Conspiracy Theory Morons

[Weltschmerz]

wey to go kid , browsing youtube doesn't make you a super inspector detective.

weltschmerz debunking 9/11

Well there are many interesting videos on the topic. I'm not 'just browsing youtube'. I have been reading, talking to many different people and considered these things for around ten years.

I'm actually not into conspiracies in general, but in this case, I feel the need to reconsider things is alarmingly necessary.

[BattlingNelson]

I'm not.

I have presented all kinds of serious sources in this thread, but people don't want to debate me, they're just throwing mud at me and mocking me because I question the official story.

There are many decent people who don't believe the official story, they are just not represented in this thread. I am not trolling, to the contrary, I would like a serious debate, but it seems impossible here.

Maybe it's because you just dismiss the factual counterarguments without adressing them?

[Weltschmerz]

Maybe it's because you just dismiss the factual counterarguments without adressing them?

I haven't seen anything factual about the official story in this thread.

- The list with 19 terrorists is bogus
- There's no evidence of terrorists boarding planes
- There's no evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon
- There's no plausible explanation other than bombs as to why the towers went down the way they did, and as to why people heard explosions.

[JAB5239]

Inside job - carried out by the government, possibly assisted by a shadow government. There's no way the official story holds water.

LMAO!! And you say you're not a conspiracy theorist?

[JAB5239]

Not ONCE have I been presented with evidence as to why this SHOULD NOT have been one big hoax. Every single official version of incidents relating to this event can be questioned and refuted -- by witnesses and firefighters on the street, all up to scholars at the universities.

The battle for TRUTH is not over. We must never forget, and never give up.

That's right agent Mulder, the truth is out there!

[BattlingNelson]

I haven't seen anything factual about the official story in this thread.

- The list with 19 terrorists is bogus

What do you base this on?

- There's no evidence of terrorists boarding planes

Eyewitnesstestimonies, securitycameras, phonerecordings. Doesn't that count?

The flightattendants made an airphone call after the hi-jack had occurred and she gave the seatnumbers of the terrorists who had taken over the plane which is how they where quickly ID'ed .

- There's no evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon

So pictures with planewreckage from the Pentagon that can be ID'ed to be flight 77 does not count?

- There's no plausible explanation other than bombs as to why the towers went down the way they did, and as to why people heard explosions.

So planes flew into the towers and then some people threw TNT into them afterwards?

[Weltschmerz]

What do you base this on?



Eyewitnesstestimonies, securitycameras, phonerecordings. Doesn't that count?

The flightattendants made an airphone call after the hi-jack had occurred and she gave the seatnumbers of the terrorists who had taken over the plane which is how they where quickly ID'ed .



So pictures with planewreckage from the Pentagon that can be ID'ed to be flight 77 does not count?


So planes flew into the towers and then some people threw TNT into them afterwards?

1. It has been reported that several of the names of the list were false.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

2. No footage has been released depicting flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon - the most secure building in the world surely must have been able to catch some video footage of the incident.

3. Phone calls are easily faked.

4. You will have to show me confirmation that the debris shown on pictures is from flight 77.

5. Explosives were obviously planted in the WTC prior to planes crashing into them.

[squealpiggy]

Inside job - carried out by the government, possibly assisted by a shadow government. There's no way the official story holds water.

Alright! An actual claim!

So let's break down what this claim really is:

1. Inside job carried out by the government.

When Watergate was discovered it was because one of the men caught red-handed in the complex had money in his account from the Republican campaign. The FBI investigated further and found that more money had gone to paying the expenses of the burglar and from there a paper trail completely unraveled the conspiracy.

With this in mind you must have some actual evidence to make the claim that "the government" was behind 9/11. And just to fill you in, even if you were right with all your other claims about "something not being right" about what you erroneously call the "official story" that would not be evidence of government involvement.

In fact it may be useful for you to go right ahead and define what you think "government" means, because I get the distinct impression that you don't really know.

Which brings me to the second point:

2. With help from the "shadow government".

Again I think it's going to help your story if you can give me an explanation of what you think a "shadow government" is. I appreciate that it sounds all spooky and evil like a GI Joe villain, but in reality a shadow government is a pretty mundane thing and is essential for the working of democracy using the parliamentary system.

A shadow government is formed by the official opposition party and consists of a cabinet or caucus formed by the opposition in order to provide criticism of government. In Britain you have a shadow Chancellor, shadow Home Secretary, shadow education minister and so on.

So first you need to tell us what you mean by "shadow government" and then provide evidence that such an entity exists.

Over to you.

Not ONCE have I been presented with evidence as to why this SHOULD NOT have been one big hoax.

Not once have I been presented with evidence that you are NOT a unicorn clumsily mashing out every response on the keyboard with your massive hooves.

You can't provide evidence that something didn't happen. What you can provide is evidence that it did happen, something you have failed to do when presenting your shaky case for controlled demolition.

For somebody with such self-declared mastery of debate you sure seem to struggle with the basics.

Every single official version of incidents relating to this event can be questioned and refuted -- by witnesses and firefighters on the street, all up to scholars at the universities.

This is a clumsy appeal to authority. I get the firefighters and other witnesses, I mean if you ignore inconvenient facts and take a few statements out of context then you can build a case that seems to support your delusion. But "scholars at the universities"? Which scholars?

I was watching a documentary on CNN about a hick town in the US deep south that is harassing local Muslims for no reason. They had a lawyer on (a lawyer who looked like he should be sitting on a rocker in front of his swamp shack playing the banjo and contemplating raping fat men from the big city, but it said lawyer on the show). He made the absurd statement to Soledad O'Brien that Islam was not a religion. She countered that it was quite obviously a religion and he essentially said "Who says?"

Her response was to point out the standard definition of a religion and a couple of ways in which Islam fits with this definition. Oh no, wait, it was to say with as much gravity as she could muster "Scholars... have said that."

The point of this aside is that "scholars" is an utterly meaningless term. You would have to say who those scholars are, what their area of expertise is, what they have published and most importantly what they have published that is relevant to the field or event being currently discussed.

The fact is that appealing to academia means that you have to accept the tenet of "publish or die". It doesn't matter who says what, what matters is what they say and how it is supported evidentially. That's which those out of context quotes from Albert Einstein about religion have no relevance.

Back on topic. Scholars. Which ones, what field, what did they say and where did they publish it? Or STFU.

The battle for TRUTH is not over. We must never forget, and never give up.

You wouldn't know the truth if it hijacked four planes with box cutters and flew them into a series of high profile buildings in the US.

piggyboy is just a little unknowledgeable twat. He doesn't have the mental capacity to debate me, and neither do you.

You're right. I don't have the mental capacity to debate you. I'm more than happy to admit that my mental capacity just isn't on the same level as yours.

Do yourself the honor of joining your sheep flock and leave the serious business to the real guys.

I see, serious business. So given that "the government" (whatever that means) carried out an "inside job" (whatever that means) with the help of the "shadow government" (whatever that means) that resulted in the death of thousands of US citizens and sparked off a couple of wars, what are you doing about it?

Well I mean apart from posting about it in absolute safety and relative anonymity on the internet as well as watching videos about it on Youtube, what are you doing against this invidious evil?

I haven't seen anything factual about the official story in this thread.

- The list with 19 terrorists is bogus
- There's no evidence of terrorists boarding planes
- There's no evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon
- There's no plausible explanation other than bombs as to why the towers went down the way they did, and as to why people heard explosions.

And this is why you're not being taken seriously by anyone. You have been provided with evidence of all of these things in this thread. Now you may think that the evidence is bogus, or planted. You may present counter evidence (and saying "watch three hours of amateur documentary making on Youtube" is not the same as presenting evidence) as to why your opponent is mistaken.

You haven't. When presented with evidence that conflicts with your delusion (and I think that's an accurate word by this stage) your response has been to completely ignore it and change the subject, thinking that we'll forget eventually and you can present the same bullshit again.

I'll help you one last time with your four best pieces of evidence as mentioned here:

- The list with 19 terrorists is bogus

No it is not. Copious evidence of the iden****** of the hijackers plus copious evidence linking them to the plot was presented at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.

- There's no evidence of terrorists boarding planes

Wrong. Given that the evidence of the identity and involvement of the hijackers was firmly established in the trial evidence given in the link above was correct, the flight manifests clearly show that the terrorists involved were on board the planes.

- There's no evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon

Wrong again. Not only is there eyewitness testimony of a plane hitting the Pentagon including a very clear testimony in which the plane was identified as a "silver passenger jet" and "an American Airlines jet", there was also a massive amount of debris located and photographed on site that was analogous to the components of a Boeing 757. Furthermore among the wreckage were human remains including relatively complete corpses that were identified from the manifests as passengers on board flight 77 along with a few personal effects of the passengers of that flight. There's the passengers who were on that flight who are no longer alive, that's sort of hard to fake. And in case that's not enough for you they found the flight data recorder in the wreckage!

All of this was submitted as evidence for the prosecution in the Moussaoui trial, which I have linked to for your convenience above. That's what evidence looks like.

- There's no plausible explanation other than bombs as to why the towers went down the way they did, and as to why people heard explosions.

Yes there are and I have painstakingly provided it over and over. If you want evidence of why the towers went down the way they did you can read the NIST report in its entirety.

You wanted scholars? Here they are, with their report, with their findings, with their reasons. You're welcome to go through the report and tell them specifically why they are wrong.

I'm guessing you won't learn a damn thing.

[squealpiggy]

Oh and you're a moron.

[BattlingNelson]

1. It has been reported that several of the names of the list were false.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

The article is made shortly after the attack, where the confusion was intense as to what the US might do next. However this mistaken identity was soon resolved and confirmed as can be read here:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Wa...still_alive%3F

2. No footage has been released depicting flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon - the most secure building in the world surely must have been able to catch some video footage of the incident

This has already been adressed by piggy. Surely you have read the replies coming your way?

3. Phone calls are easily faked.

Yeah but is this fake? It was overheard by plenty of people from the controltower to NORAD to American Airlines security offices. You would know if you had read the evidence presented for you as the interested scholar you are.

4. You will have to show me confirmation that the debris shown on pictures is from flight 77.

Again I believe this has been presented for you.

Some pics showing debris that can be identified:

5. Explosives were obviously planted in the WTC prior to planes crashing into them.

The explosion-like noises came from electrical installations most likely.

But why would 'they' plant explosives in the building in the towers in the first place?