Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Created by djhixx on Oct 13, 2007

55,132 votes

Click on an option to vote

yes

no

well, im not sure

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#255303 Apr 30, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>Yea, Don't know if you ever listen to the podcast Skeptoid but it's short and entertaining, they have had them on the truth movement.

I thought this was interesting.

First of all, the phrase "official story" has become problematic. All it really refers to is the generally accepted explanation or definition. For example, the "official story" is that the human body has 206 bones. The "official story" is that an atom of radon contains 86 protons. The "official story" is that Hiroshima was destroyed by the Little Boy atomic bomb in 1945. Just by referring to any observation or result as the "official story", it makes it seem to be shrouded in doubt or tainted by political corruption. Thus, virtually all web sites promoting an alternative version of the September 11 attacks will start by dismissing all observations and evidence as the "official story". In this sense, "official story" is what we call a weasel word; terminology intended to communicate something other than what the words actually mean. In the strict sense, the official story is the one that's most authoritative and best supported; but in common usage, it's only employed when the intent is to cast doubt.

And casting doubt seems to be the strongest reason to believe that it was a missile and not an airliner. There are mountains of evidence confirming what so many people witnessed on that day, evidence that's all rock solid and that has no real flaws. This is the case with a lot of conspiracy theories, yet it never detracts from the popularity of the conspiracy theory. It's not possible in one show to cover all the many objections raised to the official story, but we will look at a handful that are representative of the whole. With the exception of a couple claims that are simply factually wrong, each specific objection is based simply on the possibility that some observation might be consistent with an alternate version of events. Unfortunately, "consistent with" is not "evidence of".

------

AND THEN it led to what we see here, any theory goes as long as the "offical story" is ruled out. All evidence supporting the offical story is planted or the strawman "Do you believe everything you are told?" is used.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4354
I've read the website but haven't listened to any of the podcasts. I'll have to catch a few and check it out.

They make excellent points though and looking at twoof and posts these guys makes with a logic filter is quite interesting and almost turns into a game of how many fallacies can you spot.

Of course twoof has exhausted a great deal of time and energy trying equivocate the term "official story" with "lie" so the intellectually lazy can simply say, "that's the official story" in regards to any evidence that doesn't support them as a form of semantic shift that lets their ideological brethren know to instantly dismiss said evidence.
oh the irony

Charleston, WV

#255305 Apr 30, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read the website but haven't listened to any of the podcasts. I'll have to catch a few and check it out.
They make excellent points though and looking at twoof and posts these guys makes with a logic filter is quite interesting and almost turns into a game of how many fallacies can you spot.
Of course twoof has exhausted a great deal of time and energy trying equivocate the term "official story" with "lie" so the intellectually lazy can simply say, "that's the official story" in regards to any evidence that doesn't support them as a form of semantic shift that lets their ideological brethren know to instantly dismiss said evidence.
the same can be said of the term "conspiracy theory" which implies that it is a fallacy when in fact it is the truth. This is how the promoters of the "official story" try to discredit the truth movement by calling it a "conspiracy". Delicious irony, eh canadian?
oh the irony

Charleston, WV

#255306 Apr 30, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
AND THEN it led to what we see here, any theory goes as long as the "offical story" is ruled out. All evidence supporting the offical story is planted or the strawman "Do you believe everything you are told?" is used.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4354
so you believe everything you are told of the official story? No doubt whatsoever? It is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, eh shillboy?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255307 Apr 30, 2013
oh the irony wrote:
<quoted text>
so you believe everything you are told of the official story? No doubt whatsoever? It is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, eh shillboy?
The official story is based upon facts and evidence unlike the Twoofer shill nonsense you present.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#255308 Apr 30, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, Don't know if you ever listen to the podcast Skeptoid but it's short and entertaining, they have had them on the truth movement.
I thought this was interesting.
First of all, the phrase "official story" has become problematic. All it really refers to is the generally accepted explanation or definition. For example, the "official story" is that the human body has 206 bones. The "official story" is that an atom of radon contains 86 protons. The "official story" is that Hiroshima was destroyed by the Little Boy atomic bomb in 1945. Just by referring to any observation or result as the "official story", it makes it seem to be shrouded in doubt or tainted by political corruption. Thus, virtually all web sites promoting an alternative version of the September 11 attacks will start by dismissing all observations and evidence as the "official story". In this sense, "official story" is what we call a weasel word; terminology intended to communicate something other than what the words actually mean. In the strict sense, the official story is the one that's most authoritative and best supported; but in common usage, it's only employed when the intent is to cast doubt.
And casting doubt seems to be the strongest reason to believe that it was a missile and not an airliner. There are mountains of evidence confirming what so many people witnessed on that day, evidence that's all rock solid and that has no real flaws. This is the case with a lot of conspiracy theories, yet it never detracts from the popularity of the conspiracy theory. It's not possible in one show to cover all the many objections raised to the official story, but we will look at a handful that are representative of the whole. With the exception of a couple claims that are simply factually wrong, each specific objection is based simply on the possibility that some observation might be consistent with an alternate version of events. Unfortunately, "consistent with" is not "evidence of".
------
AND THEN it led to what we see here, any theory goes as long as the "offical story" is ruled out. All evidence supporting the offical story is planted or the strawman "Do you believe everything you are told?" is used.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4354
Indeed!

