All this false flag terrorism?

[jsut_peopel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Walter

He offers a reward if you can find or spot the plane which hit the Pentagon.

Instead of paying taxpayers money wasting yout time on this site arguing the neo-con line, go to his web site see if you can find the plane and hey presto you might get $1million.

I looked over his challenge. He said that every detail of the challenge must be addressed, otherwise the whole argument falls apart. Take a look at detail #10:

10) In the this video the fireman describes how was EVERYTHING reduced to dust, everything. Not even standard controlled demolitions do that as building 7 showed. No building collapse has ever done that. Explain and document.

Aside from the fact that it is extremely amateurish of him to preach the "Gospel of Troof" while outlining the challenge rules, notice that it is a requirement that the challenger explain how something that DIDN'T HAPPEN, happened. That right there would prevent anyone from winning.

Also, winning relies on the judgement of a panel that both parties agree on. Any chance that both parties would agree on a panel that wouldn't guarantee this delusional idiot will hang onto his million pesos?

Although your conspiracy theories rely on the principle that one must accept illogicality. Why then can one not create a quiz following that same logic? You seem to judge people from standards you do not wish to make about your judgements.

Spending more time and effort trying to win the prize instead of 'explaining' how 9/11 wasn't an Inside Job may be a more productive way to spend time. Otherwise you are wasting everybodys time including your own unless of course you are paid to defend 9/11...

I 'm still waiting for someone to prove it *was* an inside job.

[aggle-rithm]

Although your conspiracy theories rely on the principle that one must accept illogicality.

So you claim. Do you care to offer any support for this statement?

Why then can one not create a quiz following that same logic?

Since you haven't demonstrated that your first statement is valid, then neither is the question.

You seem to judge people from standards you do not wish to make about your judgements.

I try to make sure my arguments are supported by evidence and are logically sound. I expect the same from others who claim they are engaging in honest debate.. If they instead wish to engage in idle speculation, then fine, but they shouldn't claim they're doing otherwise.

Spending more time and effort trying to win the prize instead of 'explaining' how 9/11 wasn't an Inside Job may be a more productive way to spend time. Otherwise you are wasting everybodys time including your own unless of course you are paid to defend 9/11...

I wish! That would be a sweet gig.

[conspiracy analyst]

have a strong european tradition.
They teach us not to believe in fairy tales or alice in wonderland style stories.

An adult who has left home for more decades than when he was there to believe the tv has substituted his mothers stories about Santa in the belief that adults will believe anything and need to spend endless hours explaining or having explained to them the millions of contradictions from 9/11 or 7/7 is either on a payroll or an imbecile.

I only go from what officials state and even they reveal the truth.

When Bush handed the 9/11 Commision the job of explaining it to the public and gave it to Kissinger the whole world laughed.

When a new clown was appointed here is what he said...

Phillip Zelikow, Executive Director of the 9/11 Whitewash Commision, made a bald admission in a 2004 interview. From University of Virginia Alumni News, Winter 2004:

"The witnesses all had their own truths. . .. People who eventually will go through our archives will find all kinds of divergent accounts and differences in tone. One of the things that that will be hardest for historians later to recapture when they go back through the archives is to figure out exactly how we pieced some of these together, because they'll hear all these jarring and outlying accounts and see so many odd documents.


I presume he is as dumb as Bush, or what was it a previous poster said.

I only accept what I want from Bush.

A clown who believes in official fairy tales doesn't stop being a clown if he thinks he bases his argument on 'evidence'...

[Anti-sophist]

A clown who believes in official fairy tales doesn't stop being a clown if he thinks he bases his argument on 'evidence'...

Yea, but he's one step ahead of the clown who doesn't.

[conspiracy analyst]

[

Yea, but he's one step ahead of the clown who doesn't.

As long as you regard yourself in your own words as a clown who is ahead of others or leader of the pack, im happy with that...

[Anti-sophist]

As long as you regard yourself in your own words as a clown who is ahead of others or leader of the pack, im happy with that...

All other things being equal, I'd rather be the clown who bases his ideas on the evidence, rather than the clown who doesn't. I think my statement was pretty clear. Taking your abstract aphorism and trying to qualify it with the things you really want to say is pretty amateur.

[conspiracy analyst]

All other things being equal, I'd rather be the clown who bases his ideas on the evidence, rather than the clown who doesn't. I think my statement was pretty clear. Taking your abstract aphorism and trying to qualify it with the things you really want to say is pretty amateur.

Turning a neocon mythological tale into 'evidence' only a man steeped in the arts of myths like Zelikows cv states hes master of doesn't absolve you of providing evidence. Indeed it only highlights you are against it in the most brutal way. Wanting to be clown only reaffirms your clownish ideas, nothing more nothing less.

[aggle-rithm]

Turning a neocon mythological tale into 'evidence' only a man steeped in the arts of myths like Zelikows cv states hes master of doesn't absolve you of providing evidence. Indeed it only highlights you are against it in the most brutal way. Wanting to be clown only reaffirms your clownish ideas, nothing more nothing less.

