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

Since: Aug 11

Jacksonville, FL

#258742 Aug 30, 2013
Well here's a question. Why would a group of folks go to all the trouble of securing box cutters to hijack several planes to fly them into the towers when they were smart enough to already have found a way to get aluminothermic explosives into the towers and building 7?

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tociej/art...

That isn't a youtube link btw. It's a scientific paper submitted to The Open Civil Engineering Journal in 2008.

Here's another scientific paper submitted to the same journal disputing as well as agreeing on some points with the official Gov findings. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tociej/art...

Since: Aug 11

Jacksonville, FL

#258743 Aug 30, 2013
onemale wrote:
The Carlyle Group, the Bush family and 9/11:
The Group stands accused of involvement in and benefiting from 9/11 attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =AS67HZR8OgoXX
The Carlyle group is a highly influential multi-sector group, mostly defense related companies and corporations. In the 90s, it started bringing on board the Bush family and Bin Laden family. The two families became the key members of their board. The Group stands accused of involvement in and benefiting from 9/11 attacks.
Youtube and vids aren't much in the way of evidence beyond someone knows how to upload vids to youtube. Especially when someone researches the "facts" mentioned in these vids and finds the "facts" are more conjecture than fact. That does more damage to your argument than good.

Try finding evidence that is easier to verify such as scientific papers, actual news video etc.

You mentioned Bush, allow me to one up you. Evidence lends credibility that Grampa Bush may have been involved in the JFK assassination.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/16/was-g...

Was he involved? I dunno. I just know he wasn't shot from a book repository. I'm a Viet Nam vet as well as a hunter and I know what happens when a target is hit with a heavy, high caliber round. It recoils away from the shot, not towards it.
chicothevillagei diot

Padre Island Ntl Seashor, TX

#258744 Aug 30, 2013
gaytor_bayt wrote:
<quoted text>
Youtube and vids aren't much in the way of evidence beyond someone knows how to upload vids to youtube. Especially when someone researches the "facts" mentioned in these vids and finds the "facts" are more conjecture than fact. That does more damage to your argument than good.
Try finding evidence that is easier to verify such as scientific papers, actual news video etc.
You mentioned Bush, allow me to one up you. Evidence lends credibility that Grampa Bush may have been involved in the JFK assassination.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/16/was-g...
Was he involved? I dunno. I just know he wasn't shot from a book repository. I'm a Viet Nam vet as well as a hunter and I know what happens when a target is hit with a heavy, high caliber round. It recoils away from the shot, not towards it.
NO shit back and too the right

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#258745 Aug 30, 2013
gaytor_bayt wrote:
<quoted text>Youtube and vids aren't much in the way of evidence beyond someone knows how to upload vids to youtube. Especially when someone researches the "facts" mentioned in these vids and finds the "facts" are more conjecture than fact. That does more damage to your argument than good.

Try finding evidence that is easier to verify such as scientific papers, actual news video etc.

You mentioned Bush, allow me to one up you. Evidence lends credibility that Grampa Bush may have been involved in the JFK assassination.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/16/was-g...

Was he involved? I dunno. I just know he wasn't shot from a book repository. I'm a Viet Nam vet as well as a hunter and I know what happens when a target is hit with a heavy, high caliber round. It recoils away from the shot, not towards it.
You know your about to get trolled for presenting a supposed antisemitic website, right? Not by me, because I don't consider being against the policies of Israel to be racist.

I disagree that youtube videos, or documentaries, or narrated videos in general do not present compelling evidence. Of course, the better ones have verifiable proof and documentation within them, that people can verify for themselves by researching scientific papers. Youtube is merely a site that hosts videos, and to generally be against the medium of video in favor of the simple printing press, makes no sense to me.