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255309 Apr 30, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow!
So your more plausible explanation includes an unheard of degree of precision resulting in the pin point accuracy of a plane hitting a building in exactly the right spot going exactly the right speed at exactly the right attitude and angle to cause predictable damage to the building it hit as well as WTC 7...but miss these alleged "brilliantly placed explosives".
And the explosives in the towers delayed exploding about an hour each for the towers and 8 hours for WTC 7.
The explosives leave no audible or visual traces.
That's more plausible to you than impact>fire>creep/deform ation>structural failure>collapse.
Hmmm....


Actually the post your referring to does not state what I think happened to the towers . It doesn't make a bit of difference what I think. It only gives another probable cause that should've been included in the investigations , if only for the sole purpose of ruling it out. An incomplete report does not necessarily provide the best solution , just a possible one.

The official story is much more plausible than what I wrote earlier. Plausibility is used to deceive perception .

Grammatical comprehension would be the reason for my post . Obviously , not a strong point for some people posting on this thread.. I figured you would understand by the way it was said.


onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#255310 May 1, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a link to Olsens clone wife in the hive, Infowars or Worldnet?
You are the one who mentioned "clone" not me.
onemale

Tower Hill, IL

#255311 May 1, 2013
I do NOT claim to be a physicist... this comes from people who are.
Although, like usual some idiot on here will dispute the experts.

MATHEMATICS OF 9/11: THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/po...

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#255312 May 1, 2013
oh the irony wrote:
<quoted text>the same can be said of the term "conspiracy theory" which implies that it is a fallacy when in fact it is the truth. This is how the promoters of the "official story" try to discredit the truth movement by calling it a "conspiracy". Delicious irony, eh canadian?
No elevator boy-sheep 20 pilots STREET CORNER JEEBUS, twoofers discredit themselves because they believe in idiotic crap like "dustification".

If all rationalists suddenly went silent, you'd still be an idiot.

You're welcome!
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255313 May 1, 2013
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one who mentioned "clone" not me.
OK, Is do you know which hive the one with the extreme makeover inhabits?
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255314 May 1, 2013
onemale wrote:
I do NOT claim to be a physicist... this comes from people who are.
Did you ever find any proof of your claim every square inch of the Pentagon is filmed.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255315 May 1, 2013
oh the irony wrote:
<quoted text>
the same can be said of the term "conspiracy theory" which implies that it is a fallacy when in fact it is the truth. This is how the promoters of the "official story" try to discredit the truth movement by calling it a "conspiracy". Delicious irony, eh canadian?
Naw, It implies a theory, now to make it a probable theory one just needs evidence of occurrence. We will be waiting.....

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255316 May 1, 2013
Charlie Sheen wrote:
<quoted text>
As one in the legal field you could not be more wrong, what the heck would A and B even be, at most you start with A, the evidence and see where it leads you, you don't assume that the answer is C or anything else.
Being in the legal field you of all people should know , the answer "c" (the crime) is where any investigation starts. Without "c" there wouldn't be anything to investigate. I'm assuming you're a cop because your investigative technique starts with "at most" the evidence . Funny how most police officers don't even know the actual laws much less the meaning of these laws.

Were you the little nerdy kid that had to give up his lunch money every day so you didn't get beat up? Get over it! A badge doesn't give anyone the right to make up there own laws , judicially, scientifically, or socially. Most cops don't care if you are guilty or innocent , They just want to provide a suspect to charge , convict (by withholding evidence, forced confession or whatever it takes to gain conviction) and incarcerate. If your not an officer of law you must be an attorney , this species has proven to be ignorant of the solution process. Driven by money and the need to show a winning record attorneys do not hesitate to throw a less fortunate "client" under the bus if another wealthier client could be exonerated . Example OJ Simpson, Cullen Davis, George Bush,Dick Chaney , Donald Rumsfield, etc.

