48

PULL IT

9/11/2006 2:17:23 PM

Again so it doesn't get ignored...

ATTENTION

Quote :

"I hope I don't regret this later... salisburyboy Suppose I'm a Pyrrhonist. This means I am a skeptic of everything. God, all governments, law, science, religion, perception, experience, and all descriptions therefrom including my own. Literally, a skeptic of everything. The best you could get me to admit is that some things are more likely than others, not that some things happen (i.e. terrorists kill Americans) and others don't (i.e. American gov't deliberately kills Americans). In other words, I would have no underlying presumptions about our motivations or the motivations of any other group, just the knowledge that the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and a field in PA were hit by something and orchestrated by someone because they were not random. Let's say then, that I grant you that governments, mainstream media sources, blogs, individuals, and everyone lie and misrepresent facts often. I'll only ask one question at a time, and will grant you as open a mind as this philosophy allows: 1) How would you go about convincing me that 9/11 was an inside job carried out by the government and Mossad instead of by Osama Bin Laden?"

9/11/2006 2:20:47 PM

it will still get ignored

9/11/2006 2:22:07 PM

oh you'll regret it later alright

everyone who has tried to have any sort of rational conversation with this fuckin' guy has wound up throwing their hands up and saying fuck it.

9/11/2006 2:43:17 PM

Quote :

"How would you go about convincing me that 9/11 was an inside job carried out by the government and Mossad instead of by Osama Bin Laden?"

In a nutshell, examine all of the available information and evidence out there on 9/11 (as opposed to just the "information"/propaganda spoon fed to the masses by the government and MSM)...and then make a rational conclusion based upon all of that information.

9/11/2006 4:11:08 PM

salisbury, rational people aren't required to review every piece of "evidence" that comes along. You're only required to look at enough solid evidence to reach a rational conclusion. Anyone who looks at "Loose Change" and the other moronic pieces of shit you've regurgitated onto our laps and thinks "yeah, this makes more sense" should be castrated so they can't corrupt other human beings.


That is, if you believe this crazy propaganda the zionists have us thinking about how children are conceived. Truthfully, we all know its the stork and not the sperm, so I guess we can't prevent it afterall.

[Edited on September 11, 2006 at 4:17 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2006 4:16:08 PM

Quote :

"salisbury, rational people aren't required to review every piece of "evidence" that comes along. You're only required to look at enough solid evidence to reach a rational conclusion."

I don't mean that you have to look at every single thing out there on 9/11. The point is that the MSM and government deliberately suppressed a significant portion of the crucial information/evidence related to 9/11...and this information/evidence must be examined in order to come to a rational conclusion about who really carried out 9/11.

Quote :

"How would you go about convincing me that 9/11 was an inside job carried out by the government and Mossad instead of by Osama Bin Laden?"

For starters, look at the evidence on the following issues....

1. Osama bin Laden was framed using phony/doctored/mistranslated video and audio tapes.
2. As even the FBI has admitted, there is ZERO physical evidence to link the 19 named "hijackers" to the 9/11 attacks. Even the FBI acknowledges that at least several of the named 19 "hijackers" were framed using stolen identities.
3. As reported in the MSM (but subsequently suppressed and buried) Mossad agents and Israeli spies were living in close proximity to (and "trailing"...ie, IMPERSONATING and FRAMING) the named Arab "hijackers." 5 Mossad Agents were arrested after seen filming the WTC attack and celebrating. Shortly before and after 9/11, Israeli/Mossad spies were arrrested in the U.S. gathering intelligence (to carry out terrorist attacks?)...some having been found with explosive traces in their vehicles.


[Edited on September 11, 2006 at 4:33 PM. Reason : 2]

9/11/2006 4:19:23 PM

9/11/2006 4:37:55 PM

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html

Quote :

"Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away By LEV GROSSMAN Posted Sunday, Sep. 3, 2006 Take a look, if you can stand it, at video footage of the World Trade Center collapsing. Your eye will naturally jump to the top of the screen, where huge fountains of dark debris erupt out of the falling towers. But fight your natural instincts. Look farther down, at the stories that haven't collapsed yet. In almost every clip you'll see little puffs of dust spurting out from the sides of the towers. There are two competing explanations for these puffs of dust: 1) the force of the collapsing upper floors raised the air pressure in the lower ones so dramatically that it actually blew out the windows. And 2) the towers did not collapse from the impact of two Boeing 767s and the ensuing fires. They were destroyed in a planned, controlled demolition. The dust puffs you see on film are the detonations of explosives planted there before the attacks. People who believe the second explanation live in a very different world from those who believe the first. In world No. 2, al-Qaeda is not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. The U.S. government is. The Pentagon was not hit by a commercial jet; it was hit by a cruise missile. United Flight 93 did not crash after its occupants rushed the cockpit; it was deliberately taken down by a U.S. Air Force fighter. The entire catastrophe was planned and executed by federal officials in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration. The population of world No. 2 is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality. Although the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion, has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, it is flourishing on the Internet. One of the most popular conspiracy videos online is Loose Change, a 90-min. blizzard of statistics, photographs, documents, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony set to a trippy hip-hop backbeat. It's designed to pick apart, point by point, the conventional narrative of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001."

