US airports had warnings of 9/11
- Thread starter Barking_Mad
- Start date
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I can see why it's impossible for moderators to separate rational discussion of this topic from flakoid conspiracy theory. It's kind of a pity we can't have a discussion based on evidence of good provenance rather than nutcase sites.
editor
hiraethified
But that's the problem. Whenever the topic is brought up, it's almost always by the same handful of obsessed conspiraloon posters who are endlessly regurgitating their repeated revelations from the same dodgy websites.Bernie Gunther said:
And yes, they invariably have a UFO in there somewhere as well as the usual pile of books to flog.
The truth is that it is the conspiracy nuts who prevent any hope of a rational debate on the issue here.
Well to be honest, that was the first time I'd ever mentioned anything sinister, and (as I said earlier), it was purely for dramatic effect. So "Keep" isn't entirely apt now is it.
However... I have a feeling that if you examined all the various conspiracy theories that do (or don't) get instantly attacked, some sort of mysterious pattern would emerge.
Which isn't to say that NOT attacking something is entirely without relevence. After all, silence sometimes speaks louder than words, depending on the loudness of the words and the like, silence of the silence... and it's all too easy to mistake silence for like... absence. Just because someone hasn't said something doesn't mean they're standing there drumming their fingers. They may have just gone down the shops. Or moved to Swindon.
That said, everything interlocks neatly. More or less.
personally, i find rational debate on it hampered by both sides fairly equally; and i think one reason most of the posters on these subjects are "conspiracy nuts" or whatever is that when other folk post opinions that sway slightly that way, folk jump in and accuse them of believing in lizards and being nuts, so they get scared off and leave this subject to the folk who normally post on them.editor said:
editor said:
That sounds a tad like a "conspiraloon" theory to me editor.
Surely. if the twin collapse was as "catastrophic" as you claim, then how was it that buildings 5 and 6, standing even closer to the collapse and building 4, standing about the same distance away from the collapse as building 7, all remained standing, any idea?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I understand that, but is there any way to filter it I wonder? I do understand where you are coming from, but I wonder if it would be possible to insist on evidence of good provenance and allow rational discussion somehow. It might involve significant effort on the part of the moderators, but might be judged to be worth it to defuse the ill-feeling that has been cooking for a couple of years here around this issue.editor said:
This is one of the least censored boards on the 'net, but you do get accused of all kinds of stuff due to the angry emotions 911 discussions generate here.
It's like that game with the three poles and the different sized disks isn't it? You've got to move them all from one to the other without a bigger one being on a smaller one.
In answer to the question however - if you've ever been in a serious car crash you will have encountered the miracle of broken glass. For months afterwards you find it in incredibly random places - where you'd already cleaned, or never thought to look. Miles away. In a pocket. In the boot. It's a law unto itself.
Accidents are incredibly random things. They don't obey the laws of physics.
Not without filtering people.
Rightly or wrongly (and with regards 9/11 and u75, I don't feel terribly strongly, I'm just having a larf - but u75 does to a degree stand as a microcosm etc) (on with the original sentence) the idea of "conspiracy" is now a useful tool for stifling debate. Sometimes, it's a pain in the arse and needs to be - the tabloidesqueness of public curiosity will breathe life into this exciting gossip one way or another forever - or until the next one comes along. Elvis isn't dead yet, and hasn't been for at least 25 years. Give me a fucking break. When's the poor guy going to die of old age?
That said, if Watergate happened today, it isn't inconceivable that the story could be killed as being a conspiracy theory.
RE: 9/11 - there's such a blitz of conspiracy theories and random gossop surrounding this that I think it would be almost impossible to get any credible conversation or conclusion out of it.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Well, I'm reminded of something I read about a few years ago. Back in the 80's the US was developing the stealth fighter in the deep black. They were testing it at a remote airbase in New Mexico/Nevada. Nearest town was a place called Roswell. Oddly enough, that was when those "alien dissection" videos showed up and turned Roswell and Area 51 (of the base in question) into bywords for conspiracy nutter beliefs. Meanwhile, guess what happened to any reports of funny looking aircraft that didn't show up on radar sets?
I think conspiracy theory is the perfect camoflage for actual conspiracies.
But it does not logically follow that the presence of any conspiracy theory implies an actual conspiracy that it's covering up. That's the beauty of it
I think conspiracy theory is the perfect camoflage for actual conspiracies.
But it does not logically follow that the presence of any conspiracy theory implies an actual conspiracy that it's covering up. That's the beauty of it
nick1181 said:
All physical objects obey the laws of physics, not withstanding what you say about the randomness of accidents. The editor speculates that the twin tower collapses were so catastrophically forceful that they actually contributed to the collapse of building 7 too. So why didn't they also bring down building 4 standing about the same height and distance away from the towers as building 7?
i'd tend to agree with most said in the last 2 posts(sorry, 71 and 72, not 73). i can remember folk saying how the conspiracy-like stuff in the x-files (as opposed to the more weird/alien stuff) couldn't exist cos then they'd stop it getting shown, but the truth is i reckon stuff like that help classify loads of stuff as "conspiracy" and get it disregarded by folk irrespective of how realistic it is.
editor
hiraethified
I give up. Do you think the topography, the underground tunnels, the consistency of the concrete foundations, the explosive forces released by both collapses and all the zillion other random factors were all absolutely identical, equal and consistent for the entire area like some sort of test lab surface?bigfish said:
No, don't bother answering that. Why don't you say what you (shhhhh!) think really happened instead (if it's not already been repeated endlessly in the bin)?
Bernie, you're an intelligent guy, and wise enough to realise that the $billions the CIA and other US intelligence services have in their yearly budgets to spend on psychological and covert operations probably doesn't get spent on feeding the pigeons.Bernie Gunther said:
What is it that constitutes 'rational' discussion of such topics such as 9-11, against that which is not? The thing is, both sides will be claiming that their viewpoint is perfectly rational and based on their analysis of the available evidence, and (well in this poster's instance) inferences drawn by the evidence which appears to be not there when it should be.
In my experience, the boundary is this one - it's whether one can consider such monstrous and horrendous effrontery as a possibility a priori. And few do. Arguments against say, 9-11 MIHOP, are rarely of the form "the available evidence does not conform with MIHOP theory"; they tend to be of the form "MIHOP is simply looney tunes nonsense" (IMO, a dangerous assumption); "the available evidence does conform with the official theory" (worthy, but not disproving MIHOP even when valid); and fallacious devices such as appeals to authority and popularity.
cynical_bastard
Mass Bowel Movement
Picture 1. Editor.
Picture 2. Editor turning invisible and shapeshifting into lizard.
Picture 3. Lizard.
How can you argue with proof like this
This is one of the best summaries of the evidence the vast majority of which is sourced and taken from 'credible' mainstream news sources. News sources which have strangely developed collective amnesia since voicing their initial doubts of the official version
It has been posted here before and its logic and accuracy has never been discredited. But after numerous attempts to engage in evidence based debate I'm not holding my breathe that the Editor and co will even be arsed to read it. Why bother when it's so much easier to derail a thread with diversions and insults.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html
It has been posted here before and its logic and accuracy has never been discredited. But after numerous attempts to engage in evidence based debate I'm not holding my breathe that the Editor and co will even be arsed to read it. Why bother when it's so much easier to derail a thread with diversions and insults.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html
editor
hiraethified
So why post it here again?sparticus said:
Oh, the way that bulletin boards work is that you offer up an intelligent argument yourself not just slap up a link to a self styled "leading British political scientist" (whom I've never heard of) and then expect people to trawl through the information.
Here's a question for you: seeing as you are clearly so sure that there's an evil conspiracy afoot, why is it do you think barely a soul seems to agree with you and that your 'UK premieres' of a film 'exposing' this conspiracy attracted a laughable six people?
Is it because we're all - unlike you - too stupid to see the truth, do you think?
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
(re: ad hominems)editor said:
Yes...playing to the crowd as opposed to presenting evidence or 'arguing logically' (remember that phrase as I go on). As you have been doing since the start of this thread by refusing to allow it to go back onto the original topic which was a BBC news item which talked about numerous intelligence reports of al-qaida, an increasing concern over security procedures at airports and other relevant matters concerning the intelligence community.
