9/11 Redux - Page 14 - Ajarn Forum

keeshou · 12th May 2008, 07:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

The ball is in your court. since you don't believe the "inside job" theory, it is your turn to support the government's theory.

What a joke. Is this the only response to criticism that works for CT?

"If you don't believe in God you must believe in the Devil", you must be able to see how shallow that statement is. Since I've never stated my preference for either you've got to realize that I'm not stuck in this two dimensional quagmire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

Go ahead, take the government's theory, post some links to support the government's theory, like Bin Laden being responsible for 911. both sides are theories at this point with circumstantial evidence, though like I posted for you before Scoop: UQ Wire: The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11 there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support it being an inside job.

This is what I've been saying, as soon as anyone doesn't agree with your assessment of the incident, it's automatic response is "the government's theory". When or where did I ever say I supported their theory, I've always stated that I'm interested in facts, but the CT theory isn't based on facts, it's based on doctrine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

I'm neither a supporter of any official story nor are you someone who is interested in questioning your beliefs or in finding the truth. If you were you wouldn't be interested in just one hypothesis and trying to find facts that only support that belief, but you'd be looking at the facts impartially and then finding theories based on the evidence.

This was my response to Larkinny on April 29th and since you made the following post, I'm surprised you missed it. Before you accuse me of taking an official line please show us a quote of mine that states that I support it.

Farangrakthai · 12th May 2008, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

If you were you wouldn't be interested in just one hypothesis and trying to find facts that only support that belief, but you'd be looking at the facts impartially and then finding theories based on the evidence.

what do you think are the facts and evidence regarding what happened on 9/11, that a theory should be based on? Come on Keeshou, you must think that some real things happened on that day and that's it's not just all too confusing to comprehend.

Take a stance for once, and say what you think the facts and evidence are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

the CT theory isn't based on facts, it's based on doctrine

both theories are CT, conspiracy theories, in a way, one a conspiracy by 15 highjackers with box cutters to attack America, obviously, planned ahead, if that were the case, so therefore a conspiracy, thus conspiracy theory that they did it.

--------------------

o.k. how about some eye witness reports of hearing bombs go off:

Quote:

9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC

[Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me.

"At that point, a debate began to rage because. . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point. The debate ended pretty quickly because 1 World Trade came down." [Christopher Fenyo - Firefighter ]

9/11 NBC News broadcast
[</B>wma download] "Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.

Two WTC impacts. Three explosions reported.

One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device - he thinks, he speculates - was probably planted in the building. ... But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."

"Luckily, we weren't caught between floors and were able to pry open the doors. People were going crazy, yelling and screaming. And all the time, I am crawling low and making my way in the dark with a flashlight to the staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind me. "I somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!' [Arctic Beacon ]

"...then somebody said that they saw an airliner go into one of those towers. Then, an hour later than that we had that big explosion from much, much lower down and I don't know what caused that." WMV video download (268kB)

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]

keeshou · 12th May 2008, 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

what do you think are the facts and evidence regarding what happened on 9/11, that a theory should be based on?

Fact 1: Two airplanes hit each of the two towers

Fact 2: Buildings were on fire

Fact 3: Buildings collapsed

Fact 4: a total of four airplanes with passengers on them, took off from airports and weren't seen again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

both theories are CT, conspiracy theories, in a way, one a conspiracy by 15 highjackers with box cutters to attack America, obviously, planned ahead, if that were the case, so therefore a conspiracy, thus conspiracy theory that they did it.

I'll say it again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

This is what I've been saying, as soon as anyone doesn't agree with your assessment of the incident, it's automatic response is "the government's theory". When or where did I ever say I supported their theory, I've always stated that I'm interested in facts, but the CT theory isn't based on facts, it's based on doctrine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

o.k. how about some eye witness reports of hearing bombs go off:

Eyewitnesses, now are called on what they hear?

I mean you have airplanes loaded with fuel crashing into buildings of incredible height and their integrity is being compromised (to the point where they collapse) and you are surprised that people heard explosions?

Have you ever burned a fresh pine tree? That will explode with the same power as a stick of dynamite if the fire gets hot enough.

This is going to be a vicious cycle isn't it? You are going to accuse me of supporting some government theory simply because I don't want to believe in your theory. I don't know who flew those planes into the WTC, but I still think that their impact on the building was at the very least the catalysts for what brought those buildings down. Who did it is speculation and why they did it is the same.

I feel safe in saying the sooner we get rid of George W Bush and his ilk the sooner we'll get to normalizing our relations with the rest of the world and maybe even finding out what happened. Until then I'll look at facts and hard evidence.

