To the Two Loons

[tomndebb]

@Sent

What showed me what didn’t happen in OKC was not somebody’s theorizing or clever editing but the local news clips. There is too much detailed reporting in that footage during and after the collapse describing these bombs to have been an “initial report in error”. An example of an initial report that can turn out to be wrong is when we hear “there may be a bomb in the building” or even “a bomb was found”. Those kind of reports can be based on inaccurate information or panic. The kinds of reports I saw could not have been based on anything other than actual bombs, as anyone with the crtical thinking skills you claim to posess would be able to see upon observing this footage.

We have confirmation from officials at all levels that these devices were found, even later on, and explanations as to their being diffused and their relative size.

Actually, you do not. You have several comments from various people during the event making (erroneous) statements during the chaos of the day spliced in with later commentary (which may or may not have any basis in fact) to create a seamless portrait of an event in a way to make it appear to the unwary viewer that all the evidence that the editor assembled is accurate while all the evidence assembled by everyone else in the world is inaccurate.

Do you believe Falwell’s tape of the 28 “murders” attributed to Bill Clinton?
Have you ever given any thought to the reasons why there are over 200 conflicting versions of the JFK assassination? (If there was some nefarious plot, why have all the truth seekers come to different conclusions?)
Does it not strike you as odd that Nixon and his cronies–a small, close-knit group of people with a single purpose–could not keep their activities secret for eighteen months while conspiracies that require the participation of hundreds of people (often with conflicting goals) are successfully hidden for years or decades?

There is also extensive evidence of other individuals who were with Timothy McVeigh, which you can confirm by researching the legal records of people who were stonewalled by the Justice department when they tried to pursue this.

Now, see, this aspect is remotely possible. There may have been more than two conspirators and they may have chosen to take one for the team by not revealing their support group. On the other hand, McVeigh had to pass through a dozen or more states in the year prior to the bombing. Anyone who thought they saw him is liable to come forward with testimony that they thought there was something suspicious going on–and some people are going to try to incriminate other people for whom they had a dislike. I have no trouble believing that some government agents have wearliy dismissed the claims of people who had nothing to offer but rumors or who, when called to provide evidence suddenly get cold feet, or whose “evidence” could not be corroborated. In the midst of all those “witnesses,” it is possible that some tenuous link to a broader support group was missed. (It is also possible that the link was good but there was no way to bring it successfully to trial and the Feds are simply watching those people more closely until an actual case can be built or until they try something else.) However, a lot of the people with “better” information tried to prove that McVeigh had nothing to do with the Murrah build–even though he admitted having done it and the evidence provided in court set him in the area having bought and rented the materials.

---

As for being insulted: if you prefer to not read the insults, don’t open threads in the Pit. you are not required to read or post, here. If you would prefer to avoid seeing the insults, simply stick to the threads in other Fora where insults are prohibited. We insist that people who have become so angered that they simply must insult another poster bring those insults to this Forum. We have no corresponding rule that the person so insulted must come to read or respond to them.

[Sent]

@FinnAgain

You have insulted everybody here with your idiotic spewings,

I never personally insulted anyone. Quote?

You’re a slimey, self-righteous, and arrogant fucker.

Think what you will, I won’t stoop to that.

Respect is earned, not given.

I automatically give respect, it is only lost when a person demonstrates that it should be lost.

findings of FaAA…an unimpeachable expert organization

Authority can bypass critical thinking.

Or was FaAA part of THEM, too?

The world is a lot more complicated than that, study covert operations and compartmentalization. If you begin with an assumption of cause, if you do not look at other possibilities, you will end with the same assumption.

Otherwise all you have is a bunch of news folk who were overly hot for a story who reported something too quickly.

Buy the video and judge for yourself.

Jeez, you babble on about critical thinking, but how do you explain away the contradictions in your little paranoid terror-trip?

I don’t have all the answers, I know that the world is complex.

And yet, all of a sudden, the reporting of these “bombs” stops. Why? Did THEY get to them? Tickle their feet until they stopped reporting on the story?

