9/11 info and sources

69charger

Nevermind wrote:

No, he did debate.

Were you reading the same thread I was? He refused to debate in here. He wanted me to go on his Art Bell/Alex Jones wannabe show.

But you were too much of a pussy to debate with many people listening to you.

Nice. Show me one person I didn't debate in that thread.

kenny olav

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

How do you know that someone just decided 9/11 was an inside job and then just went digging for info to make it true? Just because it's something you may not choose to believe doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened or that people who do believe just want to make it true somehow. I know that I personally didn't want to believe it at first myself...it was just too scary of a thought for me to deal with. I took the stance that although some of the stuff didn't add up, it was all proabably explainable. Then I started to read more and more and couldn't ignore it, I had too many questions, there were obvious lies and when there are lies I can no longer give benefit of the doubt as I had before. Even at this point I was still to weary of posting info here because of all the bashing that goes on, the looney comments, and refusal of people to look into it and take it seriously. So I would just allow others for the most part to post and try to discuss these things because of my thin skin and worry of what others here may think of me (I don't want to be called crazy or ridiculous, just as no one else does). Now I 'm just seeing too much info and well thought out work and studies coming out...the evidence it getting way too overwhelming for me to not put my neck on the line and stand behind what I believe. I don't want to think I'm crazy or easily led...I know that I'm not, so when I decide to believe something even if it's only a small group who are behind it...I'm gonna support it and trust in myself that I am standing up for what I believe to be true no matter what treatment i may recieve because of it...it's important and deserves attention. You can think what you will but I also think it says a lot when someone completely dismisses all facts in order to keep their current view of the world intact. What is it really saying when no matter how much evidence is presented, one still just looks over it and goes for the easy insult of another's intellegence or sanity?

Yes!!!! Longwinded, but YES!!! It's not an easy position to take, and although I was recently surprised when I overheard 3 of my co-workers express their support for what we call '9/11 Truth', its generally not you bring up voluntarily in public. Even from the safety of an internet message board, its not fun being attacked verbally. Its really really not fun living with the idea that your government doesn't give a shit if you live or die, and will do anything to stay in power. So I very much understand why people don't want to accept it.

Of course you and I found many reasons to be against Bush before this 9/11 theory came about. Honestly, the first time I heard the man speak one sentence, I could tell he was full of shit, just by his mannerisms and tone of voice. Later during his campaign for President, it was the argument put against him by Ralph Nader, not Al Gore, that highlighted just what a nasty son of a bitch he was... not to mention his murdering, theiving friends in corporate and government offices (which are basically one in the same). And thanks also to Ralph for showing how the Clintons and many other high-profile Democrats were no better, except I guess for being in favor of upping the minimum wage from shit... to shit with sprinkles on top.

So I admit, I thought the Bush administration was up to no good when they took office. Excuse me for paying attention. But when those towers came down, the thought never entered my head that the government might be involved in some way. Honestly. OK, yes I did think that they had helped fan the flames of Islamic-based terrorism, but that's it. And there's no doubt many radical Muslims are happy about 9/11. But I've seen too much to think that the story of 9/11 is as simple as a small group of fanatics thinking that blowing up some buildings will bring justice.

Here's one website a person could spend a whole day mulling over:

http://www.oilempire.us/state.html

It does make sense, and would be a brilliant move on the part of the conspirators, that they would propagate false theories regarding their own conspiracy, which they could then shoot down and make it appear that all of the theories about their conspiracy seem foolish.

Or to put it another way: "Lots of conspiracy theories are bogus, but rejecting them all just because of how they're framed is not wise. The way it is today, a gang of conspirators could get away with anything: they just need to start an Internet rumor of what they just did, framing it as a conspiracy theory, and anyone who tries to talk about it will be ignored." Source

Of all the theorists, I think Michael Ruppert and David Ray Griffin are the most sensible.

Alex Jones, however, is a nut. A raving Christian fundamentalist lunatic, a shameless self-promoter, with a hard-edged libertarian agenda. That said, some of what he says does make sense, but overall its hard to take what he says seriously. His site, infowars.com, was actually my first exposure to the 9/11 conspiracy theory, so I credit him with that, but the 9/11 truth movement is not going to gain much credit with leaders like him.

Nevermind

69charger wrote:

Were you reading the same thread I was? He refused to debate in here. He wanted me to go on his Art Bell/Alex Jones wannabe show.



Nice. Show me one person I didn't debate in that thread.

I was talking about his show. I was reading the 69charger thread. The one were you ignored all the questions you coulnt answer. Or insulted the people instead of answering

69charger

Nevermind wrote:

I was talking about his show. I was reading the 69charger thread. The one were you ignored all the questions you coulnt answer.

Where? I've answered pretty much every question thrown my way. There are other threads out there. Have you learned how to use the search function yet?

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Let's not forget the relevence of disproving any incorrect theory.

Ok. How is this comment any more applicable to my posts than another's? Or is there only "relevance of disproving any official theory"?

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

My issue is with the fact that scientists are just as susceptible to bias as others -- people believe what they want to believe. Scientists have been known to distort information due to inner filters in place that will cause them to not accept the obvious due to bias. With an issue that is this huge, most people have huge preconceptions going in. Scientists try to deny bias or emotional slant, so that concerns me a whole lot in any case, because denial is denial. I certainly don't know one way or the other. Obviously the truth is the truth, but again, because you side with the scientists who have the most support, or because you compare this scenario with intelligent design is quite irrelevent to the facts and the truth in the framing of said facts.

Ok. How is this any more relevant to my posts than another's? Or is that only some scientists are "susceptible to bias" while those who promote alternative theories are not???

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok. How is this comment any more applicable to my posts than another's?

You were the only person who said: "...I'm saying that disproving one theory cannot prove another."

And you were the only person who said: "Here's the problem....a lot of people seem to suffer from Intelligent Designism on this issue. They think that if they could just disprove one theory, somehow that will prove another. If, tomorrow, we find out that Darwin was wrong it doesn't make the ID people right. The same holds true on 9/11."

What it looks like to me is that you are trying to associate "conspiracy" theories on 911 with intelligent design so that the theory you oppose will have two negative connotations to it--one being the "conspiracy" part and the other being the "irrational" intelligent design slant. And really, what I hear with your argument, besides that it is still irrelevant to the facts, is that it doesn't hold up because there is relevence to proving an incorrect theory incorrect.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

You were the only person who said: "...I'm saying that disproving one theory cannot prove another."

Do you disagree with this? Do you think disproving one theory can prove another?

Certainly disproving a theory is relevant to that theory's merits. But it is irrelevant to the merits of another based on different premises.

And you were the only person who said: "Here's the problem....a lot of people seem to suffer from Intelligent Designism on this issue. They think that if they could just disprove one theory, somehow that will prove another. If, tomorrow, we find out that Darwin was wrong it doesn't make the ID people right. The same holds true on 9/11."

Do you disagree with this? If Darwin is proven wrong tomorrow, does ID suddenly become right?

What it looks like to me is that you are trying to associate "conspiracy" theories on 911 with intelligent design so that the theory you oppose will have two negative connotations to it--one being the "conspiracy" part and the other being the "irrational" intelligent design slant. And really, what I hear with your argument, besides that it is still irrelevant to the facts, is that it doesn't hold up because there is relevence to proving an incorrect theory incorrect.

Angelica, the official 9/11 story is a "conspiracy theory" in that the theory revolves around the conspiracy of 19 Arab hijackers and their associates. Just because something is a "conpiracy theory" doesn't make it wrong.

Intelligent design is not "irrational" in its core beliefs. It is irrational in its methods. Disproving Darwin cannot prove Intelligent Design. Disproving the "official" 9/11 story cannot prove an alternative case.

Regardless, little here disproves the official case. It is perfectly fine and valid to ask questions -- there are many unanswered questions from that day. But to frame a question in the form of a conclusion is completely backwards.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok. How is this any more relevant to my posts than another's? Or is that only some scientists are "susceptible to bias" while those who promote alternative theories are not???

This is relevent to your post because you are slipping in the "majority rules" framework on your argument. It looks like you are saying in effect that if you point to that Ahnimus' backing source is not accepted by colleagues that it makes his points (Ahnimus' and his source's points) less relevent. Technically, while a "majority rules" type of socially ostracising method works by undermining the validity of a particular views social acceptance, it has little to do with the facts or the "whodunnit" in the matter.

Considering the "majority rules" arguments are....well....the majority here and in life, I think its a good idea to recognise that social ostracisation associated with theories can actually prolongue real understanding (edit: I mean lack of understanding) of the truth. And I think it's a good idea for us to not get lost in the smokescreen effects.

Both sides have underlying premises which may or may not be true. If we are going by the logic built on top of our respective premises, how is it that we are going to come to see the truth? Isn't it rather that either side is going to come to see their own perception of what they believe is the truth? And if that's the case, more power to everyone.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

This is relevent to your post because you are slipping in the "majority rules" framework on your argument. It looks like you are saying in effect that if you point to that Ahnimus' backing source is not accepted by colleagues that it makes his points (Ahnimus' and his source's points) less relevent. Technically, while a "majority rules" type of socially ostracising method works by undermining the validity of a particular views social acceptance, it has little to do with the facts or the "whodunnit" in the matter.

I don't care about the opinion of some vague "majority". I care about the opinions of those who are knowledgeable of the science involved in the case. Steven Jones is not a structural engineer. That doesn't make him wrong, but it does mean much in the face of Ahnimus's "apparently proven" language when his colleagues knowledgeable in the applicable sciences have reviewed the work and unanimously rejected it.

Considering the "majority rules" arguments are....well....the majority here and in life, I think its a good idea to recognise that social ostracisation associated with theories can actually prolongue real understanding of the truth. And I think it's a good idea for us to not get lost in the smokescreen effects.

Honestly I don't care about "social ostracisation". People are free to offer theories and others are free to reject them based on the merits of those theories. I have no inherent obligation to embrace poor theory just because the man who posits it wishes to be "accepted".

Both sides have underlying premises which may or may not be true. If we are going by the logic built on top of our respective premises, how is it that we are going to come to see the truth? Isn't it rather that either side is going to come to see their own perception of what they believe is the truth? And if that's the case, more power to everyone.

More power to everyone??? Agreed! I respect anyone's right here to offer theories. And I'll hold those theories to the same standards. That's equal power to everyone.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Do you disagree with this? Do you think disproving one theory can prove another?

Certainly disproving a theory is relevant to that theory's merits. But it is irrelevant to the merits of another based on different premises.

Do you disagree with this? If Darwin is proven wrong tomorrow, does ID suddenly become right?

Angelica, the official 9/11 story is a "conspiracy theory" in that the theory revolves around the conspiracy of 19 Arab hijackers and their associates. Just because something is a "conpiracy theory" doesn't make it wrong.

Intelligent design is not "irrational" in its core beliefs. It is irrational in its methods. Disproving Darwin cannot prove Intelligent Design. Disproving the "official" 9/11 story cannot prove an alternative case.

Regardless, little here disproves the official case. It is perfectly fine and valid to ask questions -- there are many unanswered questions from that day. But to frame a question in the form of a conclusion is completely backwards.

We cannot ever prove anything with certainty. Therefore disproving any aspect of a theory is not only highly appropriate, it's necessary for truth.

If you choose to judge it as irrational, you do not show it as irrational. What you show me is that you do not comprehend the purposes of the other person you call irrational, or that you do not understand why such processes are perfectly rational to another person.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

I don't care about the opinion of some vague "majority". I care about the opinions of those who are knowledgeable of the science involved in the case. Steven Jones is not a structural engineer. That doesn't make him wrong, but it does mean much in the face of Ahnimus's "apparently proven" language when his colleagues knowledgeable in the applicable sciences have reviewed the work and unanimously rejected it.

Honestly I don't care about "social ostracisation". People are free to offer theories and others are free to reject them based on the merits of those theories. I have no inherent obligation to embrace poor theory just because the man who posits it wishes to be "accepted".

More power to everyone??? Agreed! I respect anyone's right here to offer theories. And I'll hold those theories to the same standards. That's equal power to everyone.

You asked why I called you out over anyone else. You implied I was acting on personal bias. I am acting on personal bias against socially ostracising methods of debate. I felt you were using smokescreen social methods that were irrelevant to the facts. I let your numerous facts and valid debatable points stand.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

We cannot ever prove anything with certainty. Therefore disproving any aspect of a theory is not only highly appropriate, it's necessary for truth.

Unless the disproof is incorrect.

If you choose to judge it as irrational, you do not show it as irrational.

It is irrational to suggest that God is the force behind Intelligent Design while being unable to prove the existence of God while at the same time saying your theory is "fact-based science". Intelligent Design is not fact-based, it is faith-based. That doesn't make it wrong, it just demonstrates their standards of science. Therefore, if they believe that Darwin can be disproved with a fact while at the same time believing that their theories cannot, it makes them irrational in that they will not hold two theories to the same standards of judgment. You know all that "bias" talk? That is what bias is: the different set of standards applied to equal situations.

What you show me is that you do not comprehend the purposes of the other person you call irrational, or that you do not understand why such processes are perfectly rational to another person.

I do understand their purposes. They wish to fit fact to their pre-existing religious conclusion. The share those purposes with some here, albeit on a different topic.

Such purposes are fine. People may believe whatever they want to believe. But such purposes are irrelevant to truth. Truth does not matter to the man whose mindet requires him to ignore it. Truth does not matter to the man who wishes a conclusion to be free of causal evidence. Truth does not matter to the man who believes rather than thinks. It's time for me to get back to my moon men.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

You asked why I called you out over anyone else. You implied I was acting on personal bias. I am acting on personal bias against socially ostracising methods of debate. I felt you were using smokescreen social methods that were irrelevant to the facts. I let your numerous facts and valid debatable points stand.

Yes you did. You also let language like "apparently proven" stand without any justification. You let "debunks" stand in the absence of the theories actually being "debunked". You let similar statements to mine about the "Bush administration" stand.

When the Professor Emeritus of the structural engineering school at BYU tells Steven Jones that his theories are faulty, you accuse him (or me by quoting such language) of "ostracising". Tell me, why don't you also accuse Steven Jones of doing the same when he tells everyone else that their theories are wrong?

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Unless the disproof is incorrect.

It is irrational to suggest that God is the force behind Intelligent Design while being unable to prove the existence of God while at the same time saying your theory is "fact-based science". Intelligent Design is not fact-based, it is faith-based. That doesn't make it wrong, it just demonstrates their standards of science. Therefore, if they believe that Darwin can be disproved with a fact while at the same time believing that their theories cannot, it makes them irrational in that they will not hold two theories to the same standards of judgment. You know all that "bias" talk? That is what bias is: the different set of standards applied to equal situations.

I do understand their purposes. They wish to fit fact to their pre-existing religious conclusion. The share those purposes with some here, albeit on a different topic.

Such purposes are fine. People may believe whatever they want to believe. But such purposes are irrelevant to truth. Truth does not matter to the man whose mindet requires him to ignore it. Truth does not matter to the man who wishes a conclusion to be free of causal evidence. Truth does not matter to the man who believes rather than thinks. It's time for me to get back to my moon men.

Well, thanks for your opinion/point of view.