Farangrakthai · 12th May 2008, 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

I feel safe in saying the sooner we get rid of George W Bush and his ilk the sooner we'll get to normalizing our relations with the rest of the world and maybe even finding out what happened.

agreed

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

You are going to accuse me of supporting some government theory simply because I don't want to believe in your theory.

I wasn't accusing you,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

The ball is in your court. since you don't believe the "inside job" theory, it is your turn to support the government's theory. Who were the hijackers, name the 19 names, how they did it and who was behind them? stop sitting on the fence saying that all theories are full of shite. Let's debate this!! shall wait to see what you come up with.

I was just saying that regarding who did it, it's either an inside job or a bunch of guys with box cutters, right?.

and, if you don't think there is enough circumstantial evidence for you to think that it was an inside job, then you could explore the evidence to support the guys with boxcutters doing it.

And, it would be interesting to have a poster on this thread put some effort into supporting the theory that "the guys with boxcutters" did it. Then, after poking some holes, maybe we'd all be able to see which theory holds water, as it were. and you seemed like a good candidate to do this as you are always just poking holes into info that supports the "inside job" theory, rather than bringing up other info to support another theory.

rather than debating how the buildings fell, which is really, just a minor detail in the overall scheme of things of what really happened on 911. The following, that I posted before, I think provides pretty clear evidence of thermite not being tested for and these guys seem to know what they are talking about. though, never heard your response to it.

Quote:

From: The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008,
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal! | 911Blogger.com

CONCLUSIONS

We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Center. We agree that the Towers fell at near free-fall speed and that is an important starting point. We agree that several popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that the Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors “pancaked” to account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view of a fire-induced mechanism and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of explosives.3, 22, 27 Our investigative team would like to build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST investigation team, especially since they have candidly conceded (in a reply to some of us in September 2007):

“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”.25

We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner as a matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic duty. The lives of thousands of people may very well depend on it.

anyway, The who, why, and how the planes were flown into the world trade center and pentagon are more important, IMO

The following is the initial post of this thread which is what this thread was supposed to be about,

Quote:

Originally Posted by esoteric1

The part I've bolded in the quote below is what nags at me the most...wtf?! This is why we have two useless immoral wars going at the same time??!! Quote: It makes no sense to believe a man about one thing when he has told nothing but lies about everything else. What makes 911 different? As Dr. Hans Koechler points out, it has become 'politically correct dogma'. As Ronald Reagan's 'trickle down theory' and 'fundamentalist Christianity' has done for 'true believers', the 'official conspiracy theory of 911, relieves its 'true believers' of responsibility for their 'sins' and places it with a 'rag tag band' of 'evil terrorists'. The GOP's faith in the 911 orthodoxy has become a secular religion, akin to their unquestioned belief in Christianity, a faith --not a science --in which they are relieved of responsibility, forgiven all sins in exchange for merely believing a 'dogma' for which there is not a shred of logic or fact in support. The 'terrorists' have become Christ-like. They have borne America's collective guilt and died for our sins.

esoteric1 · 12th May 2008, 16:35

^ yeah, and I still don't get it........people will call Bush and his merry little band of neo-cons liars on everything else, but we must believe them about 9/11.

esoteric1 · 13th May 2008, 18:54

Imagine that!

U.S. Drops Charges Against "20th Hijacker", Pentagon Won't Try Mohammed al-Qahtani, Who Was Allegedly Involved In Sept. 11 Plot - CBS News

DontTaserMeDude · 18th May 2008, 12:44

What baffles me is that everybody dwells on the WTC and the anthrax attacks are seldom mentioned. I think this is a very imprrtant clue into who did it.

esoteric1 · 18th May 2008, 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontTaserMeDude

the anthrax attacks are seldom mentioned

coverage of that went away very quietly didn't it?

(when it was discovered the anthrax came from a US lab...or source)

Larkinny · 19th May 2008, 06:38

Keeshou, I still don't see you answering my question:

Don't you, who lost a loved one, feel bitter at the authorities who deliberately conducted a sham investigation, a cover up? Don't you feel you've been cheated?

keeshou · 19th May 2008, 08:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

Don't you, who lost a loved one, feel bitter at the authorities who deliberately conducted a sham investigation, a cover up? Don't you feel you've been cheated?

What makes you so sure there was a deliberate, cover-up? Other than you don't agree with their results?

Larkinny · 20th May 2008, 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

What makes you so sure there was a deliberate, cover-up? Other than you don't agree with their results?

Failure to address the collapse of WTC 7.

No follow up into what the Mineta Testimony revealed.

No investigation into the concurrent war games, which likely confused the air defenses.

For a complete expose see The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie