WTC 7 is a relatively short structure in the context of an earthquake theory.
I believe the prevailing conspiracy theory is an implosion, not an explosion.
Actually in the case of WTC 7, it happens in reverse. The base of the building became unstable from fires and falling debris. And when you remove the base, the rest collapses.
1) a short building at the epicenter.
2) do you know what it takes to implode a structure?
3) why wouldn't the shock wave weaken the base and the fire compound the situation?
I could point to the Salvation Army too, based on your standards. Al Qaeda, however, is the only group that claims responsibility. And it is the only group who those 19 hijackers were funded by. Regardless, you didn't answer my questions so I'll just assume you missed them. Here they are again:
Do you have evidence that suggests those plans were put together in the US? What US citizen put them together? In which state were they put together?
There are questions surrounding the validity of the 'confession' tape. Do you have proof that the tape is the real deal? Nope. You have decided to believe what they have presented you with is enough for you to have faith in it but I haven't. I don't have all the answers but I do have many questions that are not answered.
I guess you, like I am saying you have solid proof either...just a theory.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
none of this is anymore solid proof than the stuff posted about the other theory.
i can provide URLs that show good evidence that oswald killed jfk; the mafia killed him; and also that castro killed him. links are only as reliable as the author and his opinions on the subject matter.
Actually, no. The conspiracy theory (at least most of them) still require the evidence that the buildings themselves collapsed. That isn't circumstantial.
they collapsed, didn't they? you have no proof how they actually collapsed or any proof that cancels out the other theory.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes. But you also had tall buildings at the epicenter that did not collapse.
2) do you know what it takes to implode a structure?
Skyscrapers are not technically imploded. Skyscrapers are collapsed using thermite burns. To take down WTC 7 would have required a hell of a lot of thermite (that would have been noticable to ears and eyes) but it's not impossible in the context of theory.
3) why wouldn't the shock wave weaken the base and the fire compound the situation?
Because WTC was built to stand in an earthquake. I'm yet to see any evidence that suggests the "earthquake" caused or contributed to WTC 7's fall. The fires and direct contact from the preceding collapses along with the burning of diesel fuel offers a low-probability explanation that I am most likely to believe. I'd like to see a high-probability theory offered, but there simply may not be one.
i can provide URLs that show good evidence that oswald killed jfk; the mafia killed him; and also that castro killed him. links are only as reliable as the author and his opinions on the subject matter.
very true. see how that works both ways?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Of course. I'm refuting the claim that the conspiracy theories are built upon 100% circumstantial evidence. They are not. They are build upon 95% circumstantial evidence.
you have no proof how they actually collapsed or any proof that cancels out the other theory.
What theory? Are you referring to your "questions" or are you actually offering up a theory?
Because that would indicate premeditation. It's called slipping and back peddling.
You obviously don't understand the question. The "pull it" statement requires a non-literal interpretation since no one knows whether Silverstein meant to "pull the people" or "destroy the building". Either is a possibility. Yet why do some many of you default to the latter instead of the former, without a single shred of evidence to back it up? Why are you more likely to ask the question sonicreducer posed "why didn't he say, we have to pull the firefighters out of there" instead of the alternate "why didn't he say, we have to destroy the building"?
You obviously don't understand the question. The "pull it" statement requires a non-literal interpretation since no one knows whether Silverstein meant to "pull the people" or "destroy the building". Either is a possibility. Yet why do some many of you default to the latter instead of the former, without a single shred of evidence to back it up? Why are you more likely to ask the question sonicreducer posed "why didn't he say, we have to pull the firefighters out of there" instead of the alternate "why didn't he say, we have to destroy the building"?
Listening to him saying it, to me it didn't seem that was the context he meant it in...to pull the rescue efforts. I, myself, have never heard it used that way. I'm basing my opinion on how I perceived the context of the sentence he used it in.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You obviously don't understand the question. The "pull it" statement requires a non-literal interpretation since no one knows whether Silverstein meant to "pull the people" or "destroy the building". Either is a possibility. Yet why do some many of you default to the latter instead of the former, without a single shred of evidence to back it up? Why are you more likely to ask the question sonicreducer posed "why didn't he say, we have to pull the firefighters out of there" instead of the alternate "why didn't he say, we have to destroy the building"?
government declares buildings unsafe and destroys them all the time. why is it so far fetched that someone would say that this hazard should be removed?