It’s my understanding that these reports that contradicted the official narrative went on in the local news channels for weeks. Eventually, people just had to get on with their lives. People were forced to accept the situation, and it was useless to keep going with it because federal officials had come up with a story. Only a few people bothered to carry on with it, trying to expose it. Many people in OKC though still know what really happened, and that there was a cover-up.

That the initial news reports, no matter how detailed, were wrong, or that everybody involved who knew The Truth[sup]tm[/sup] was silenced by THEM.

Your sociological views are distorted on this, things are more complex than that. Whether or not I will discount the reports as wrong depends on the content of the reprts.

And you still have to explain why FaAA, an expert organization, was somehow blind to the reality of these “bombs”. Did THEY get ot them, too?

I don’t know anyone at FaAA, so I couldn’t tell you. It may be that they only considered one possibility and ignored any evidence that might have contradicted. If I begin with the belief “there were definitely no bombs”, I will never find evidence of bombs.

Occam’s Razor.

Occams’s Razor is not to be used to oversimplify complex sociological concepts. You don’t ignore evidence because your perceptions would be more simple without that evidence.

Your very presence here is an insult.

Well, perhaps I should leave then?

the honest and honorable Timothy McVeigh?

McVeigh was there, but there was someone else in the truck with him, a middle-eastern man. This is shown on surveillance tapes currently classified and being held by the FBI. If they would release these tapes, it would dispel this notion once and for all. They will not.

Does this even make sense to you? We can confirm that people were with McVeigh… based on records of people who didn’t get answers from the Justice Department?

Yes, the grand juror who demanded that he be allowed to include this evidence was dismissed.

Is every major news source, down to the last reporter, in the grip of THEM… or were the initial reports wrong?

.
No, there are a combination of factors involved. First there is compartmentalization, as it applies to covert operations. Then there are other complex sociological and psychological factors that vary by organization and individual that result in the vast majority of people not pursuing the truth in this matter. It’s difficult to evaluate when someone you don’t know is acting out of ignorance, outright deception, or a combination of the two.

[askeptic]

@Dob

Dick.

I know. The truth hurts. Thats no reason to call me a dick. Or are you suggesting that fundamentalist belief is based on verifiable fact rather than faith?

[Greenback]

A poster on this board (former or not) once claimed (regarding Austrian economic theory) that a conclusion arrived at deductively could not be disproved. In fact, if a situation arose that went against the deductive conclusions, he would reject the situation claiming incomplete knowledge of the situation because no situation could ever arise that would contradict the deductive conclusions.

This is not one of those situations. You have your cough conclusions yet empirical evidence shows otherwise. It is folly to cling to conclusions that are not arrived at by following the trail of evidence. Please note that the evidence comes first, then the conclusion.

No doubt you will claim knowledge of some sort yet you have yet to provide evidence to support your position. Video does not count because only a few people in the world a qualified to analyze the video properly. In fact, the video could only be analyzed by groups of people as I highly doubt anyone is an expert in all the fields of science that ultimately culminated with the fall of the towers.

Not only that, but we have the ability to take the pieces that are on the ground and analyze what actually happened and why the towers fell. Again, many groups of experts are required to do a comprehensive analysis of which, I’m guessing you are not a member.

So no. I don’t have to buy the VHS movie. I don’t have to watch your linked videos because I don’t have the authority with which to draw a conclusion.

The sun appears to go around the earth. I see it come up every morning and go down every evening. In fact, for $100 I’ll create a video and send it to you claiming proof - and mine will be on a DVD. Yet experts (there’s that term again) tell me that it is the other way around. I have not yet been to space to experience this myself but I see no reason not to accept the conclusions offered by multiple experts. I will not throw cite Occam’s razor as many use it far beyond the scope of its intent. But I will cite Sherlock Holmes “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” So long as experts can explain how the towers fell without the need for bombs, missiles, spontaneous human combustion, etc, I am inclined to agree with them.

[Sent]

@askeptic

All this conspiracy shit raises an interesting question. Is there any possible evidence that could, if it existed, prove to us that Sent’s theories are in fact correct?

I would like to know the answer to that as well. From my vantage it seems maybe there isn’t, even if it were true.

I tend to think that whatever he argues and whatever he may link to would be insuficient to change the minds of anyone here?

