9/11 - What convinced you?

[gameboy]

Really? How do YOU know that?

What I know is that you are crazy.

[MST3KBillsfan]

Why are you dancing? You know very well what I'm talking about.

Who exactly is dancing? I answered your question, you answer mine. Quid pro quo Shiva, quid pro quo. Why would Stalin need a false flag op, and why would Bush?

[Spartacus]

i dont agree with that at all. if someone here really did lose friends in this event, i think its best to let that one go. shiva lacks empathy and this is just another case. when it comes to asking someone to prove their friends died, i think its best to let that one go.

Shiva lacks empathy because I'm making the board neo-con upset?

His "feelings" trump all objective inquiries?



Sorry dude, but you're commenting about something you don't know the backstory to.

GB had his "feelings hurt" 10 years ago when we first started talking about it.

Since then, he has supported policies resulting from 9/11 that have resulted in the untimely deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

However, none of them were his friends, so he doesn't give a **** about them.

[Spartacus]

What I know is that you are crazy.

Boy, there's some critical thinking for you.

[Spartacus]

Who exactly is dancing? I answered your question...

No, you haven't and your reluctance is noted.

[Spartacus]

This is the sort of dishonest drivel I've come to expect of you. In any post, did I say that my list from the first page was a complete answer? No...

Yes, actually...

This thread is expressly for me to ask YOU questions. If you can do that sincerely, I'll answer yours.

It was and I did.

This is the sort of clarity that should have been in the initial question.

It was clear and I made it clearer, but you still refuse to answer. Why?

Neil Bush may indeed be a nobody, but he would still have to be just as morally bankrupt as the rest of the conspirators to go along with their scheme. Indeed, if you're sticking behind the whole 'Neil Bush allowed demolition crews to pre-wire the towers' theory then he's an integral part of the plan.

Who said 'Neil Bush allowed demolition crews to pre-wire the towers or Neil Bush was an integral part of the plan? Not me. And yes, Fredo was as morally bankrupt as the rest. He just wasn't as competent. you sure you don't mean Marvin Bush?

Of course it does. You've claimed a conspiracy that stretches back three decades based on little more than "Cui bono?" and challenge the official story by playing games about what constitutes "tracking" an aircraft, among others.

Not true. I have challenged the official story in many ways that still stand irrefuted, like Gordon Ross' analysis of the WTC collapse, the human remains around the collapsed buildings and Osama Bin Laden's statement that Flt 93 was shot down to name 3. However, that still doesn't render Cui Bono, ie. motive, inconsequential. If you have two suspects and one has an undeniable motive of power and money and the other is accused by the first suspect of having an ideological religious agenda as a motive, well, I'd have to say the whole of human history says the first motive is far more likely than the second.

Gameboy says he lost a colleague on Flight 77 and you want DNA evidence? Do you have any direct evidence of the things you say?

Yes. I didn't know gameboy's colleague and we, and presumably he, have only been TOLD what it is. So, I want to know how he can assure us his colleague dies in that crash. Crazy as it seems, the possibility of lying exists. And please, do we really need to go the direct vs indirect evidence route again? As an attorney, I'm sure you've heard of circumstantial evidence and it's validity if applied correctly?

I think that's been clearly shown in this very thread. I admit that America has a lot of blood on its hands in the middle east, and many of the terrorists indeed have a legitimate grievance with us. You come back with the claim that Americans are racist dumbasses. Whose bias is showing again?

Concluding that America has a lot of blood on it's hands because Americans are racist dumbasses is an entirely objective analysis.

If you have a better explanation, let's hear it.

[YardRat]

His "feelings" trump all objective inquiries?

[Spartacus]

9 out of ten Bills fans are willing to be stupid for their team.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Yes, actually...

Again with the manipulative editing.

You quoted:

It was and I did.

But the post says:

It was and I did. You asked what facts led me to believe the Al Qaeda theory of 9/11, so I picked out one part of the story and gave you some of them.

Again, you edit my post to try to change my meaning. Cheap and transparent.

It was clear and I made it clearer, but you still refuse to answer. Why?

Because it was, and remains, an abstract question to which you demand a concrete answer. With regards to the named six BushCo members, I gave my answer.

Who said 'Neil Bush allowed demolition crews to pre-wire the towers or Neil Bush was an integral part of the plan? Not me. And yes, Fredo was as morally bankrupt as the rest. He just wasn't as competent. you sure you don't mean Marvin Bush?