There are questions surrounding the validity of the 'confession' tape.
Not the tape I posted. You're referring to the original "fat bin laden tape".
Do you have proof that the tape is the real deal? Nope.
I'll accept this as an argument the minute you insert that as a caveat whenever you post a video from youtube.
You have decided to believe what they have presented you with is enough for you to have faith in it but I haven't.
One may believe that the man on that tape is Osama Bin Laden. One may also believe that the man on that tape is not Osama Bin Laden. Either belief would require factual evidence. That tape was vetted and validated by organizations throughout the world who independently determined that the tape was in fact valid.
I don't have all the answers but I do have many questions that are not answered.
The questions you ask are refutations in the form of a question that you never apply to your own statements and thereby demonstrate their actual value to you.
I guess you, like I am saying you have solid proof either...just a theory.
Every interpretation of an event is a theory. The validity of a theory is the measure of causal evidence supporting such a theory combined with the measure of causal evidence negating such a theory.
Here are two theories:
"The world is flat"
"The world is round"
Both are theories. But they are not equal just because they are both theories. One has much more evidence supporting it and much less evidence negating it. See how that works?
Of course. I'm refuting the claim that the conspiracy theories are built upon 100% circumstantial evidence. They are not. They are build upon 95% circumstantial evidence.
What theory? Are you referring to your "questions" or are you actually offering up a theory?
I'm still reading and deciding what I will choose to believe. I don't have a theory put together yet but I'm not simply accepting the provided to me by either side. I'm not going to pretend that I know everything that went down that day, I'm not comfortable with saying that yet.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
government declares buildings unsafe and destroys them all the time. why is it so far fetched that someone would say that this hazard should be removed?
Because they don't do it in secret nor would they have a reason to if that was the case on WTC 7.
I'm still reading and deciding what I will choose to believe. I don't have a theory put together yet but I'm not simply accepting the provided to me by either side. I'm not going to pretend that I know everything that went down that day, I'm not comfortable with saying that yet.
don't read opinions. study the footage and listen to the forensic explaination of what you're seeing. also check the feasability of the other theories. the knowledge and amount of explosives needed rules out explosives when compared to the footage.
Are you seriously asking me why Donald Rumsfeld would say something if it wasn't true???? When Donald Rumsfeld told you that Iraq was a great threat to America, did you ask "why would he say something like that if it wasn't true"?????????
If you're going to take Donald Rumsfeld's statement as a literal "slip-up", it then negates the "inside job" theory. It would then require Al Qaeda's shooting down the plane with a missle. Do you believe Al Qaeda shot that plane down with a missle?
i don't fucking know who shot it down or what really happened. neither do you in a sense. the official explanation is that the plane was taken down by passengers. there is no proof of that. Let's roll!
there is a lot of evidence pointing to a cover up. a conspiracy. the official explanation doesn't fit! rumsfuck is a big liar. he is one of the people supporting the official explanation and if he says something like that when im under the assumption he might be hiding information, of course im going to think he might have literally slipped up. what else caused the plane to spread wreckage over how many miles?
it doesn't matter what either of us think happened. the official story is bullshit. they need to tell the truth. until they do people will continue to have their own belief based on evidence and whatever else they base it on.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
I'll accept this as an argument the minute you insert that as a caveat whenever you post a video from youtube.
You can accept whatever you want. People can view whatever they wish and perceive it how they wish without the need of a disclaimer with every post. A person who believes in things without question is a fool.
One may believe that the man on that tape is Osama Bin Laden. One may also believe that the man on that tape is not Osama Bin Laden. Either belief would require factual evidence. That tape was vetted and validated by organizations throughout the world who independently determined that the tape was in fact valid.
And people all over the world question Al Qaida's involvement. These people have also did plenty of research regarding the events surrounding 9/11. You can choose to write them off or you can view what they have to say with an open, unmade up mind.
The questions you ask are refutations in the form of a question that you never apply to your own statements and thereby demonstrate their actual value to you.
There's nothing wrong with me not making up my mind yet. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I'm being honest.
Every interpretation of an event is a theory. The validity of a theory is the measure of causal evidence supporting such a theory combined with the measure of causal evidence negating such a theory.