Besides the Wikopedia article, do you have any evidence that Zelikow is "steeped in the arts of myths"?

[Anti-sophist]

All other things being equal, I'd rather be the clown who bases his ideas on the evidence, rather than the clown who doesn't. I think my statement was pretty clear. Taking your abstract aphorism and trying to qualify it with the things you really want to say is pretty amateur.

Turning a neocon mythological tale into 'evidence' only a man steeped in the arts of myths like Zelikows cv states hes master of doesn't absolve you of providing evidence. Indeed it only highlights you are against it in the most brutal way. Wanting to be clown only reaffirms your clownish ideas, nothing more nothing less.

Many words, little said.

[conspiracy analyst]

Turning a neocon mythological tale into 'evidence' only a man steeped in the arts of myths like Zelikows cv states hes master of doesn't absolve you of providing evidence. Indeed it only highlights you are against it in the most brutal way. Wanting to be clown only reaffirms your clownish ideas, nothing more nothing less.

Besides the Wikopedia article, do you have any evidence that Zelikow is "steeped in the arts of myths"?

The quote about the contradictory evidence of the 9/11 Whitewash Commission is the best so far.
It is in the tradition of the Bush statement on 9/11.

When they drop the two muppets over the disastrous war where will all the neo-con supporters go?

That's gonna be my worry. As I wont have enough clowns left to argue with.

Maybe i'll have to pop down to the Chinese circus or chat to anti-sophist...

Heres a site on evidence...

http://justanotherblowback.blogspot.com ... -need.html

[Anti-sophist]

JUST PEOPEL....

I 'm still waiting for someone to prove it *was* an inside job.

...Hell... I'm waiting for you to prove it wasn't?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[Dogsmilk]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Your standards of proof should remain consistent whatever the claim to try to avoid dogma and prejudice, surely?

[conspiracy analyst]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

A lapdancing clubber with pen knives hijacked planes but in reality was a hardcore islamist.

Ridiculous claims require no proof.

[Ignatz]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Your standards of proof should remain consistent whatever the claim to try to avoid dogma and prejudice, surely?

Not quite. I make 2 claims:
1. It rained on the way to work yesterday
2. I was then abducted by aliens and taken to the dark side of the moon

The first requires so little proof it's barely worth disputing, the second requires very rigorous proof indeed.

[Dogsmilk]

Not quite. I make 2 claims:
1. It rained on the way to work yesterday
2. I was then abducted by aliens and taken to the dark side of the moon

The first requires so little proof it's barely worth disputing, the second requires very rigorous proof indeed.

Because the latter claim would be regarded as remarkable and outside the mundane, it would appear surprising and thus would lead to demands for rigorous proof from the listener.
However, the standards by which you choose to prove or disprove any claim should not change with any event or else you are irrevocably led to a position whereby you practice differing standards of logic, science and reasoning depending on whether you believe an event to be likely or not.
The fact that rain is regarded as common and alien abduction (for most) not has no bearing on the possibility you could actually have just lost your s!ht and been hallucinating the rain. We just tend not to try to evidence every 'normal' claim because it's impractical to everyday life.

If you regard yourself as a critical thinker, I'd assert you should take the sceptical position - i.e. you neither believe nor disbelieve a claim until you feel you have overwhelming evidence either way. Otherwise, you make your own little world resistant to new and challenging ideas.
Critics here tend to feel they have overwhelming evidence to back up the official account of 911 - fair enough - but are you seriously suggesting to prove the CT true would require a 'higher' standard of evidence than any other claim? Why would that be so?

For all I know, you were abducted by aliens yesterday. I admit, I'd tend to disbelieve you, but that's just my prejudice. It's what you critics tend to classify as starting with your conclusion and working backwards, so really I should get a scolding off you for being so presumptuous.

[jsut_peopel]

JUST PEOPEL....

I 'm still waiting for someone to prove it *was* an inside job.

...Hell... I'm waiting for you to prove it wasn't? :?

[/quote]

Well now. To paraphrase Jon Stewart when he was talking about a similar type of request...

"We can't convict this man of murder, despite all of the evidence, DNA, fingerprint, trace evidence, witnesses, motive, because we haven't proven that none of the other 296,000,000 Americans didn't do it."

I think you can see the problem with your reply to me just from that example.

Refer to.. http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4937

That's where you liken me to a peadophile right?

[conspiracy analyst]

"We can't convict this man of murder, despite all of the evidence, DNA, fingerprint, trace evidence, witnesses, motive, because we haven't proven that none of the other 296,000,000 Americans didn't do it."

Evidence... no black boxes,
no airport CCTV, just a photoshop job,
intact passports and forgotten hand luggage,
no motive, as being islamic isn't one or visiting lapdancing clubs either,

no proof in any court on earth would give the case a beyond reasonable doubt hearing as you haven't proven any of the other 800 million arabs didn't do it...

PS

Where is anti-sophist? Collapsing under the weight of his own contradictions...

