Of course They are capable of creating mountains of evidence. But if They are capable of creating the mountains of evidence pointing toward Al Qaeda terrorists, surely They are capable of creating the much smaller amount of evidence pointing toward an inside job. This is basic math–surely you agree?
So the question is, why have They created this smaller amount of evidence pointing to an inside job? What’s really going on?
[With thanks to Robert Anton Wilson for the Strange Loop idea]
Oh, cool! At 25 minutes in, I can make a donation or buy some ridiculous videos to aid AE911Truth in their totally honest efforts at getting to the truth. You have me (and all of us) cornered here, because science is always done by selling videos and soliciting donations like some sort of Jerry Lewis telethon. Impressive evidence!
Just wondering - how many pages will you let this thread reach before you simply abandon it and start a new conspiracy thread, like you did with your last one?
Does this mean that you’re never going to address the photographic evidence I presented that the earth’s axis isn’t shifting three or four CT threads ago?
Yeah, it’s “Here’s my disingenuous non-apology followed by a demand that you watch this long video and then spend your time refuting it while I follow my usual pattern of ignoring evidence, rebuttals and questions.”
In other words, nothing has changed.
You seem to really want it to be a conspiracy – I mean, you’ve got a LOT invested in the claim. Are you sure that’s not influencing your interpretation?
You can’t have a last attempt until you have a first attempt, friend.
what’s funny is THIS is the one! this is the video that once and for all really seriously, you guys, for real proves it was a conspiracy. it’s just ironic all the wolf-criery that has come before desensitized you all to the point you will never ever see it now.
womp wah.
**edited to add the word “sheeple”
Okay, which mod clarified the thread title without an unnecessary but probably polite explanation? Come out, come out, wherever you are!
Here’s a link, but it’s pretty much what Rick said.
Perhaps because comparing apples to orangutangs has no bearing on logic? The technical ability to navigate small vehicles long distances is just that, a technical ability. Do you know how many people are involved with the various space exploration activities? Do you know what it would take to have them all perform their jobs and then all remain utterly silent on their participation in those projects for years? It could not be done. While the few scientists who worked on developing the atomic bomb have remained silent on the technical details of their jobs, the overwhelming number of people who worked on the Manhattan Project have, in the ensuing years, told friends and relatives and historians about the parts they played in the project. There may be details that they have kept secret, but they have not remained silent on their participation. Finding a way to destroy the World Trade Center towers was not a big technical task–a handful of guys with limited flight training were able to accomplish that very effectively–but getting hundreds of people to remain utterly silent for over ten years on all the unreasonable things that are demanded of the various CT “explanations” would be ludicrously difficult.
Actually, you are wrong about both of these cited incidents, as well.
In each case, there was a rush to judgment in which decisions were made based on partial or inaccurate information, but there was no deliberate lying, initially, and to the extent that there was a later cover up (Gulf of Tonkin), it was exposed within months of its occurrence and that knowledge was generally known within just a couple of years.
In the case of the Maine, there was a too hasty conclusion drawn, (by the media, not the government), but there was actual evidence that supported that false conclusion that was not entirely demonstrated to be an error for around 90 years after the event. Blaming Spain was a stupid rush to judgment promoted by the Hearst and Pulitzer papers, but there was evidence that the Maine had been blown up by an external mine in the way that the hull plates were ruptured inward at the site of the explosion. There was also evidence that it was not a mine, but while it was ignored, it was never suppressed by the government. Years later, computer modeling was able to demonstrate that a coal bunker explosion could have ruptured the hull in such a way that the fragments were then sucked back into the hole, but computer models were hardly relevant in 1898. Around 1998, the National Geographic produced a report in which the more computer literate members favored the internal explosion explanation while the less technically savvy members leaned toward an external explosion explanation. At about the same time, a report in the Smithsonian Magazine came out in support of the bunker fire explanation.
To the extent that the Naval Inquiry rushed the judgment about the Maine, it might have been prompted by a desire to protect the reputation of the Captain more than a desire to inflame relations ith Spain.
I thought it might be interesting to point out that Theodore Roosevelt, when he was the assistant secretary of the Navy, was important in the decision to go to war with Spain.
So, a person in the US civilian authority over the military took advantage of a mishap and pounced upon it for his own purposes.
That is the only parallel that I can find between the Maine incident and 911.
//////
To say that truthers bother me would be an understatement. They represent one of the clear indications of the kind of magical thinking that has seemed to overcome all the years we worked to inculcate people with rationality and critical analysis. I feel that we, as scientists and rational people, have failed to convince the majority that responding with your thalamus is less effective than responding with your neocortex.
Chappy,
Are you able to comment on what the government’s motivation is for a massive conspiracy and coverup?
Are these the folks we elect (who somehow all turn bad) or is this a separate bureaucracy of some deeply entrenched secret guys who are also pulling the wool over our elected peeps…?
I’m trying to figure out what the motivation is for average government conspiracist. I don’t mean the Main Bad Guy (Obama? Bush?). I mean the mainline guy. Is he just drawing a paycheck? Or is there some deeper motivation?
Thanks.
I hate myself for asking this, but what do you believe will be happening “in a few weeks”? Why do you believe you have inside information, apparently this time from a PBS documentary? I truthfully hope you can give us details beforehand, and not just some cryptic hints that you can retroactively attach to any election-cycle news blurb or campaign smear.
Thank you.
He will ignore these questions, as he has all others.
The sad thing about this truther crap is that it detracts from the very real scandal of how 9/11 was used to justify the disastrous Iraqi adventure.
Tell me chappy, if the US government has no compunctions about murdering it’s own citizens, why didn’t they simply plant a few WMDs in Iraq after the invasion? The conspiracy you are proposing would require the complicity of thousands of people, a hypothetical WMD plant a relatively small number.
Video no worky. However, I got enough to see what this is. It’s 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, on Colorado Public TV. Just so happens that I saw something on this the other day. It’s basically the same old same old…they got some ‘experts’ to ‘just ask questions’ about the event. Still zero evidence of actual explosives used (except ‘watch the video’ and ‘you can clearly see this was an explosion’ type evidence…nothing physical like a wire cage, unburned det cord, or actual forensic evidence showing that explosives were used on load bearing beams or structures).
I’ll see if I can dig up a drive by link later debunking the show…which I’m sure the OP will ignore. If anyone has a link to the video that actually works I might have time to watch it at lunch today inbetween meetings…I’m pretty sure what it’s going to say though, since we’ve seen this sort of thing over and over again here (you just HAVE to watch this new video that explains everything!!)
I caught a few random snippets of chappy’s vid. It looks like they spend a lot of time speculating on who had motive to stage the attacks, not a lot on how they actually did so.
I saw the same deal in Kennedy conspiracy threads. At one point I had to tell someone “Look, I don’t care who you think stood to gain from Kennedy’s death. I only want to the discuss the mechanics of the assassination and the sequence of events on that day and your evidence why the generally accepted view is wrong.” I got crap like “But the CIA obviously wanted to…” in reply, which meant there was no point in continuing.
You know, it’s funny you should mention the USS Maine, because for years the principal rationale used to claim it had been sabotaged was mostly founded on two claims:
[ul]
[li]Battleships don’t just spontaneously explode like that[/li][li]Look at the wreckage! You can clearly see it was mined![/li][/ul]
The two main arguments I hear from Truthers over and over again are:
[ul]
[li]Building don’t just collapse like that![/li][li]Look at the video! You can clearly see it was blown up![/li][/ul]
Yet we now know the Maine was not sabotaged. Those claims sounded good, but they were not true.
Battleships do, in fact, spontaneously explode, because the explosive propellant for their guns becomes unstable as it ages, and governments are often too cheap to replace aging propellant. One naval historian, adding up the incidents and battles over the years, calculated that more battleships have been lost to internal magazine explosions than enemy action.
And, just like that case, buildings do fall down when they are on fire. Even if people like you insist they don’t. Structural failure (and attendant collapse) is in fact one of the most important concerns firefighters have when entering any building that’s on fire. This isn’t new knowledge, nor is it secret knowledge – it’s just something people like you completely ignore when making your claims.
Good post Sailboat, but one significant nitpick.
No, not even close, a wire has got crossed somewhere here.