It partly addresses concerns that the Bush administration buried the report till after the election....and many relatives of the dead (and some Democrats) are wanting a wider investigation into it.
Your reply to this was to ignore the original post (in its entirity) and instead allow the sidetracking of the thread and then start asking 'do you believe in UFOs?'
When TomUS addressed the original topic (post 11) you retorted with a subject change to.....modern steel frames and skyscraper integrity. That is...you dragged another thread into this one instead of, again, addressing the subject.
When I asked you (post 15) what you thought of the original thread topic you
gave a short answer saying it wasn't the US's fault because they get 'lots of non specific vague threats' which probably means you didn't read the BBC link, eh?
Then what is your next post (21)?....you drag it back to an argument about burning skyscrapers. And allow others to totally distract from the original and highly reasonable and debatable subject....intelligence failures.
And so it goes on. Original topic buried, everyone talking about holograms, lizards and conspiraloons, demands for the binning of the thread (more accurately, demands for the binning of the derailed thread as no-one is talking about the thread)......job well done by the editor and friends. The same editor who is still arguing about 'an evil conspiracy' when the thread was really about US intelligence failures.
You probably don't work for the CIA...but I bet you sleep in a big stars and stripes blanket.
I now tap my feet and wait till I get called a conspiraloon (or any other conveniently dismissive label). Maybe I will turn out to be ....French.
Here's a question for you: seeing as you are clearly so sure that there's an evil conspiracy afoot, why is it do you think barely a soul seems to agree with you and that your 'UK premieres' of a film 'exposing' this conspiracy attracted a laughable six people?
Is it because we're all - unlike you - too stupid to see the truth, do you think?
Quote
This would be an example of diversion. I have answered this question many times. Clearly you liked the answer so much you want me to repeat it. I won't because it diverts discussion away from the evidence.
On the previous occasion I posted this link I did just as you suggest. Picking out specific evidence from mainstream sources that raises real questions about the official account. I'm sure you remember the thread because endlessly asked me what the fuck LIHOP and MIHOP meant.
You never showed that you ever read the evidence, You just divert and insult. Your tactics are so transparent, unlike your motives (other than supposedly defending u75 from conspiraloons like some type of Stalinist thoughtpolice)
Is it because we're all - unlike you - too stupid to see the truth, do you think?
Quote
This would be an example of diversion. I have answered this question many times. Clearly you liked the answer so much you want me to repeat it. I won't because it diverts discussion away from the evidence.
On the previous occasion I posted this link I did just as you suggest. Picking out specific evidence from mainstream sources that raises real questions about the official account. I'm sure you remember the thread because endlessly asked me what the fuck LIHOP and MIHOP meant.
You never showed that you ever read the evidence, You just divert and insult. Your tactics are so transparent, unlike your motives (other than supposedly defending u75 from conspiraloons like some type of Stalinist thoughtpolice)
editor said:
What I think is that the WTC site was an integrated construction build. That means the whole site was erected according to a strict set of building codes and regulations designed specifically to ensure the structural integrity of the entire complex. In line with NYC building regulations, all the buildings must have been built to withstand an earthquake up to a certain magnitude and therefore, your idea that two shock waves radiated through the ground and caused a catastrophic structural failure to occur in building 7 but not in buildings 4, 5 and 6, is completely beyond belief. So much so in fact that even the FEMA report on building 7 does not consider it a likely contributing factor in its collapse (see bin for details).
editor
hiraethified
And of course, the building was built to absolute perfection and there was not a single molecule of sloppy workmanship or cost cutting in the entire site because in the 1970s the art of constructing the tallest buildings in the world was infallible and workmen and construction companies always aimed for total perfection. Have I got that right?bigfish said:
And, naturally, the towers were built to withstand a crash from an aircraft that hadn't even been invented yet in the kind of suicide attack that would have been considered unthinkable at the time.
And so it follows that the builders would have used their crystal balls to foretell the effects on their building if the tallest buildings in the world crashed to the ground right next to them and strengthened them accordingly, just in case. Have I got that right too?
But do tell: what do you think really happened?
Similar threads
- Locked