THERE YOU HAVE IT. THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT IS NOT A FRINGE MOVEMENT. IT IS A MAINSTREAM POLITICAL REALITY. Who says that? Not me. Time Magazine.

Oh, and by the way, the JewMedia doesn't care if Bush or any other political puppet takes the fall for 9/11...as long as the real mastermind of the 9/11 attacks (Organized Jewry) is not implicated.

9/11/2006 4:46:16 PM

those 36% of people in an UNSCIENTIFIC poll are all fucking idiots. as evidenced by the last election, at least 49-51% of all americans that voted are fucking idiots, and the ones that didn't vote are even bigger idiots.

so your little number means precisely DICK.

9/11/2006 4:56:28 PM

Quote :

"This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."

9/11/2006 4:58:55 PM

oh i forgot to add that everything else you say means precisely dick as well.

9/11/2006 5:01:08 PM

Quote :

"This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."

Quote :

"This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."

Quote :

"This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."

Quote :

"This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."

9/11/2006 5:02:58 PM

http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier

9/11/2006 5:26:10 PM

Quote :

"Osama bin Laden was framed using phony/doctored/mistranslated video and audio tapes."

Prove that he was framed. You have provided no evidence aside from a pair of blurry photographs. Where are these doctored/mistranslated videos that you have yet to show us?

Quote :

"As even the FBI has admitted, there is ZERO physical evidence to link the 19 named "hijackers" to the 9/11 attacks. Even the FBI acknowledges that at least several of the named 19 "hijackers" were framed using stolen identities."

Again, please provide proof instead of stating overly sinister claims as facts.

Quote :

"As reported in the MSM (but subsequently suppressed and buried) Mossad agents and Israeli spies were living in close proximity to (and "trailing"...ie, IMPERSONATING and FRAMING) the named Arab "hijackers." 5 Mossad Agents were arrested after seen filming the WTC attack and celebrating. Shortly before and after 9/11, Israeli/Mossad spies were arrrested in the U.S. gathering intelligence (to carry out terrorist attacks?)...some having been found with explosive traces in their vehicles."

This again? Are you really still clinging to the notion that Israeli movers are actually secret mossad operatives here to frame muslims?

I love how you completely ignore the second half of the article that addresses the actual feasability of your little fairy tale.

Quote :

"Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away ...... There's something empowering about just exploring such questions. Loose Change appeals to the viewer's common sense: it tells you to forget the official explanations and the expert testimony, and trust your eyes and your brain instead. It implies that the world can be grasped by laymen without any help or interference from the talking heads. Watching Loose Change, you feel as if you are participating in the great American tradition of self-reliance and nonconformist, antiauthoritarian dissent. You're fighting the power. You're thinking different. (Conspiracists call people who follow the government line "sheeple.") "The goal of the movie was just really to get out there and show that there are alternate stories to what the mainstream media and the government will tell you," says Korey Rowe, 23, who produced the movie. "That 19 hijackers are going to completely bypass security and crash four commercial airliners in a span of two hours, with no interruption from the military forces, in the most guarded airspace in the United States and the world? That to me is a conspiracy theory." It's also not much of a story line. As a narrative, the official story that the government--echoed by the media--is trying to sell shows an almost embarrassing lack of novelistic flair, whereas the story the conspiracy theorists tell about what happened on Sept. 11 is positively Dan Brownesque in its rich, exciting complexity. Rowe and his collaborator, Dylan Avery, 22, actually started writing Loose Change as a fictional screenplay--"loosely based around us discovering that 9/11 was an inside job," Rowe says--before they became convinced that the evidence of conspiracy was overwhelming. The Administration is certainly playing its part in the drama with admirable zeal. If we went to war to root out fictional weapons of mass destruction, is staging a fictional terrorist attack such a stretch? But there's a big problem with Loose Change and with most other conspiracy theories. The more you think about them, the more you realize how much they depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses. (For what it's worth, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has published a fact sheet responding to some of the conspiracy theorists' ideas on its website, http://www.nist.gov. The theories prompt small, reasonable questions that demand answers that are just too large and unreasonable to swallow. Granted, the Pentagon crash site looks odd in photographs. But if the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, then what happened to American Airlines Flight 77? Where did all the real, documented people on it go? Assassinated? Relocated? What about eyewitnesses who saw a plane, not a missile? And what are the chances that an operation of such size--it would surely have involved hundreds of military and civilian personnel--could be carried out without a single leak? Without leaving behind a single piece of evidence hard enough to stand up to scrutiny in a court? People, the feds just aren't that slick. Nobody is. There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. "We tend to associate major events--a President or princess dying--with major causes," says Patrick Leman, a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. "If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us." In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting. You would have thought the age of conspiracy theories might have declined with the rise of digital media. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a private, intimate affair compared with the attack on the World Trade Center, which was witnessed by millions of bystanders and television viewers and documented by hundreds of Zapruders. You would think there was enough footage and enough forensics to get us past the grassy knoll and the magic bullet, to create a consensus reality, a single version of the truth, a single world we can all live in together. But there is no event so plain and clear that a determined human being can't find ambiguity in it. And as divisive as they are, conspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events like Sept. 11. Conspiracy theories form around them like scar tissue. In a curious way, they're an American form of national mourning. They'll be with us as long as we fear lone gunmen, and feel the pain of losses like the one we suffered on Sept. 11, and as long as the past, even the immediate past, is ultimately unknowable. That is to say, forever."

