My advice to conspiracy theorists

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You may have deluded yourself into thinking you've proven OKC, but you haven't. Just more bragging from you.

 

"According to his son". Man, you conspiracy theorists will believe ANYTHING that fits in your little fantasy world even when the person involved is out to make a buck off of gullible people.

 

Eh.
I have never bought that tabloid nonsense.
St John Hunt (E Howard Hunt's son) was a meth addict, and was only at his old man's house to borrow money.
E Howard Hunt, at the time of the alleged interviews with his son, was dying, horribly.
He was suffering from lupus, pneumonia, cancers of the jaw and prostate, gangrene, the amputation of his left leg. He was also, by all accounts, deaf as a post.

The entire 'death bed confession' nonsense can only be true if you believe the word St John Hunt, an opportunist out to make a buck off his old man's notoriety.
His story does not stand up to the evidence collected to date, and it is simply not credible.

You may choose to believe such nonsense, if it brings you comfort.
This is a free country, after all.

 

Bragging? OK, you asked for it.

This is video footage from every TV station is OKC. They all agreed, as well as the Justice Dept and the Oklahoma governor, that 2 bombs were found inside the building, diffused, and recovered. They were described as "highly sophisticated" (not like a redneck fertilizer bomb).
[video=youtube;VMrYeMTXifc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMrYeMTXifc[/video]

This video shows prior knowledge.
[video=youtube;y_7z5eUK7F0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_7z5eUK7F0[/video]

As does this one.
[video=youtube;Ck13yfbOXdQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck13yfbOXdQ[/video]

 

OK, whatever. It doesn't "bring me comfort", that's dumb. I only mentioned the confession because you brought up JFK and said no one had ever talked. But whatever. I'm not really interested in talking about it. As I said, before my time.

 

So do you believe those same media outlets when they say the bombs were ATF practice bombs? Or do you only believe what fits your preconceived notions of conspiracy? Seriously. Why would McVeigh willingly die for a CIA black ops? If you want to convince anyone of something, you're going to have to come up with something more than suspicions and opinions. Your ego doesn't convince anyone of anything other than your claims are just empty boasts.

 

Please post from these media outlets where they claimed that.

I didn't say that he did.

I came up with evidence, which you have not done. I notice you said nothing about the second and third clips.Care to explain why the ATF knew not to come to work that day? Care to explain how the governor's brother knew beforehand?

Where do you get this ego (*)(*)(*)(*)? I am posting facts. You are the one using snark and condescencion. Check your own ego, buddy.

 

*sigh*

 

That's all you have to say? You go into 'deflection' mode? What kind of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is that, man!


Would I be satisfied? I would be suspicious. Why would it be 'classified' but show 'nothing'?

You can make your own conclusion to your last question, Patriot. I think they would though, and I think they would for the simple fact of 'continuity of government'. 9/11 was too big.

 

It is the kind of "bull(*)(*)(*)(*)" that exposes unreasoning people from the reasoning people. You don't like the answer so you go on the attack.

Of course you would be suspicious. You don't believe anything that falls outside your pre-conceived notions. You will always come up with an excuse for not believing whatever you wish to deny. The transcripts were flagged as classified before they even gave their testimony due to the fact the possibility existed that they would be discussing information that was classified and harmful to the US if it got out.

Uh huh. Sure they would have. Do you actually BELIEVE the (*)(*)(*)(*) you write? There would be no issue with continuity of government because the people responsible are not the government. They are people filling a role in the government. They can be replaced. You don't give criminals responsible for the largest mass murder in US history a free pass simply because it is "too big". Sorry, that is a seriously retarded (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up notion. Did they give Nixon a pass? No. Did they give Clinton a pass? No. What they did was peanuts. You pretending the commission would be afraid nobody would be able to differentiate between the government and the criminals is nothing but a poorly thought out excuse for perpetuating beliefs that are based far more on paranoid delusions and a desire for Bush and Cheney to be guilty than any part of reality.

 

Why did you deflect then? You could have just answered the question. Quit playing games. I answer questions even when they make me look bad, defeat my purpose, whatever. Quit playing. I'm not being unreasonable, I want answers.

And assume all you want about me, but the fact of the matter remains: the two most powerful men in America were clandestine in their testimony in which they spoke about 9/11 and before, and probably the days after. It is classified to this day. The American people are sitting on their hands about this. As if it doesn't matter.