I do mean Marvin, I apologize. What a big, screwed up family. That said, you have been pushing the pre-wiring claim at least as long as we've been discussing it (http://www.buffalorange.com/showthre...The-WTC-Towers) and then claiming they were struck by remote-controlled planes (Post 6 in that thread).

Now you're disclaiming it. Again.

Yes. I didn't know gameboy's colleague and we, and presumably he, have only been TOLD what it is. So, I want to know how he can assure us his colleague dies in that crash. Crazy as it seems, the possibility of lying exists.

Have you ever eaten at Randy's Donuts? It's in Inglewood, California on Manchester. Their food is delicious and the large donut on the roof is an iconic image of L.A. There have been reviews of it in the L.A. Times, it's appeared in several movies, it's easily visible on Google Earth, and parodies of it have appeared everywhere from the Simpsons to Grand Theft Auto.

If you haven't eaten there, how do you KNOW it exists? I mean, movies can be faked, articles can be planted, and the people who have eaten there could all be lying (including me! *gasp*). Have you just been told?

At some point, everybody must rely on other people's accounts to verify information. I cannot personally verify every fact with my own eyes and experiments, and neither can you. To discount gameboy's explanation even after he posted a link, just because he didn't pull Mr. Burlingame's DNA out of the wreck with his own two hands is ridiculous. And then you counter with:

Not true. I have challenged the official story in many ways that still stand irrefuted, like Gordon Ross' analysis of the WTC collapse, the human remains around the collapsed buildings and Osama Bin Laden's statement that Flt 93 was shot down to name 3.

How do you KNOW human remains were found around the collapsed buildings? Did you verify they were human remains yourself? Did you verify their position yourself? How do you KNOW Osama claimed Flight 93 was shot down? Did you watch the video? Do you speak his Arabic dialect or did you rely on someone else's translation?

You demand that other people personally verify things to consider them facts but make no such demands on your own sources.

However, that still doesn't render Cui Bono, ie. motive, inconsequential. If you have two suspects and one has an undeniable motive of power and money and the other is accused by the first suspect of having an ideological religious agenda as a motive, well, I'd have to say the whole of human history says the first motive is far more likely than the second.

I can invent motives for any number of people or nations. Every repressive regime in the world benefited because they could use the pre-text of terrorism to crack down on their own citizens. Every defense contractor benefited by trying to drink from the firehose of money that opened. Nearly any ex-soldier and cop could re-invent themselves as a terrorism "expert" and chase speaking fees and second careers. Some dickhead made a fortune selling Osama urinal cakes and miniature plastic flags. None of that is proof that they caused it, just that they are ruthless profiteers.

Concluding that America has a lot of blood on it's hands because Americans are racist dumbasses is an entirely objective analysis.

If you have a better explanation, let's hear it.

Explanation of what, specifically?

[YardRat]

9 out of ten Bills fans are willing to be stupid for their team.

9 of ten 9/11 conspiracy theory whackjobs are willing to be stupid for...well,....just for the sake of being stupid, I guess.

[JATMtheJATM]

ive noticed every shiva thread becomes less and less about the topic at hand, and more and more about how people argue and debate.

[Spartacus]

9 of ten 9/11 conspiracy theory whackjobs are willing to be stupid for...well,....just for the sake of being stupid, I guess.

I have empirical evidence of my assertion. You have only poop from your ass as evidence of yours.

[Spartacus]

ive noticed every shiva thread becomes less and less about the topic at hand, and more and more about how people argue and debate.

Cuz some people who recognize that they are pushing losing arguments resort to cheating, ie. sophistry and fallacious logic.

Like 0-linemen who keep getting beat, they resort to holding as a last resort.

[YardRat]

I have empirical evidence of my assertion. You have only poop from your ass as evidence of yours.

I have scores of threads as empirical evidence. You have only assumptions, mis-representations, mis-perceptions and mis-direction, which over the years grade out well below the poop from my ass.

[Spartacus]

Again with the manipulative editing.

You quoted:


But the post says:


Again, you edit my post to try to change my meaning. Cheap and transparent.

I said I would answer your questions when you'd answered mine. You claimed you did. Now you're claiming your next sentence says you didn't? Aside from the fact it does not, do you make a habit of claiming you did things when in actuality, you did not?

Because it was, and remains, an abstract question to which you demand a concrete answer. With regards to the named six BushCo members, I gave my answer.