Heck, even movies contain information that can lead to truth, it's the mind watching it that matters.

http://youtu.be/9MLc0udf_74

Insults Are Easier

Since: Aug 11

Jacksonville, FL

#258746 Aug 30, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
You know your about to get trolled for presenting a supposed antisemitic website, right? Not by me, because I don't consider being against the policies of Israel to be racist.
I disagree that youtube videos, or documentaries, or narrated videos in general do not present compelling evidence. Of course, the better ones have verifiable proof and documentation within them, that people can verify for themselves by researching scientific papers. Youtube is merely a site that hosts videos, and to generally be against the medium of video in favor of the simple printing press, makes no sense to me.
Heck, even movies contain information that can lead to truth, it's the mind watching it that matters.
http://youtu.be/9MLc0udf_74
Insults Are Easier
I've been trolled before. It's nothing new to me. As for being anti anything, well, I lean towards anti-gov even though I'll read Dem in threads.

Yes, insults are easy. They however lend nothing towards an argument or debate. I prefer to use researchable facts regardless of where they hail from.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#258747 Aug 30, 2013
Timmy Two Shoes wrote:
<quoted text>Porkpie marries this woman. Unfortunately, his penis was too small, so every time they had sex he used a pickle instead of his penis.For seven year's he has been doing that. One night his wife suspect that something is wrong so while they are having sex she quickly threw the cover and turned on the lights! So the woman said, "What the hell is that, are you using a pickle on me. I am shocked, and for seven years you have been doing that, you piece of sh*t." So the man said, "Shut the f*ck up! It's been seven years and I never asked where the hell those kids came from!"
*yawn*

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#258748 Aug 30, 2013
gaytor_bayt wrote:
Well here's a question. Why would a group of folks go to all the trouble of securing box cutters to hijack several planes to fly them into the towers when they were smart enough to already have found a way to get aluminothermic explosives into the towers and building 7?

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tociej/art...

That isn't a youtube link btw. It's a scientific paper submitted to The Open Civil Engineering Journal in 2008.

Here's another scientific paper submitted to the same journal disputing as well as agreeing on some points with the official Gov findings. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tociej/art...
There was no nanothermite.

The paper itself contradicts that claim and subsequent studies have confirmed that what was found was nothing more than paint.

The authors of the Bentham paper never did tests which would have been conclusive by proving composition. Rather they conducted a smoke screen to fool the gullible.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#258749 Aug 30, 2013
gaytor_bayt wrote:
Well here's a question. Why would a group of folks go to all the trouble of securing box cutters to hijack several planes to fly them into the towers when they were smart enough to already have found a way to get aluminothermic explosives into the towers and building 7?

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tociej/art...

That isn't a youtube link btw. It's a scientific paper submitted to The Open Civil Engineering Journal in 2008.

Here's another scientific paper submitted to the same journal disputing as well as agreeing on some points with the official Gov findings. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tociej/art...
Oh and Bentham is a pay to publish journal with such a low standard that it allowed the writers of this bs paper to use who they wanted as peer reviewers.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#258750 Aug 30, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and Bentham is a pay to publish journal with such a low standard that it allowed the writers of this bs paper to use who they wanted as peer reviewers.
Indeed.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#258751 Aug 30, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>You know your about to get trolled for presenting a supposed antisemitic website, right? Not by me, because I don't consider being against the policies of Israel to be racist.

I disagree that youtube videos, or documentaries, or narrated videos in general do not present compelling evidence. Of course, the better ones have verifiable proof and documentation within them, that people can verify for themselves by researching scientific papers. Youtube is merely a site that hosts videos, and to generally be against the medium of video in favor of the simple printing press, makes no sense to me.

Heck, even movies contain information that can lead to truth, it's the mind watching it that matters.

http://youtu.be/9MLc0udf_74

Insults Are Easier
Awww....it's not that you get trolled as much as it is you've failed to support every stupid claim you've ever made...then have been repeatedly caught feigning knowledge of subjects you're completely ignorant of.

Then of course there's your penchant for running away from the above rather than addressing all the facts that burst your childish little bubbles.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#258752 Aug 30, 2013
gaytor_bayt wrote:
<quoted text>I've been trolled before. It's nothing new to me. As for being anti anything, well, I lean towards anti-gov even though I'll read Dem in threads.

Yes, insults are easy. They however lend nothing towards an argument or debate. I prefer to use researchable facts regardless of where they hail from.
Actually, regurgitating links is easy.

Facts are much more difficult to come by.