Please provide a link stating how Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussien, Afghanistan, or any other country invaded by the U.S. government was directly involved in the 911 tragedies. Show where Osama bi laden was actually charged with said crime in 2001. An fbi warrant for 9-11-01 will be sufficient. This should be relatively easy for someone in your field .


Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255317 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
An incomplete report does not necessarily provide the best solution , just a possible one.
The official story is much more plausible than what I wrote earlier. Plausibility is used to deceive perception .
So if it is more plausible you consider that in itself deception. Under that logic every theory that is extremely plausible is extreme deception. On that note all human knowldge goes out the window.

Hey, Stick your arm in a campfire, the plausibility that you will get burned is pure deception, don't be a sheeple.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255318 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Being in the legal field you of all people should know , the answer "c" (the crime) is where any investigation starts.
Actually you would be wrong, all investigations start AFTER THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME.
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255319 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide a link stating how Osama Bin Laden ... directly involved in the 911 tragedies. Show where Osama bi laden was actually charged with said crime in 2001.
FBI Spokesman Richard Kolko in a 2007 statement
"As the FBI has said since 9/11, bin Laden was responsible for the attack," Kolko said in a statement. "In this latest tape, he again acknowledged his responsibility. This should help to clarify for all the conspiracy theorists, again — the 9/11 attack was done by bin Laden and al-Qaida."
http://classic-web.archive.org/web/2007121319...

PS: You rarely charge someone in a high profile case until after they are captured, if there is charges, they must be given their Miranda rights immediately, a common and basic prosecution tactic that does not relate to innocence.

“Dying 4 ur sins-so tell me”

Since: Jan 09

Fort Worth

#255320 May 1, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The official story is based upon facts and evidence unlike the Twoofer shill nonsense you present.
The official story is based on limits and stipulations provided by (like the evidence) the very people responsible for the "mission accomplished " press facade. Would this be based on factual events also? LOL Who spouts non-sense? Next thing your gonna tell me is the bible is the official story of religion. ha ha ha ha ha !! I'll admit the entertained ignorant public don't understand how the government manipulates the press , sad thing is they probably don't care that they're being duped into wars on inanimate objects.
One of my favorite rock groups , GWAR, has a song titled "You Can't Kill Terror" , Most of the lyrics ring so true its a little disturbing our national defense agreed to fight this silly war on a feeling.( ps they also sing "bring back the bomb" ,"babyraper", "pre-school prostitute" , and "fu*kin an animal" so don't take this last paragraph in this post to literal)....
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255321 May 1, 2013
That's not evidence, it's an essay, well, it is evidence you are into some really lame music (unless you are 14 or under).
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
The official story is based on limits and stipulations provided by (like the evidence) the very people responsible for the "mission accomplished " press facade. Would this be based on factual events also? LOL Who spouts non-sense? Next thing your gonna tell me is the bible is the official story of religion. ha ha ha ha ha !! I'll admit the entertained ignorant public don't understand how the government manipulates the press , sad thing is they probably don't care that they're being duped into wars on inanimate objects.
One of my favorite rock groups , GWAR, has a song titled "You Can't Kill Terror" , Most of the lyrics ring so true its a little disturbing our national defense agreed to fight this silly war on a feeling.( ps they also sing "bring back the bomb" ,"babyraper", "pre-school prostitute" , and "fu*kin an animal" so don't take this last paragraph in this post to literal)....
Charlie Sheen

Lincoln, NE

#255322 May 1, 2013
crucifiedguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how most police officers don't even know the actual laws much less the meaning of these laws.
That I actually totally agree with, it makes my job harder.
yTube

AOL

#255323 May 1, 2013
.

P R O O F __1.5 BIL MUSLIMS TO SHORTLY DIE

http://youtu.be/n7ok0g8iwJI

.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 14 min RiversideRedneck 979,445
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 16 min New Age Spiritual... 667,892
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 18 min Rider on the Storm 92,687
Does anyone know Mr D that worked at LaSalle Sc... (Apr '10) 38 min Peter 116
Do you find the word "Libtard" offensive? (Aug '09) 1 hr AMT 25
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr Sky Writer 31 183,627
News Letter: DNC accept responsibility 2 hr Democrat Hero 59
More from around the web