It's not an "abstract question" nor is it demanding a "concrete answer". It's a legitimate question about your understanding of human behavior and assessment of character. Here's another name. Eric Prince. Think he's capable?

I do mean Marvin, I apologize. What a big, screwed up family. That said, you have been pushing the pre-wiring claim at least as long as we've been discussing it (http://www.buffalorange.com/showthre...The-WTC-Towers) and then claiming they were struck by remote-controlled planes (Post 6 in that thread).

Now you're disclaiming it. Again.

I did not claim they were struck by remote-controlled planes in post 6 in that thread (post the text if you wish) and I have never "pushed" the pre-wiring claim, I have only questioned the truth of the claim they couldn't have been pre-wired.

Have you ever eaten at Randy's Donuts? It's in Inglewood, California on Manchester. Their food is delicious and the large donut on the roof is an iconic image of L.A. There have been reviews of it in the L.A. Times, it's appeared in several movies, it's easily visible on Google Earth, and parodies of it have appeared everywhere from the Simpsons to Grand Theft Auto.

If you haven't eaten there, how do you KNOW it exists? I mean, movies can be faked, articles can be planted, and the people who have eaten there could all be lying (including me! *gasp*). Have you just been told?

This is silly anti-induction sophistry that tries to equate something with a high probablity of being true with something with a low probability of being true. Most of what we know and most of the decisions we're required to make every day rely on what we've been told. However, not everything we have been told is true. That is what our brain is for. To use reason and logic to make judgments about whether the things we've been told are true or not. If you're still shaky on the concepts, the wikipedia pages on inductive logic and circumstantial evidence are good places to start.

At some point, everybody must rely on other people's accounts to verify information. I cannot personally verify every fact with my own eyes and experiments, and neither can you.

Needless to say, however this doesn't mean we are required to believe everything we've been told. I'm sure you understand that.

To discount gameboy's explanation even after he posted a link, just because he didn't pull Mr. Burlingame's DNA out of the wreck with his own two hands is ridiculous.

I didn't "discount his explanation", because he never gave one. An explanation was what I was, and still am, asking for. It's a reasonable request that I don't think will cause GB any undue emotional turmoil.

How do you KNOW human remains were found around the collapsed buildings? Did you verify they were human remains yourself? Did you verify their position yourself? How do you KNOW Osama claimed Flight 93 was shot down? Did you watch the video? Do you speak his Arabic dialect or did you rely on someone else's translation?

The human remains have been reported by different independent sources. And the US gov't itself claimed Osama's statement was true. In my estimation, both have a high probability of being true.

You demand that other people personally verify things to consider them facts but make no such demands on your own sources.

Baseless assertion. And untrue, of course.

I can invent motives for any number of people or nations. Every repressive regime in the world benefited because they could use the pre-text of terrorism to crack down on their own citizens. Every defense contractor benefited by trying to drink from the firehose of money that opened. Nearly any ex-soldier and cop could re-invent themselves as a terrorism "expert" and chase speaking fees and second careers. Some dickhead made a fortune selling Osama urinal cakes and miniature plastic flags. None of that is proof that they caused it, just that they are ruthless profiteers.

So, that brings us back to my original question.

Do you think that all ruthless profiteers, and especially those ruthless profiteers whose fortunes depend on death and destruction, would shrink from a little engineered carnage to pump up the bottom line and make the world safe for free-market capitalism?

Explanation of what, specifically?

Why America has wound up with so much blood on it's hands and why, if it does, do you find it so unbelievable there is 9/11 blood on it's hands too?

[Spartacus]

I have scores of threads as empirical evidence.

No you don't.

But then, who cares if it's true or not? The accusation is enough, right?

[JATMtheJATM]

Cuz some people who recognize that they are pushing losing arguments resort to cheating, ie. sophistry and fallacious logic.

Like 0-linemen who keep getting beat, they resort to holding as a last resort.

never said you are wrong.

[MST3KBillsfan]

No, you haven't and your reluctance is noted.

Oh boy oh boy, does this mean you tabbed this thread so that you can claim some sort of moral victory five or ten years from now? Well ****, I feel honored.

[Spartacus]

never said you are wrong.

I know.

I wasn't referring to you, just describing the phenomenon.

[Spartacus]

Oh boy oh boy, does this mean you tabbed this thread so that you can claim some sort of moral victory five or ten years from now? Well ****, I feel honored.

Did the Russians shell their own town and blame it on the Finns or not?

Are you a historian or an apparatchik?