Here are two theories:
"The world is flat"
"The world is round"
Both are theories. But they are not equal just because they are both theories. One has much more evidence supporting it and much less evidence negating it. See how that works?
Yes. It depends on how you choose to view the evidence.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The latter tape, certainly. Along with the other vetted tapes of Bin Laden, Zawahiri and others.
You give too much credibilty to a man who used to be on US payroll.
Umm...people who "used to be on US payroll" sent a man to the moon, built the nuclear bomb and constructed the Hoover Dam. Are you suggesting that no one on a "US payroll" could accomplish such a feat? What would that say about an "inside job" theory?
You can accept whatever you want. People can view whatever they wish and perceive it how they wish without the need of a disclaimer with every post.
Ok. But if a video, by definition, cannot be factual evidence why would you ever post a video as factual support of one of your arguments?
A person who believes in things without question is a fool.
Certainly! As is a person who asks questions after believing a conclusion.
And people all over the world question Al Qaida's involvement. These people have also did plenty of research regarding the events surrounding 9/11. You can choose to write them off or you can view what they have to say with an open, unmade up mind.
I only write them off when they're offering up conclusions that don't fit the evidence.
There's nothing wrong with me not making up my mind yet.
Definitely! I've never suggested that there's anything wrong with not making up your mind. I've only suggested that there's something wrong with making up your mind and then hiding your conclusions behind "questions".
So you are basing your belief on this tape? You give too much credibilty to a man who used to be on US payroll.
You can accept whatever you want. People can view whatever they wish and perceive it how they wish without the need of a disclaimer with every post. A person who believes in things without question is a fool.
And people all over the world question Al Qaida's involvement. These people have also did plenty of research regarding the events surrounding 9/11. You can choose to write them off or you can view what they have to say with an open, unmade up mind.
There's nothing wrong with me not making up my mind yet. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I'm being honest.
Yes. It depends on how you choose to view the evidence.
with great respect for you; you will never know all the facts that would make a deffinate decision. 40 years ago we thought that the jfk assassination would be solved in time when all the facts were discovered.
The latter tape, certainly. Along with the other vetted tapes of Bin Laden, Zawahiri and others.
Umm...people who "used to be on US payroll" sent a man to the moon, built the nuclear bomb and constructed the Hoover Dam. Are you suggesting that no one on a "US payroll" could accomplish such a feat? What would that say about an "inside job" theory?
Ok. But if a video, by definition, cannot be factual evidence why would you ever post a video as factual support of one of your arguments?
the tape doesn't show Bin Laden hiring these 19 hijackers. It doesn't show anything in it that shows exactly how the towers came down. it requires faith.
Certainly! As is a person who asks questions after believing a conclusion.
I only write them off when they're offering up conclusions that don't fit the evidence.
Definitely! I've never suggested that there's anything wrong with not making up your mind. I've only suggested that there's something wrong with making up your mind and then hiding your conclusions behind "questions".
So I can't ask questions about the things that don't add up to me about the official theory without having already made up my mind. I don't claim to have enough answers to base a decision on like you seem to have. I've already said I do lean towards an inside job but I'm not positive. I'm still viewing the evidence objectively. You can call me a fool all day if ya want, I really could care less. If I thoroughly believed it then I would completely stand behind it like I do with many other controversial issues. As if me saying I'm not sure yet isn't indication enough of it not having my full support. Why would I support it if I was afraid to say I did? It wouldn't seem worth it to me, just doesn't make sense. I'm saying there are a lot of strange things that have gone unanswered and the more I read about it the more it seems like things just don't fit together as neatly as they should. There could be reasons for this but there could also be a lot of lies involved. I don't have direct proof of either that I deem as good enough to make up my mind.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
with great respect for you; you will never know all the facts that would make a deffinate decision. 40 years ago we thought that the jfk assassination would be solved in time when all the facts were discovered.
Perhaps not, but I won't pretend I know for sure what happened. The JFK thing still puzzles me, as well. I've read so much on both sides and they both make their version seem possible. Mysteries will sometimes have to remain mysteries.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
the tape doesn't show Bin Laden hiring these 19 hijackers. It doesn't show anything in it that shows exactly how the towers came down. it requires faith.