That’s the impression I get.

I for one can’t think of anything that would persuade me that a conspiracy as described by sent, is responsible for 9/11.

Bits and pieces, you put together the bits and pieces that don’t make sense. When there are many such pieces you can begin to form a new picture, even when you don’t have all the answers.

I am not saying that I could not be convinced, just that nothing he could say or do on the internet could convince me of the validity of his arguement.

So I have to come to your residence?

[Dob]

Or are you suggesting that fundamentalist belief is based on verifiable fact rather than faith?

Nope. Just saying your a Dick.

The fact you see no difference between a CT and a persons belief system just substantiates my earlier assertion----Dick.

[Sent]

@Greenback

Please note that the evidence comes first, then the conclusion.

This is the process that I followed in this matter. I did not start out believing this was an inside job, or even that that would be possible. Evidence as you would collect in a court case comes in many forms.

Video does not count

I beg to differ.

I’m guessing you are not a member.

No but if I were I’m guessing I would be in that same box of thinking. I would rather assume they just don’t consider another possibility than that they are somehow complicit.

So long as experts can explain how the towers fell without the need for bombs, missiles, spontaneous human combustion, etc, I am inclined to agree with them.

It is more comfortable to believe it because the vast majority of experts have come up with their own conclusions, though they did not consider the possibility of explosives. If I were right, who, at this point in the game, would open their minds enough to consider this possibility from a scientific standpoint?

[FinnAgain]

@Sent

I never personally insulted anyone. Quote?

Not very smart, are you?
Let me rephrase it, Genius Crazyman: you have insulted the intelligence of everybody here by spewing your idiocy, and you have insulted everybody with your repeated claims that ignoring expert testimony is smart, and having a clue somehow means that one lacks critical thinking skills.

@Sent

Think what you will, I won’t stoop to that.

You already have stooped to that, that’s the point. Or do all us folks who just need to ‘open our minds’ and learn ‘critical thinking skills’ just not get it? :rolleyes:

@Sent

Authority can bypass critical thinking.

And fools can spew nonsensical one liners when bereft of logical or factual refutation.

Proof, in any shape or form that FaAA was ‘infiltrated’ or ‘controlled’ in order to give a false report? Otherwise you’re just being an absolute fool. The authority hasn’t “bypassed” critical thinking, Genius Crazyman, their judgements are more informed than random and confused bystanders at the event.

@Sent

The world is a lot more complicated than that, study covert operations and compartmentalization. If you begin with an assumption of cause, if you do not look at other possibilities, you will end with the same assumption.

Coward. Slimey coward.
You’re slandering the reputation and honor of the members of FaAA, give proof or retract, or admit that you’re talking out of your ass and the experts have already debunked your idiocy. Just admit that you need to believe in your crazy scary conspiracy world, and that the facts don’t concern you.

Do you honestly think that FaAA was so stupid and/or incompetent as to miss explosive residue because you throw around more verbal diarrhea about “compertmentalization”? Do you have any idea how they build models, at all? Do you think they go into a scene, say “Well, we think it happened this way, so let’s not collect any evidence.”

In other words, do you think they use the same thought patterns you do?

@Sent

I don’t have all the answers, I know that the world is complex.

:wally"
Good gods, you’re a moron.

You can’t answer as to why your ravings don’t make any sense, at all, so you fall back on some babble about complexity? Oh, I know! Maybe the complexity was compartmentalized and it
It’s my understanding that these reports that contradicted the official narrative went on in the local news channels for weeks. Eventually, people just had to get on with their lives. People were forced to accept the situation, and it was useless to keep going with it because federal officials had come up with a story. Only a few people bothered to carry on with it, trying to expose it. Many people in OKC though still know what really happened, and that there was a cover-up.
Your sociological views are distorted on this, things are more complex than that. Whether or not I will discount the reports as wrong depends on the content of the reprts.
I don’t know anyone at FaAA, so I couldn’t tell you. It may be that they only considered one possibility and ignored any evidence that might have contradicted. If I begin with the belief “there were definitely no bombs”, I will never find evidence of bombs.
Occams’s Razor is not to be used to oversimplify complex sociological concepts. You don’t ignore evidence because your perceptions would be more simple without that evidence.
Well, perhaps I should leave then?

McVeigh was there, but there was someone else in the truck with him, a middle-eastern man. This is shown on surveillance tapes currently classified and being held by the FBI. If they would release these tapes, it would dispel this notion once and for all. They will not.
Yes, the grand juror who demanded that he be allowed to include this evidence was dismissed.

.
No, there are a combination of factors involved. First there is compartmentalization, as it applies to covert operations. Then there are other complex sociological and psychological factors that vary by organization and individual that result in the vast majority of people not pursuing the truth in this matter. It’s difficult to evaluate when someone you don’t know is acting out of ignorance, outright deception, or a combination of the two.
[/QUOTE]

[woodstockbirdybird]

@Dob

Nope. Just saying your a Dick.

The fact you see no difference between a CT and a persons belief system just substantiates my earlier assertion----Dick.

How is a conspiracy theory not part of a person’s belief system? And in the case of fundamentalists, the comparison seems apt - both the CT and the fundie believe goofy-ass shit despite the overwhelming empirical evidence refuting their claims. Why does sloppy thinking get a pass just because it’s rooted in religion?

[Skywatcher]

@Sent

Now if you are destitute and you don’t have $20, you can find some of this same footage in a conspiracy film by Alex Jones called 911: The Road to Tyranny. Again, try to be a little more open minded here. You can ignore Alex Jones commentary if you like, just move the slider to about 18:55 this video, and watch the footage interspersed until about 42:50 or so. The local news people were actually doing genuine investigative journalism. The recollection of eyewitnesses corroborated with the people who saw the now-classifed surveillance tapes, indicating that the official story is basically a lie.

http://www.vidilife.com/index.cfm?f=media.play&vchrMediaProgramIDCryp=3C3B75AB-29EF-40D8-992C-5&vchrJoinMedia=3C3B75AB-29EF-40D8-992C-5

There’s a lot more information in the video I linked you to.

Witnesses are not infallible. Reporters are not infallible. Police are not infallible. Seismic indicators can be–and have been, by those trying to paint 9/11 as a conspiracy–misread. Continuing to repeat the same claims does not change any of this.

Is it not possible that, like in NYC and Arlington, VA on 9/11*, that some nuts phoned in false bomb reports? Is it not possible that, in all the hysteria and confusion, people running from the affected area only thought they saw more bombs and reported that? Is it not possible that that, when authorities went to investigate such reports, they found objects that looked like bombs but weren’t really bombs at all? IIs it not possible that, if they were indeed bombs, that they were mailed there by McVeigh or Nichols and our government had nothing whatsoever to do with it?

*That is a fact. I personally know of a bomb scare at the Arlington Pediatric Center at 3045 Columbia Pike, 3 miles from the Pentagon, that day.

[askeptic]

@Dob

Nope. Just saying your a Dick.

The fact you see no difference between a CT and a persons belief system just substantiates my earlier assertion----Dick.

For a person defending religious fundamentalism, you’re kind of a nasty little prick aren’t you. Its pricks like you that reinforce my dislike for religious fundamentalist. Are you not supposed to ask youself “What would Jesus do?”? I doubt he would call people dicks.

[Skywatcher]

@askeptic

For a person defending religious fundamentalism, you’re kind of a nasty little prick aren’t you. Its pricks like you that reinforce my dislike for religious fundamentalist. Are you not supposed to ask youself “What would Jesus do?”? I doubt he would call people dicks.

I’m pretty sure He would know the difference between “your” and “you’re”.

[FinnAgain]

Damn, hit submit. Back into the mix:

@Sent

I don’t have all the answers, I know that the world is complex.

You can’t answer as to why your ravings don’t make any sense, at all, so you fall back on some babble about complexity? Oh, I know! Maybe the complexity was compartmentalized and it used the Illuminati to bypass critical thinking? :dubious:

Face it, your hypothesis has gaping holes, and rather than admit that it makes no sense, you just babble.

@Sent

It’s my understanding that these reports that contradicted the official narrative went on in the local news channels for weeks. Eventually, people just had to get on with their lives.