9/11/2006 5:29:27 PM

By the way:

You don't even bring of valid points or address questions anymore. All you do is quote bomb articles from news sources that no one has ever heard of that tout the popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Have you completely given up on defending your ideas, instead choosing to show us statistics about people who agree with you? If your case is so airtight, why can't you defend it?

Here are some videos of actual building implosions:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3734778582740389904&q=implosion

Hear the deafening explosions long before the building even moves?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6209867556562706196&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5446838557512388694&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5360235832416833797&q=implosion

This is the same building. Notice the clearly visible explosions all over the building? Notice how the building collapse begins at the bottom instead of the top falling first?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5515424451823800690&q=implosion

Same features, different building. Loud explosions. Collapse begins at the bottom, not the top. I know that you love to point out the cloud of dust shot from the window during the collapse of the WTC, but the simple fact is that there is absolutely no need to set off additional explosions as the building is collapsing - momentum will do the job.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8719593880031165898&q=implosion

Heres the same thing in Raleigh, no less. There is no need to set off more charges during collapse. What you saw during the WTC collapse was air being forced out as the floors pancaked.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7000444892387259083&q=implosion

Heres a building in Las Vegas. Notice the many clearly visible sequenced explosions? Where were those when the WTC came down? One plume of dust coming out of a window is not evidence of a controlled demolition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6449270076349123045&q=implosion

Heres another one. Notice the explosions all took place before the collapse, not during.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4451252877216031192&q=implosion

Heres a dorm in Minnesota. Loud and clearly visible sequenced explosions prior to collapse. There are even plumes of dust ejected from the windows during collapse, just like the WTC. Notice that you don't hear any explosion accompanying the dust plume.

There are a lot more videos out there if you want to see more. All of those buildings were significantly smaller than the World Trade Center, yet still produced deafening explosions. How many tons of explosives would have been needed to bring down two 110 story skyscrapers? Why doesn't a single video of the event include the sound of sequenced explosions?

Look at the explosions themselves. They all happened before the collapse. In every single video you see and hear charges going off followed by a dead silence, and then the collapse of the building. Ever single piece of evidence that you bring to the table lacks this. Instead you point to puffs of dust near windows as the prrof of explosives. Find me a video that features explosives being set off underneath a collapsing structure as it falls.

All of these building begin collapse at the bottom. The tops of the WTC (above the point of impact) fell into the rest of the builing with sufficient momentum to bring the towers down. Find me a video of this technique being used to collapse a high rise.

9/11/2006 5:30:38 PM

Same questions....36 pages later...

Who is avoiding a rational argument?

No, bin Laden didn't have any motive to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

Its not like he issued a fatwah or anything urging muslims to kill americans.

Keep ignoring evidence, little buddy.

Quote :

"Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans Published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi on Febuary 23, 1998 Statement signed by Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin; Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the Jihad Group in Egypt; Abu- Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, a leader of the Islamic Group; Sheikh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh ... All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al- Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said "As for the militant struggle, it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life." On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'" We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

Could you please address these questions? I'm not trying to redirect or distract here. I'm genuinely curious. You made statements regarding all of these questions in this very thread, I would just like you to explain them before moving on. I questioned these claims when they were originally made, but you ignored me. Why won't you answer them?

Why didn't they build a pipeline in 1998? Why did they blow up their own african embassies and then launch a missile attack on Afghanistan? They were set to build a natural gas pipeline with the Taliban then. Why mess that up for no reason?

You don't believe that Afghanistan was invaded for the sake of a pipeline? Then why are you defending that theory so stubbornly?

You just said that Afghanistan was invaded so that a pipeline could be built. Now you're saying that the zionists wanted to prevent the building of a pipeline - just like how Iraq was invaded to secure the oil supply even though the zionists don't care about the oil supply. How do you reconcile all of the conflicting information that you spout off on here?

By the way, how did the zionists cause the Revolutionary War?

Do you even know anything about american history? To say that the Civil War was caused simply by "illuminati agitators" is to ignore almost every detail of the decades that preceded the conflict.

Can we get some proof that John Wilkes Booth was an agent of the NWO rather than an upset Confederate sympathizer?

I would also like to see some proof that Pearl Harbor was caused by the evil edomite zionists.

You have provided absolutely no evidence at all that the Rothschilds are the zionists at the top running world events. They were a prominent family that supported the creation of a jewish state, that is all. Please provide some evidence other than "Here are some rich jews!"

So why should anyone believe your rantings anyway You have admitted that you hate jews. As such, you are far from an impartial source when you blame jews for every problem in the world.

So when was the Israeli false flag terrorist attack in Washington state?

What about the train bombing in Mumbai? Was that a government inside job? Whenever muslim terrorists attack western interests you immediately blame it on the zionists, what about this one?

Why is it spamming if I repeat unanswered questions, but it's ok for you to repost the same article in the same thread five times?

Can I get your take on this? I posted it in your Mel Gibson fan club thread but you must have missed it:

Here is Wikipedias definition of a conspiracy theory. Your Zionist NWO plot is in line with ever single point.

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.

7. Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.

13. The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody;
Conspiracy tales grow in the telling, and can swell to world-spanning proportions. As the adherents struggle to explain counter-arguments, the conspiracy grows even more (see preceding item). Conspiracy theories that have been around for a few decades typically encompass the whole world and huge portions of history.

14. The conspiracy centers on the "usual suspects";
Classical conspiracy theories feature people, groups or organizations that are discriminated against in the culture where the story is told. Jews and foreigners are a common target. Likewise, organizations with a bad or colorful reputation feature prominently, such as the Templars, the Nazis and just about any secret service.

HEAVEN FORBID THAT YOU DEFEND YOUR IDEAS LIKE A BIG KID

9/11/2006 5:31:02 PM

Curious...what's with this hatred of Jews?
salisburyboy's all like "OMG IT WAS THE JEWS" Or..."It was the Jewry Media!!"...

9/11/2006 6:05:27 PM

i'm amazed how this thread continues to go on . . . . I SAY DELETE IT. those theories or bogus. i even viewed the loose change film and it's total bullsh!t. there's mention of one flight letting off passengers in CLEVLAND or something idiotic like that.


THERE WAS NO 9/11 CONSPIRACY - WHAT HAPPENED REALLY HAPPENED. THE TICKET TAKER AT THE AIRPORT WAS EVEN ON OPRAH TODAY TESTIFYING TO SEEING THE ARABS GET ON THE PLAN AND HOW WEIRDED OUT THEY WERE.

9/11/2006 6:49:28 PM

^^CharlesHF, meet salisburyboy.

salisburyboy, meet CharlesHF.

-----

Rudolf Vrba must be the king Zionist: he was born on September 11 AND he help propagate the Holocaust 'story'.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Vrba

9/11/2006 7:10:25 PM

ATTN: [user]saliburyboy[/user]

Where is it acceptable to look for information?

9/11/2006 9:57:57 PM

And in case you answer at all, regardless of whatever it is--Prisonplanet, Al Jazeera, CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, a blog, a particular web site or radio show, whatever--the next question is the same. So save me some time and include this with your answer:

Why those particular sources?

9/12/2006 1:22:00 AM

Quote :

"Where is it acceptable to look for information?"

Any source is ok. But, of course, you don't blindly believe anything from any source. The process of determining the truth is not as simple as picking one source (or a small group of sources) and believing 100% of what that source(s) says. Rather, it is a process of gathering information from a wide range of sources and filtering out what is false.

Once you find some sources are more credible and useful, and others are not credible or useless, you obviously use some sources more frequently than others.


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11186384.htm

Quote :

"One in 5 Canadians sees 9/11 as U.S. plot - poll 11 Sep 2006 Source: Reuters OTTAWA, Sept 11 (Reuters) - One in five Canadians believes the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans, according to a poll released on Monday. The Ipsos-Reid poll found that 22 percent of Canadians, and 26 percent of young Canadians, agree with the conspiracy theory. The number was the highest, at 32 percent, in Quebec, which has shown the least support for the U.S. war on terror. The poll asked if the events of Sept. 11, "including the thousands of American citizens who lost their lives on that day, were actually orchestrated by a group of highly influential Americans and others as part of a wider global conspiracy to profit from and gain power and who are actually protecting Osama Bin Laden from being captured." "Conspiracy theories are popular, as we all know," said Ipsos pollster Paul Orovan. Sixty-six percent said the actions were carried out by Bin Laden's disciples as an attack on the United States and as part of a global war of terror against Western and affluent democracies. Twelve percent said neither or refused to answer. The random telephone survey of 1,000 adult Canadians was conducted for CanWest News Service and Global News from Aug. 29-31. Such a sample is considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20."

I think 20% is a low-ball figure. It's most likely higher than that in Canada.

9/12/2006 12:37:31 PM

Why does all your "evidence" swirl around what people believe to be true?

Polls =/ scientific proof of a conspiracy

9/12/2006 12:43:59 PM

http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier
http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier
http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier
http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier
http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier

9/12/2006 12:44:25 PM

Quote :

"You don't even bring of valid points or address questions anymore. All you do is quote bomb articles from news sources that no one has ever heard of that tout the popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Have you completely given up on defending your ideas, instead choosing to show us statistics about people who agree with you? If your case is so airtight, why can't you defend it?"

9/12/2006 12:51:23 PM

Quote :

"Why does all your "evidence" swirl around what people believe to be true?"

I've never even pretended that polls are evidence that the "official" 9/11 story is false.

The polls are evidence of what people believe about 9/11, and are relevant to the overall discussion of 9/11.

9/12/2006 12:55:06 PM

Actually they aren't relevant at all.

You started this thread as a tool to convince people that 9/11 was a zionist orchestrated government inside job, for proof you can look at the title: 9/11: A ZIONIST-ORCHESTRATED GOVERNMENT INSIDE JOB.

You provide polls only to make yourself feel empowered.

9/12/2006 1:00:12 PM

*Argumentum ad populum

9/12/2006 1:17:55 PM

http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier

salisburyboy why wont you comment on this video

9/12/2006 2:06:55 PM

Quote :

"There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. "We tend to associate major events--a President or princess dying--with major causes," says Patrick Leman, a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. "If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us." In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting. You would have thought the age of conspiracy theories might have declined with the rise of digital media. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a private, intimate affair compared with the attack on the World Trade Center, which was witnessed by millions of bystanders and television viewers and documented by hundreds of Zapruders. You would think there was enough footage and enough forensics to get us past the grassy knoll and the magic bullet, to create a consensus reality, a single version of the truth, a single world we can all live in together. But there is no event so plain and clear that a determined human being can't find ambiguity in it. And as divisive as they are, conspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events like Sept. 11. Conspiracy theories form around them like scar tissue. In a curious way, they're an American form of national mourning. They'll be with us as long as we fear lone gunmen, and feel the pain of losses like the one we suffered on Sept. 11, and as long as the past, even the immediate past, is ultimately unknowable. That is to say, forever."

This was in the same Time article that you posted on this page.

Care to comment on the psychological factors behind conspiracism?

9/12/2006 2:28:13 PM

I will.

Quote :

"Gamecat: I'll admit I'm a little like salisburyboy in the same way most academics I know are: I believe that no government always tells the truth (Iran's or Ours? or both?), and I believe no corporation always tells the truth (CBS or Fox News? or both?). You could consider this a corrollary of believing that few people always tell the truth. The place where conspiracy hoots lose it is by leaping beyond that into the koolaid pool of believing that it implies any specific and proveable cause or agenda behind it, usually without any evidence or justification that makes rational sense at all. That's why any leap from there is like a cliff-dive, folks. That's why people like salisburyboy tend to look so batty. Once you open yourself up to believing that you can be lied to by pretty much any organization that provides information (government, media, teacher, blog, institute, etc.), you have to be very careful. If you don't like Jewish people for whatever reason (saw a passion play at an early age, whatever), you might get a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion--a well-established forgery--and believe that it pretty well sums up history. The Jews and Illuminati run it all through manipulation of information control. That's why the Holocaust never happened, it's all like the Faked Moon Landing. You get the point. It's easy from there to substitute a wild reality without giving it coherent, objective, and logical consideration. Not to say the government or corporations lie about everything, or even most things, but they definitely both lie or misrepresent the truth about many significant things. But where you go picking and choosing substitute versions of history, you have to at minimum be careful in how you do so. There's something inherently dangerous about walking that fine line between completely mistrusting everything because everyone lies, and selectively mistrusting things because everyone lies. Taking any one story as gospel at that point becomes contradictory. If you're going to be skeptical at that stage, you have to require that only logic and rationality guide you. Not your willingness to believe. As is often said, "Belief is no substitute for critical thinking." That's why I rarely believe an official account of a story--even the 9/11 account--but grimace when nutbars go and ruin it for everyone who doesn't have some bizarre and latent anachronistic social faux pas like anti-semitism. It makes it impossible to have more than pithy debates about whether some issue has enough leftness to bias it into ridiculousness or enough rightness to bias it into the same direction. Meaningful debate is lost because idiots like him limit discussion to the ordinary. And discussions of his sanity."

9/12/2006 3:05:22 PM

I saw that.

Well said.

9/12/2006 3:10:13 PM

i've never seen a nail head get completely annihilated like that

wow

9/12/2006 3:17:38 PM

Quote :

" CONSPIRACY CRANKS - CREATING CRAZED '9/11 TRUTH' By JAMES B. MEIGS September 12, 2006 -- ON Feb. 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for world domination. That day, Popular Mechanics, the magazine I edit, hit newsstands with a story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs - which calls itself the "9/11 Truth Movement" - was aflame with wild fantasies about me, my staff and the article we had published. Conspiracy Web sites labeled Popular Mechanics a "CIA front organization" and compared us to Nazis and war criminals. For a 104-year-old magazine about science, technology, home improvement and car maintenance, this was pretty extreme stuff. What had we done to provoke such outrage? Research. Conspiracy theories alleging that 9/11 was a U.S. government operation are rapidly infiltrating the mainstream. These notions are advanced by hundreds of books, over a million Web pages and even in some college classrooms. The movie "Loose Change," a slick roundup of popular conspiracy claims, has become an Internet sensation. Worse, these fantasies are gaining influence on the international stage. French author Thierry Meyssan's "The Big Lie," which argues that the U.S. military orchestrated the attacks, was a bestseller in France, and his claims have been widely repeated in European and Middle Eastern media. And recent surveys reveal that, even in moderate Muslim countries such as Turkey and Jordan, majorities of the public believe that no Arab terrorists were involved in the attacks. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts." Yet conspiracy theorists want to pick and choose which facts to believe. Rather than grapple with the huge preponderance of evidence in support of the mainstream view of 9/11, they tend to focus on a handful of small anomalies that they believe cast doubt on the conventional account. These anomalies include the claim that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to have been made by a commercial jet (but just right for a cruise missile); that the Twin Towers were too robustly built to have been destroyed by the jet impacts and fires (so they must have been felled by explosives), and more. If true, these and similar assertions would cast serious doubt on the mainstream account of 9/11. But they're not true. Popular Mechanics has been fact-checking such claims since late 2004, and recently published a book on the topic. We've pored over transcripts, flight logs and blueprints, and interviewed more than 300 sources - including engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of investigative teams. In every single case, we found that the very facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies are mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified. Here's one example: Meyssan and hundreds of Web sites cite an eyewitness who said the craft that hit the Pentagon looked "like a cruise missile with wings." Here's what that witness, a Washington, D.C., broadcaster named Mike Walter, actually told CNN: "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up. It's really low.' And I saw it. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon." We talked to Walter and, like so many of the experts and witnesses widely quoted by conspiracy theorists, he told us he is heartsick to see the way his words have been twisted: "I struggle with the fact that my comments will forever be taken out of context." Here's another: An article in the American Free Press claims that a seismograph at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory picked up signals indicating that large bombs were detonated in the towers. The article quotes Columbia geologist Won-Young Kim and certainly looks authoritative. Yet the truth on this issue is not hard to find. A published Lamont-Doherty report on the seismic record of 9/11 says no such thing. Kim told Popular Mechanics that the publication's interpretation of his research was "categorically incorrect." Yet the claim is repeated verbatim on more than 50 Web sites as well as in the film "Loose Change." Every 9/11 conspiracy theory we investigated was based on similarly shoddy evidence. Most of these falsehoods are easy to refute simply by checking the original source material or talking to experts in the relevant fields. And yet even the flimsiest claims are repeated constantly in conspiracy circles, passed from Web site to book to Web site in an endless daisy chain. And any witness, expert - or publication - that tries to set the record straight is immediately vilified as being part of the conspiracy. The American public has every right to ask hard questions about 9/11. And informed skepticism about government and media can be healthy. But skepticism needs to be based on facts, not fallacies. Unfortunately, for all too many, conspiratorial fantasies offer a seductive alternative to grappling with the hard realities of a post-9/11 world. James B. Meigs is editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics. The magazine's new book, "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand up to the Facts," is just out."

9/12/2006 4:07:21 PM

link?

9/12/2006 4:16:23 PM

Quote :

"i'm amazed how this thread continues to go on . . . . I SAY DELETE IT. those theories or bogus. i even viewed the loose change film and it's total bullsh!t. there's mention of one flight letting off passengers in CLEVLAND or something idiotic like that. THERE WAS NO 9/11 CONSPIRACY - WHAT HAPPENED REALLY HAPPENED."

I'M HAPPY THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT DON'T FALL FOR THIS CONSPIRACY BULLSH!T. Close but no cigar salisbury.

9/12/2006 4:32:29 PM

So-called "conspiracy theories" are not "wild irrantional explanations for the randomness of the world" that people dream up.

What we are dealing with here is not a theory. It is a conspiracy fact. Conspiracies do exist, and especially relating to issues of substantial magnitude and importance. The wacko "conspiracy theory" is the tale about the 19 camel jockeys and bin Laden in the cave pulling off 9/11.

It is a FACT that the government/MSM/official story is absurd and has many, many problems. It is a FACT that the government and MSM is covering up the truth about the attack, thereby implicating themselves as being connected to those who ultimately carried out the attack. It is a FACT that over a hundred Mossad agents and Israeli spies were detained around 9/11 in the U.S., many of them gathering intelligence and plotting terrorist attacks (some connected directly to the 9/11 attacks). It is a FACT that elite Zionist/Jewish interests wield significant (if not controlling) power over the U.S. Government, and that they wanted to go to the war in the Middle East and Afghanistan before 9/11.....ETC....

9/12/2006 5:01:37 PM

http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier

salisburyboy please evaluate video and let me know your thoughts

9/12/2006 6:18:46 PM

If I post a very long essay I wrote in order to expound on why debates with salisburyboy go nowhere (from years of observation), would I have to deal with the "how much of it did you make up, how much of it should we take seriously" shit?

I would expect so.

As such, I'd think it obvious to point out the reason for it. I have an agenda for writing such an essay. It's got to do with a book that involves conspiracies that hasn't been completed yet, but will be within a few years, and people like him form one part of the market for it. I'll post it or PM it upon request. Whatever you'd like. I don't want to make it personal, but I consider it a pretty good research paper on the psychological justifications for conspiracism.

I'll admit that I consider his recognition of 9/11 as a conspiracy to be a sign of intelligence. I consider all his assumptions past that point shaky by a wide range of degrees. Each assertion he makes ought to be considered purely on its own objective merits however. That means ignoring your understanding of his stated agenda, or at least your emotional reaction to it.

That's the short answer. I can give it to you guys in longer form upon request. It'd take up too much space in a post.

Evidently he doesn't know how to deal with someone who admits in the existence of conspiracies and has doubts about the official version of the story from the outset, but who still doesn't buy into the Jewluminati bullshit.

Quote :

"Again so it doesn't get ignored... ATTENTION I hope I don't regret this later... salisburyboy Suppose I'm a Pyrrhonist. This means I am a skeptic of everything. God, all governments, law, science, religion, perception, experience, and all descriptions therefrom including my own. Literally, a skeptic of everything. The best you could get me to admit is that some things are more likely than others, not that some things happen (i.e. terrorists kill Americans) and others don't (i.e. American gov't deliberately kills Americans). In other words, I would have no underlying presumptions about our motivations or the motivations of any other group, just the knowledge that the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and a field in PA were hit by something and orchestrated by someone because they were not random. Let's say then, that I grant you that governments, mainstream media sources, blogs, individuals, and everyone lie and misrepresent facts often. I'll only ask one question at a time, and will grant you as open a mind as this philosophy allows: 1) How would you go about convincing me that 9/11 was an inside job carried out by the government and Mossad instead of by Osama Bin Laden?"

[Edited on September 12, 2006 at 7:41 PM. Reason : ...]

9/12/2006 7:16:47 PM

Quote :

"So-called "conspiracy theories" are not "wild irrantional explanations for the randomness of the world" that people dream up."

Do you want to back that up with your own psychological sources? I good rebuttle takes more that just saying "No it isn't!"

Quote :

"Conspiracies do exist, and especially relating to issues of substantial magnitude and importance."

Quote :

"There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it."

Quote :

"The wacko "conspiracy theory" is the tale about the 19 camel jockeys and bin Laden in the cave pulling off 9/11."

Jesus, I'll ask again: You've never addressed any of my questions about statements like this. Are arabs just stupid stupid people who can't do anything right? Whenever there is any kind of terrorist attack, the first thing that you do is immediately dismiss the possibility that a simple arab could pull it off.

Quote :

"It is a FACT that the government/MSM/official story is absurd and has many, many problems. It is a FACT that the government and MSM is covering up the truth about the attack, thereby implicating themselves as being connected to those who ultimately carried out the attack. It is a FACT that over a hundred Mossad agents and Israeli spies were detained around 9/11 in the U.S., many of them gathering intelligence and plotting terrorist attacks (some connected directly to the 9/11 attacks). It is a FACT that elite Zionist/Jewish interests wield significant (if not controlling) power over the U.S. Government, and that they wanted to go to the war in the Middle East and Afghanistan before 9/11.....ETC...."

FACTS can be proven. You have yet to prove anything with your 48 pages of cut and paste.

9/12/2006 7:41:11 PM

I'd add that no matter what kind of misinformation agents you suspect all of us to be, at least one of us is willing to extend you enough credibility to say you could be right. I can say pretty literally that I don't know for sure that you're wrong, but I highly suspect you are. I'm interested to see how you'd convince a person who you believed made absolutely zero assumptions simply as a matter of personal policy...

9/12/2006 7:45:55 PM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: Do you want to back that up with your own psychological sources? I good rebuttle takes more that just saying "No it isn't!""

He can. The official history of the events of 9/11, codified in the 9/11 commission report, establish a conspiracy. If you're arguing Al Qaeda is behind 9/11, you're necessarily and incontestably also arguing that a conspiracy to significantly alter the course of American history and terrorize millions (even billions) of people was planned and succeeded.

How is your conspiracism different than his?

Culprits and motives. That's about it.

[Edited on September 12, 2006 at 9:28 PM. Reason : ...]

9/12/2006 9:27:31 PM

A conspiracy is not analgous to conspiracism.

I already posted this a few times. It defines conspiracy theory in the context of conspiracism.