[jsut_peopel]

"We can't convict this man of murder, despite all of the evidence, DNA, fingerprint, trace evidence, witnesses, motive, because we haven't proven that none of the other 296,000,000 Americans didn't do it."

Evidence...

uh huh

no black boxes,

umm...that's not evidence.

no airport CCTV, just a photoshop job,

umm, assertion without proof

intact passports and forgotten hand luggage,

umm...argument from incredulity

no motive, as being islamic isn't one or visiting lapdancing clubs either,

umm...strawman

no proof in any court on earth would give the case a beyond reasonable doubt hearing as you haven't proven any of the other 800 million arabs didn't do it...

umm...yeah you're right you would be laughed out of court if you offered your "evidence."

You're either trying to be funny or you just don't get the point I was trying to make. It doesn't bother me much either way.

PS

Where is anti-sophist? Collapsing under the weight of his own contradictions...

umm...what?

[aggle-rithm]

Where is anti-sophist? Collapsing under the weight of his own contradictions...

I don't see how that's possible, so there must have been explosives involved.

[Anti-sophist]

Evidence... no black boxes,
no airport CCTV, just a photoshop job,
intact passports and forgotten hand luggage,
no motive, as being islamic isn't one or visiting lapdancing clubs either,

Where is anti-sophist? Collapsing under the weight of his own contradictions...

I'm right here. I respond to claims of evidence. That's how science works. People who are making things up as they go to satisfy their own psychological needs don't really interest me.

If you have some evidence of a coverup, I'm willing to look at it. Watching you ramble on page after page talking nonsense without supporting evidence isn't very fun. Debunking religious belief isn't really possible.

PS. Black boxes were recovered.

[conspiracy analyst]

I'm right here. I respond to claims of evidence. That's how science works. People who are making things up as they go to satisfy their own psychological needs don't really interest me.

If you have some evidence of a coverup, I'm willing to look at it. Watching you ramble on page after page talking nonsense without supporting evidence isn't very fun. Debunking religious belief isn't really possible.

PS. Black boxes were recovered.

So what was in them where are the transcripts?
Cos when we looked for the passenger manifests arab names aren't on them. Maybe they checked in under different names or they were omitted as they weren't there.

I forgot a paper passport was recovered as well intact after the twin towers collapsed. Maybe Houding sealed it in one of those black boxes.

Despite the fact, not assertion, but fact some of the alleged hijackers are alive and well and still breathing. But then again who needs facts when you have myths, as they get in the way of facts...

If Bushit was an art, you would have the ultimate prize.

[conspiracy analyst]

Where is anti-sophist? Collapsing under the weight of his own contradictions...

I don't see how that's possible, so there must have been explosives involved.

If I didn't plant them and he did it qualifies for an inside job...

[chipmunk stew]

Cos when we looked for the passenger manifests arab names aren't on them. Maybe they checked in under different names or they were omitted as they weren't there.

*sigh* I can't believe this lie is still being bandied about.

Despite the fact, not assertion, but fact some of the alleged hijackers are alive and well and still breathing.

This ought to be easy to demonstrate, then. Where are these men now?

[Anti-sophist]

You should just set up a script to auto-post that every month. That's about the frequency another CTer claims that the manifests didn't have any arab names on it.

The "hijackers are still alive" is so utterly easy to debunk that most CTers have abandoned it already.

I'm amazed you are sticking with the 2002 playbook. You need to get up to day.

[conspiracy analyst]

You should just set up a script to auto-post that every month. That's about the frequency another CTer claims that the manifests didn't have any arab names on it.

The "hijackers are still alive" is so utterly easy to debunk that most CTers have abandoned it already.

I'm amazed you are sticking with the 2002 playbook. You need to get up to day.

The lists were produced years after the event? Is that not so?

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evid ... ngers.html

The government didn't produce them. People highlighted the inconsistnecy which the neo-cons ignored and then they came up with this nonsense.

Out of the names only limited amounts applied for compensation.

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-09- ... gi.36.html

Another contradiction...

[Bushwacker]

No, the lists with no Arab names were lists of victims, so did not include the terrorists. Why is that so difficult to understand?

[conspiracy analyst]

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evid ... boxes.html

According to this report they weren't all found and they were found when precisely?

As what is happening here is when information is released regarding 9/11.

Years after the event...

Like the picture of the non-existant flight which hit the Pentagon. A couple of months back they produced a report even on Newsnight of recenlty released footage which didn't show ...anything new.

One piece of released 'evidence' has to be corroborated with other bits of information.

[conspiracy analyst]

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/evidence.html

As can clearly be seen, if 'evidence' is released years AFTER an event of such magnitude took place then it isn't released evidence, but trying to bow to public pressure.

Guess what. The more 'evidence' the US government releases the less believable it is.

I wonder why?

[pepik]

Why don't you show us a passenger manifest which doesn't have the names on it then.

Because this is your standard - when we show you a document, you reject it as a conspiracy. When we ask you to show us a document, you show us nothing but consider the mere fact that conspiracy websites claim such a document exists is rock solid evidence.