Got any?

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#258753 Aug 30, 2013
gaytor_bayt wrote:
<quoted text>I've been trolled before. It's nothing new to me. As for being anti anything, well, I lean towards anti-gov even though I'll read Dem in threads.

Yes, insults are easy. They however lend nothing towards an argument or debate. I prefer to use researchable facts regardless of where they hail from.
No disagreement there. Thanks for the civility and reason.

Insults are not only easy, they are the cowards way out of debate. Thats why

Insults Are Easier

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Canada

#258754 Aug 30, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>No disagreement there. Thanks for the civility and reason.

Insults are not only easy, they are the cowards way out of debate. Thats why

Insults Are Easier
Which is why you eventually started insulting about 1.5 billion commonwealth citizens because you couldn't address my arguments...which destroyed your idiotic claims.

Thanks for playing Ignorance!
KittyKat

Chico, CA

#258755 Aug 30, 2013
Disinformation Tactics of shills & online trolls/zombies

Posted by Kryptographic on July 30, 2012 at 9:59pm
View Blog

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant.

Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers.

Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man.

Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.

This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks','right-wing','liberal' ,'left-wing','terrorists','con spiracy buffs','radicals','militia','r acists','religious fanatics','sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
KittyKat

Chico, CA

#258756 Aug 30, 2013
Disinformation Tactics of shills & online trolls/zombies

Posted by Kryptographic on July 30, 2012 at 9:59pm
View Blog

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

6. Hit and Run.

In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain critical reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives.

Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority.

Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb.

No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news.

A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.

Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which,'just aren't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution.

Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
KittyKat

Chico, CA

#258757 Aug 30, 2013
Disinformation Tactics of shills & online trolls/zombies


13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.

Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions.

Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.

This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.

If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject.

Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.

If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
PORKFARTS FAVORITE:
19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs.

This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence.

Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

Since: Aug 11

Jacksonville, FL

#258758 Aug 30, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no nanothermite.
The paper itself contradicts that claim and subsequent studies have confirmed that what was found was nothing more than paint.
The authors of the Bentham paper never did tests which would have been conclusive by proving composition. Rather they conducted a smoke screen to fool the gullible.
My bad on my post. I inserted the same link twice. Anyway, in response to your post,,,, " Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc.)
would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of thousands of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will ex-plain why they have not looked for these residues? The code
specifies that fire-scene investigators must be prepared to justify an exclusion [26].
NIST has been asked about this important issue recently, by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:
Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it
didn't look for evidence of explosives?” Neuman
[spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]:
"Right, because there was no evidence of that."
Abel:But how can you know there's no evidence if
you don't look for it first?
Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wast-ing your time... and the taxpayers’ money.”[27].
The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humor-
ous if not for the fact that NIST’s approach here affects the lives of so many innocent people.

Here's the other link - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theo...

Jet fuel doesn't burn long enough nor hot enough to turn steel molten.

Since: Aug 11

Jacksonville, FL

#258759 Aug 30, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and Bentham is a pay to publish journal with such a low standard that it allowed the writers of this bs paper to use who they wanted as peer reviewers.
That is your opinion, not evidence that is even remotely compelling.

Since: Aug 11

Jacksonville, FL

#258760 Aug 30, 2013
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, regurgitating links is easy.
Facts are much more difficult to come by.
Got any?
Where are your facts? Can you back your facts without links. Doubtful since this is a text forum which makes your argument (cheap shot) moot. You joined the thread I'll assume all on your own. Did you come to debate or simply troll?

Since: Aug 11

Jacksonville, FL

#258761 Aug 30, 2013
KittyKat wrote:
Disinformation Tactics of shills & online trolls/zombies
Well done! Kudo's to you!

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min here 63,444
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 36 min marge 653,695
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 47 min Hangman 973,681
You are of your father......THE DEVIL. 59 min Knock off purse s... 21
Fedz Pimping Poison Meat - Don't Buy 2 hr HiddnNumbrz 1
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 hr Rosa_Winkel 106,478
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 2 hr WasteWater 2,568
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 6 hr LAWEST100 618,751
More from around the web