Quote :

"1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence; Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence. 2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact; Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience. 3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions; Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals. 4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators; Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person. 5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators; May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc. 6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning; Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones. 7. Appeals to 'common sense'; Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena. 8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies; Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument. 9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review; Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge. 10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science; At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts. 11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities; Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving. 12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative; When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy. 13. The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody; Conspiracy tales grow in the telling, and can swell to world-spanning proportions. As the adherents struggle to explain counter-arguments, the conspiracy grows even more (see preceding item). Conspiracy theories that have been around for a few decades typically encompass the whole world and huge portions of history. 14. The conspiracy centers on the "usual suspects"; Classical conspiracy theories feature people, groups or organizations that are discriminated against in the culture where the story is told. Jews and foreigners are a common target. Likewise, organizations with a bad or colorful reputation feature prominently, such as the Templars, the Nazis and just about any secret service."

The entire logic is different, not just culprits and motives. You're trying to argue over semantics.

9/12/2006 9:35:24 PM

No, I'm arguing that he could damn well be right. He could also not be a real person, like SmarterChild that just autoposts conspiracy shit from Alex Jones' Web site. Both are unlikely. But I've never met the guy, so I could just as easily be right about him not being a real person as he is about Zionist Jews running Earth through the Mossad.

I feel the odds--regardless of the semantics--are about equal. Say maybe one out of a billion. That's 0.0000001%. Then it becomes an intellectual curiosity to humor and amuse a bored author. As such, I want to get to the bottom of why people believe an official account of this conspiracy fervently enough to presume it's self-evidently more representative of the facts than any other version whatsover. Then, what parts of the logic from your list differentiates his conspiracy that 9/11 was orchestrated by Zionists within the federal government.

This is more than semantics. It's a question of methodology. I honestly don't feel like he's getting a fair shake in this, and that's probably got about as much to do with why the conversation never goes anywhere as he does.

[Edited on September 12, 2006 at 10:29 PM. Reason : ...]

9/12/2006 10:28:21 PM

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/WarOnTerrorism/2006/09/12/1830169-ap.html

Quote :

"Theory that U.S. orchestrated Sept. 11 attacks 'not absurd': Venezuela September 12, 2006 CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez said Tuesday that it's at least plausible that the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Chavez did not specifically accuse the U.S. government of having a hand in the Sept. 11 attacks, but rather suggested that theories of U.S. involvement bear examination. The Venezuelan leader, an outspoken critic of U.S. President George W. Bush, was reacting to a television report investigating a theory that the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives after hijacked airplanes crashed into them in 2001. "The hypothesis is not absurd . . . that those towers could have been dynamited," Chavez said in a speech to supporters. "A building never collapses like that, unless it's with an implosion." "The hypothesis that is gaining strength . . . is that it was the same U.S. imperial power that planned and carried out this terrible terrorist attack or act against its own people and against citizens of all over the world," Chavez said. "Why? To justify the aggressions that immediately were unleashed on Afghanistan, on Iraq." Chavez has said the U.S. launched those wars to ensure its political and economic power. The U.S. government says al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden masterminded the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "A plane supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, but no one ever found a single remnant of that plane," Chavez said, citing a television program he had seen on Venezuela's state television. Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro raised the same theories in an earlier speech Tuesday, and called for an independent investigation. "It's really worrisome to think that all of that could have been a great conspiracy against humanity," Maduro said. "An independent international investigation must be carried out one day to discover the truth about the events of Sept. 11." "

9/13/2006 9:09:03 AM

salisburyboy why dont you comment on this video you hardheaded ignorant motherfucker

http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier
http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier
http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier
http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier
http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier
http://media.putfile.com/jet-into-concrete-barrier

9/13/2006 9:17:24 AM

Quote :

"comment on this video"

sure

Quote :

"The below mentioned premise that an F4 Phantom fighter jet hitting that hardened concrete barrier is akin to the alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon is like oil and water; they don’t mix, and they serve to muddy the issue... ...The Pentagon isn’t a nuclear hardened structure, so I can’t follow your weak logic that since an F4 vaporized itself in a test impact on a nuclear hardened structure that the alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon should have exhibited the same characteristics http://lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=426&z=54"

9/13/2006 9:50:42 AM

A. I asked you to use common sense, not to quote another article like you always do
B. Wtf is a "nuclear hardened structure"? They dont reinforce concrete using any kind of nuclear processes
C. Doesn't even matter...the F4 video shows a plane hitting concrete...
D. Why am I trying to rationalize common sense with this cokehead paranoia freak

9/13/2006 9:53:53 AM

The concrete block used in that video is 10 feet thick. Were the walls of the Pentagon made
of 10 foot thick reinforced concrete? Hell no. They were 16 inches thick...made of brick,
masonry, and limestone. But I'm sure you'd have us believe the test is still somehow applicable
to the situation of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon.

[Edited on September 13, 2006 at 10:27 AM. Reason : 3]

9/13/2006 10:19:09 AM