…
Are you fucking kidding me? A massive coverup, a scandal of unimaginable proportions, and people, reporters just have to “get on with their lives”? I suppose that you have no idea why they would do that, either, or why CNN and its ilk would ignore them… but life sure is complex.

@Sent

People were forced to accept the situation, and it was useless to keep going with it because federal officials had come up with a story.

And the FaAA agreed… but that’s because of compartmentalization, right? :rolleyes: And, of course, ,a federal official is never, ever, challenged by the media. Nopers.

@Sent

Your sociological views are distorted on this, things are more complex than that. Whether or not I will discount the reports as wrong depends on the content of the reprts.

No… you’re just full of shit, again. Prove how all the people who knew about this just shut up, and no major news channel followed up on expert testimony because of “complexity”. “Sociological views” my ass.

@Sent

I don’t know anyone at FaAA, so I couldn’t tell you. It may be that they only considered one possibility and ignored any evidence that might have contradicted. If I begin with the belief “there were definitely no bombs”, I will never find evidence of bombs.

What a coward you are. And a slimey coward to boot. You are accusing the members of the FaAA of rank incompetence based on your own admitted defects in thought.

@Sent

Occams’s Razor is not to be used to oversimplify complex sociological concepts. You don’t ignore evidence because your perceptions would be more simple without that evidence.

If this isn’t a textbook example of self-reflexive irony I don’t know what is. First of all, Genius Crazyman, stop talking about sociology. It’s obvious that you haven’t got a clue and are just using a big word because you think it sounds neat.

You’re the one ignoring evidence, like the FaAA findings. There’s nothing complex about it. Scientific tests were done. They contradict your idiocy, which is approaching willful lying. Nothing more to it.

@Sent

Well, perhaps I should leave then?

Immediately if not sooner, yes.

@Sent

McVeigh was there, but there was someone else in the truck with him, a middle-eastern man. This is shown on surveillance tapes currently classified and being held by the FBI. If they would release these tapes, it would dispel this notion once and for all. They will not.

So people saw these tapes and then… what? They just forgot about them, except that there was a “middle eastern man”? Mmm hmmm…

@Sent

Yes, the grand juror who demanded that he be allowed to include this evidence was dismissed.

Again, loon. Is this proof that A) a grand juror was dismissed, maybe because he was attempting to track down leads which the FBI had already vetted and tetermined to be false B) he was totally right in everything and so he was dismissed C) the Illuminati is in control of the entire world and got this grand jurror dismissed

@Sent

No, there are a combination of factors involved. First there is compartmentalization, as it applies to covert operations.

Quit your babbling. What the heck do you even think that means???

@Sent

Then there are other complex sociological and psychological factors that vary by organization and individual that result in the vast majority of people not pursuing the truth in this matter.

Again, quit your babbling and shit spewing. Your “complex sociological” bullshit does not explain why, if TIME magazine could seel 50 million magazines with a sensational story about a massive scandal, that they wouldn’t because they’re just not interested. Here’s a “complex sociological” word for you: money.

@Sent

It’s difficult to evaluate when someone you don’t know is acting out of ignorance, outright deception, or a combination of the two.

Mmm hmmm.

Which is why it’s hard for me to figure out just what your damage is.

[Xploder]

Here’s what it looks like to me…

crazy conspiracy theory believer (cctb) I believe the government is responsible for blowing up the world trade center. Can you cite where they didn’t?

everyone else(ee) multiple cites

cctb: I don’t believe that cite can you show me any more?

ee: more cites and discussion

cctb: That cite is false but I’m too smart to explain it to you. Can you show me a cite where I’m not"

ee: even more cites and discussions

cctb: That cite doesn’t exist. You are all wrong and only I know the real truth.

repeat endlessly

I give up.

Entertaining to read though and I AM learning something from all the cites so there’s a plus.

[Sent]

I keep hearing all this talk about the fallibility of witness testimony, not just here but elsewhere. This can be true. However, doesn’t it depend on a total evaluation of all witness testimony, and how many people’s stories are corroborated on the same event? When you have a trial where you present evidence to determine what happened in a case, do you call in only expert witnesses to scientfically analyze what happened, or do you also call in the people involved who saw or experienced certain things. That was supposed to have been the 9/11 Commission’s job. That isn’t what they did.

Open your eyes.

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/24-Jun-2005.html

The witness testimony of this group of people about the explosion in the basement, in a court of law, outweighs any expert testimony, no matter how credible. There has not been a FAIR hearing of all witness testimony and a consideration of all possibilities. That is how incorrect conclusions have been drawn. You have to look at all lines of evidence and the big picture.

[FinnAgain]

@Xploder

I give up.

Entertaining to read though and I AM learning something from all the cites so there’s a plus.

Indeed, I think that’s the best tack.

Debating a conspiracy lunatic is like banging your head against a brick wall, except a brick wall would sooner display neural activity.

This is a waste of my time. I’ll just wait until this trog vanishes so he has more time to worry about the Illuminati flouridating his water and contaminating his precious bodily fluids.

[Xploder]

@FinnAgain

Indeed, I think that’s the best tack.

Debating a conspiracy lunatic is like banging your head against a brick wall, except a brick wall would sooner display neural activity.

This is a waste of my time. I’ll just wait until this trog vanishes so he has more time to worry about the Illuminati flouridating his water and contaminating his precious bodily fluids.

Ya know what? When you aren’t blabbering about politics, I find you strangely smart! No offense meant, I just get tired of political threads.

On another note, my best friend from the Army called me the other day and was bitching up a storm because he was sick. He actually TOLD me that it was from all the shit that the government was spraying out of all the planes (chemtrails). I was speechless. This guy was a very intelligent person when I knew him in Germany so I wonder what the hell happened to him. Later on, I called and talked to his wife…turned out he has the flu and is pissed off. :rolleyes:

[FinnAgain]

@Xploder

Ya know what? When you aren’t blabbering about politics, I find you strangely smart!

Well… I can certainly vouch for the fact that I’m strange.

[VegemiteMoose]

@Xploder

On another note, my best friend from the Army called me the other day and was bitching up a storm because he was sick. He actually TOLD me that it was from all the shit that the government was spraying out of all the planes (chemtrails). I was speechless. This guy was a very intelligent person when I knew him in Germany so I wonder what the hell happened to him. Later on, I called and talked to his wife…turned out he has the flu and is pissed off. :rolleyes:

Have you seen your friend since the [del]cover up[/del] conversation with his wife. HAVE YOU?!?

[tomndebb]

@Sent

Open your eyes.

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/24-Jun-2005.html

The witness testimony of this group of people about the explosion in the basement, in a court of law, outweighs any expert testimony, no matter how credible. There has not been a FAIR hearing of all witness testimony and a consideration of all possibilities. That is how incorrect conclusions have been drawn. You have to look at all lines of evidence and the big picture.

Open your own.

According to your story,

“Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above,” said Rodriguez. “Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion.”

But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling “explosion! explosion! explosion!”

David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.

The injuries were suffered when flames burst out from the elevator shaft. That is exactly in accord with the stories other people have related that the flames from the aircraft explosion were channeled into one or more elevator shafts erupting on the ground and basement floors when the fireballs could no long compress the air ahead of them in the shafts. As to the explosions, the people were in a windowless office where they were not able to actually see the events regarding the plane. The shifting of the walls and sound conducted by the solid structure of the building erupting in the basement ahead of the sound moving through air from above is exactly consistent with what I would have expected to see reported.
Sound always travels faster through solids than gasses.

What you have provided is a classic example of why we need people with knowledge, (“experts” if you will) to keep from going off on wild tangents based on inaccurate witness testimony. (We went to war with Spain in 1898 because the plate iron on the hull of the USS Maine was turned in instead of out, implying to the people at the time that they were forced in by an external mine. Tests conducted in the 1990s showed that the sort of coal bunker explosion that has long been considered the more reasonable explanation would have thrust the plates outward in the explosion, and then sucked the now weakened plates back into the hull as the cold water collapsed into the hole from which the hot air had been exploded. Your witnesses would have made Hearst proud.)