Re: intelligent design, I can tell you right now that I've had spiritual, experiential personal experiences, pertaining to evolutionary forces pulling me towards a destiny. You may be able to "rationally" dispute my assertion. You cannot disprove what I know and what I've experienced, however. My experiences are not based on religious faith, they are based on personal experience, which is entirely relevent in science. Intelligent life design directed me directly to the healing of numerous disorders. With this underlying premise that I hold, based on what is self-evident to me, I could care less how you choose to look at it. What I care about is what I KNOW. I may not be able to prove it YET. You say I cannot prove it, period--I disagree. There is not a line between natural and supernatural. The imaginary line lies between what human consciousness can accept and what it cannot accept at this time. That is not a limit of science but a limit of human consciousness. I happen to personally believe that such lines--such veils--are being pushed back by our blossoming awareness at all times. What is irrational to you, is completely rational to me.

Again, I say what you see as irrational is defined by the limits of what you perceive.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes you did. You also let language like "apparently proven" stand without any justification. You let "debunks" stand in the absence of the theories actually being "debunked". You let similar statements to mine about the "Bush administration" stand.

When the Professor Emeritus of the structural engineering school at BYU tells Steven Jones that his theories are faulty, you accuse him (or me by quoting such language) of "ostracising". Tell me, why don't you also accuse Steven Jones of doing the same when he tells everyone else that their theories are wrong?

You are free to go to town in arguing the fine points if you like. As I say, my own bias is towards issues of socially ostracising others, and with the "majority rules" mentality pertaining to opinion/preference, or with other smokescreens that I see as invalidly "proving" one's point. Are you suggesting I pick up your bias and leave my own behind?

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Well, thanks for your opinion/point of view.

You're welcome.

Re: intelligent design, I can tell you right now that I've had spiritual, experiential personal experiences, pertaining to evolutionary forces pulling me towards a destiny. You may be able to "rationally" dispute my assertion. You cannot disprove what I know and what I've experienced, however. My experiences are not based on religious faith, they are based on personal experience, which is entirely relevent in science. Intelligent life design directed me directly to the healing of numerous disorders. With this underlying premise that I hold, based on what is self-evident to me, I could care less how you choose to look at it. What I care about is what I KNOW. I may not be able to prove it YET. You say I cannot prove it, period--I disagree. There is not a line between natural and supernatural. The imaginary line lies between what human consciousness can accept and what it cannot accept at this time. That is not a limit of science but a limit of human consciousness. I happen to personally believe that such lines--such veils--are being pushed back by our blossoming awareness at all times. What is irrational to you, is completely rational to me.

None of what you say above is irrational, so I don't think we'll have a problem there.

Again, I say what you see as irrational is defined by the limits of what you perceive.

Ok.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

You're welcome.

None of what you say above is irrational, so I don't think we'll have a problem there.

Ok.

Thank-you.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

You are free to go to town in arguing the fine points if you like. As I say, my own bias is towards issues of socially ostracising others, and with the "majority rules" mentality pertaining to opinion/preference, or with other smokescreens that I see as invalidly "proving" one's point. Are you suggesting I pick up your bias and leave my own behind?

I suggest you leave your own bias behind and not pick up any. But this isn't an answer to my question. If your own bias is towards "issues of socially ostracising others", why do you not accuse Steven Jones of doing so when he tells others that they are wrong? Why do you not accuse the 9/11 government-conspiracy theorists of doing that when they tell me or others here that I'm wrong? Why are we the only ones doing the "ostracising"?

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

I suggest you leave your own bias behind and not pick up any. But this isn't an answer to my question. If your own bias is towards "issues of socially ostracising others", why do you not accuse Steven Jones of doing so when he tells others that they are wrong? Why do you not accuse the 9/11 government-conspiracy theorists of doing that when they tell me or others here that I'm wrong? Why are we the only ones doing the "ostracising"?

I continue to do what is right for me, based on my own life experiences and what I am guided to do in each moment. I've explained to you in the past that I follow what I am directed to do. It sounds like you are not okay with my purposes.

If you are bothered by/upset or whatever by my purposes, that isn't about me and what I do.