It would require "faith" if I thought that Osama Bin Laden personally hired those hijackers. In all likelihood he did not.
So I can't ask questions about the things that don't add up to me about the official theory without having already made up my mind.
The unmade-up mind is a requirement of a question. Otherwise the question is superfluous or dishonest.
Yeah, I'm asking these questions because I haven't made up my mind.
Are you sure? You seem to have concluded that the official explanation "doesn't add up". Yet it's the only the official explanation that you seem to question.
Comments
That's an excellent illustration.
I could point to the Salvation Army too, based on your standards. Al Qaeda, however, is the only group that claims responsibility. And it is the only group who those 19 hijackers were funded by. Regardless, you didn't answer my questions so I'll just assume you missed them. Here they are again:
Do you have evidence that suggests those plans were put together in the US? What US citizen put them together? In which state were they put together?
Actually, no. The conspiracy theory (at least most of them) still require the evidence that the buildings themselves collapsed. That isn't circumstantial.
It would be one thing if I didn't think he may have slipped up in saying the first statement. He was obviously not slipping up when he made the second and i have no reason to believe anything this man says.
never claimed otherwise.
none of this is anymore solid proof than the stuff posted about the other theory.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
1) a short building at the epicenter.
2) do you know what it takes to implode a structure?
3) why wouldn't the shock wave weaken the base and the fire compound the situation?
Tell me, why aren't you asking this question:
"why didn't he say, we have to blow that building up"?
There are questions surrounding the validity of the 'confession' tape. Do you have proof that the tape is the real deal? Nope. You have decided to believe what they have presented you with is enough for you to have faith in it but I haven't. I don't have all the answers but I do have many questions that are not answered.
I guess you, like I am saying you have solid proof either...just a theory.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Because that would indicate premeditation. It's called slipping and back peddling.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
911 In Plane Site Director's Cut
i can provide URLs that show good evidence that oswald killed jfk; the mafia killed him; and also that castro killed him. links are only as reliable as the author and his opinions on the subject matter.
they collapsed, didn't they? you have no proof how they actually collapsed or any proof that cancels out the other theory.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes. But you also had tall buildings at the epicenter that did not collapse.
Skyscrapers are not technically imploded. Skyscrapers are collapsed using thermite burns. To take down WTC 7 would have required a hell of a lot of thermite (that would have been noticable to ears and eyes) but it's not impossible in the context of theory.
Because WTC was built to stand in an earthquake. I'm yet to see any evidence that suggests the "earthquake" caused or contributed to WTC 7's fall. The fires and direct contact from the preceding collapses along with the burning of diesel fuel offers a low-probability explanation that I am most likely to believe. I'd like to see a high-probability theory offered, but there simply may not be one.
very true. see how that works both ways?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Of course. I'm refuting the claim that the conspiracy theories are built upon 100% circumstantial evidence. They are not. They are build upon 95% circumstantial evidence.
What theory? Are you referring to your "questions" or are you actually offering up a theory?
You obviously don't understand the question. The "pull it" statement requires a non-literal interpretation since no one knows whether Silverstein meant to "pull the people" or "destroy the building". Either is a possibility. Yet why do some many of you default to the latter instead of the former, without a single shred of evidence to back it up? Why are you more likely to ask the question sonicreducer posed "why didn't he say, we have to pull the firefighters out of there" instead of the alternate "why didn't he say, we have to destroy the building"?
Listening to him saying it, to me it didn't seem that was the context he meant it in...to pull the rescue efforts. I, myself, have never heard it used that way. I'm basing my opinion on how I perceived the context of the sentence he used it in.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
government declares buildings unsafe and destroys them all the time. why is it so far fetched that someone would say that this hazard should be removed?
Not the tape I posted. You're referring to the original "fat bin laden tape".
I'll accept this as an argument the minute you insert that as a caveat whenever you post a video from youtube.
One may believe that the man on that tape is Osama Bin Laden. One may also believe that the man on that tape is not Osama Bin Laden. Either belief would require factual evidence. That tape was vetted and validated by organizations throughout the world who independently determined that the tape was in fact valid.
The questions you ask are refutations in the form of a question that you never apply to your own statements and thereby demonstrate their actual value to you.
Every interpretation of an event is a theory. The validity of a theory is the measure of causal evidence supporting such a theory combined with the measure of causal evidence negating such a theory.
Here are two theories:
"The world is flat"
"The world is round"
Both are theories. But they are not equal just because they are both theories. One has much more evidence supporting it and much less evidence negating it. See how that works?
I'm still reading and deciding what I will choose to believe. I don't have a theory put together yet but I'm not simply accepting the provided to me by either side. I'm not going to pretend that I know everything that went down that day, I'm not comfortable with saying that yet.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Because they don't do it in secret nor would they have a reason to if that was the case on WTC 7.
don't read opinions. study the footage and listen to the forensic explaination of what you're seeing. also check the feasability of the other theories. the knowledge and amount of explosives needed rules out explosives when compared to the footage.
i don't fucking know who shot it down or what really happened. neither do you in a sense. the official explanation is that the plane was taken down by passengers. there is no proof of that. Let's roll!
there is a lot of evidence pointing to a cover up. a conspiracy. the official explanation doesn't fit! rumsfuck is a big liar. he is one of the people supporting the official explanation and if he says something like that when im under the assumption he might be hiding information, of course im going to think he might have literally slipped up. what else caused the plane to spread wreckage over how many miles?
it doesn't matter what either of us think happened. the official story is bullshit. they need to tell the truth. until they do people will continue to have their own belief based on evidence and whatever else they base it on.
~Ron Burgundy
So you are basing your belief on this tape? You give too much credibilty to a man who used to be on US payroll.
You can accept whatever you want. People can view whatever they wish and perceive it how they wish without the need of a disclaimer with every post. A person who believes in things without question is a fool.
And people all over the world question Al Qaida's involvement. These people have also did plenty of research regarding the events surrounding 9/11. You can choose to write them off or you can view what they have to say with an open, unmade up mind.
There's nothing wrong with me not making up my mind yet. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I'm being honest.
Yes. It depends on how you choose to view the evidence.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The latter tape, certainly. Along with the other vetted tapes of Bin Laden, Zawahiri and others.
Umm...people who "used to be on US payroll" sent a man to the moon, built the nuclear bomb and constructed the Hoover Dam. Are you suggesting that no one on a "US payroll" could accomplish such a feat? What would that say about an "inside job" theory?
Ok. But if a video, by definition, cannot be factual evidence why would you ever post a video as factual support of one of your arguments?
Certainly! As is a person who asks questions after believing a conclusion.
I only write them off when they're offering up conclusions that don't fit the evidence.
Definitely! I've never suggested that there's anything wrong with not making up your mind. I've only suggested that there's something wrong with making up your mind and then hiding your conclusions behind "questions".
with great respect for you; you will never know all the facts that would make a deffinate decision. 40 years ago we thought that the jfk assassination would be solved in time when all the facts were discovered.
the tape doesn't show Bin Laden hiring these 19 hijackers. It doesn't show anything in it that shows exactly how the towers came down. it requires faith.
So I can't ask questions about the things that don't add up to me about the official theory without having already made up my mind. I don't claim to have enough answers to base a decision on like you seem to have. I've already said I do lean towards an inside job but I'm not positive. I'm still viewing the evidence objectively. You can call me a fool all day if ya want, I really could care less. If I thoroughly believed it then I would completely stand behind it like I do with many other controversial issues. As if me saying I'm not sure yet isn't indication enough of it not having my full support. Why would I support it if I was afraid to say I did? It wouldn't seem worth it to me, just doesn't make sense. I'm saying there are a lot of strange things that have gone unanswered and the more I read about it the more it seems like things just don't fit together as neatly as they should. There could be reasons for this but there could also be a lot of lies involved. I don't have direct proof of either that I deem as good enough to make up my mind.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Perhaps not, but I won't pretend I know for sure what happened. The JFK thing still puzzles me, as well. I've read so much on both sides and they both make their version seem possible. Mysteries will sometimes have to remain mysteries.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It would require "faith" if I thought that Osama Bin Laden personally hired those hijackers. In all likelihood he did not.
The unmade-up mind is a requirement of a question. Otherwise the question is superfluous or dishonest.
Yeah, I'm asking these questions because I haven't made up my mind.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Are you sure? You seem to have concluded that the official explanation "doesn't add up". Yet it's the only the official explanation that you seem to question.