And your rhetoric: "The transcripts were flagged as classified before they even gave their testimony due to the fact the possibility existed that they would be discussing information that was classified and harmful to the US if it got out." Do you have a source for this claim?
It is interesting nonetheless. Why would it be harmful to the US if their information got out? What kind of information would be harmful?

And like I said, Patriot, you can believe what you want. You have your own pre-conceived notions, and I have mine. But ask yourself one thing: do people generalize, stereotype, assume, and make decisions without fact checking first? And if it were revealed that the government, or active members of it were to have either allowed 9/11 to happen or did it themselves or was involved, how many Americans would be out on the streets? Look at what happened to our country when MLK got shot or when Rodney King was beaten. Look at the anti-war and anti-government movements created during the Vietnam War. Look at the Occupy Wall Street movement. There is an active body within the United States that would ignite if it were revealed that 9/11 was anything but what has been said over the years. That September day has changed everything. To say it hasn't is being ignorant. And to try and claim that smart people wouldn't try to hide things that would cause our nation to implode is intellectually unsound. Just because you have a hard time admitting the tough things about 9/11 doesn't mean that they're not there.

 

It really just boils down to them really craving attention.

 

Did you miss the part where you proved it didn't matter? No matter what their testimony says, unless it agrees with your preconceived notions, you're not going to believe it. So what's the point? We BOTH know their testimony didn't have anything incriminating in it.

And your rhetoric: "The transcripts were flagged as classified before they even gave their testimony due to the fact the possibility existed that they would be discussing information that was classified and harmful to the US if it got out." Do you have a source for this claim?[/quote]
It is common knowledge. How is it you don't know this when it is you whining about the meeting?

Source

That is the reason why Presidents have the power to determine the circumstances around giving testimony.

I thought you were in the military. How is it you don't understand the need to keep some information confidential. Do you tell your enemy what you are going to do next or what resources you have in the field? Of course not. Bush and Cheney were meeting with the commission specifically to discuss what was going on prior to 9/11 which would include things like anti-terrorist operations the President knew about.

Wrong yet again. Don't confuse what I believe to be as screwed up as what you believe. I believe what the evidence shows, not what I want to believe despite the evidence. I don't have the pre-conceived notion that the government was innocent. The evidence doesn't support your claims, and that is what I believe. Now, if you can show me evidence that Bush and Cheney are guilty, fine. I will look at that and move forward from there. Until then, don't preach to me that I have pre-conceived notions when that is strictly a conspiracy theorist trait

The stupid ones do.

Quite a few. They would be demanding Bush and Cheney's heads, not the dissolution of the government. Again, you have a hard time telling the difference between people holding office and the office itself.

So what's your point? That people should suppress the truth just to keep the rabble rousers content? That's pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up. Would there be riots with people demanding justice? Absolutely. Is that wrong? No.

There you go trying to be all dramatic by vastly exaggerating. The US would implode? Bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

You have yet to present a single shred of evidence to back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims about the "tough things about 9/11". Your paranoid delusions about what was said behind closed doors is not evidence of anything but your paranoid delusions. Until you actually produce evidence to back up your claims, the truth of the matter is they are not there.

 

Yeah, like there is no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing evidence whatsoever. Quit being a denialist.

 

So present some. I keep asking. People keep claiming they have so much evidence, yet I have yet to see a real piece. You do know your OPINIONS don't count as evidence, right? Following the evidence is not being a denialist. It is called being a realist.

 

Before I'm accused of deflection, read this post very carefully my friend.

I've gone through the 9/11 section, Patriot. Evidence has been produced.

In a lot of circumstances, you follow the evidence, because what's being proposed is conspiracy theory nonsense. However, and nevertheless, you are a human being. You are prone to being too strongly patriotic and nationalistic. It clouts your judgment.

Because the alternatives are that you're moronic or a government plant. Something can be attributed to your sheer stubbornness and refusal to see that clearly some of what is proposed is unrealistic as (*)(*)(*)(*), and some of it is real as (*)(*)(*)(*).

BUT FOR SOME REASON, YOU CHOOSE TO PLAY IT ALL OFF AS NON-EVIDENCE! Nothing to see here. Move along.

Why is that?

Everything.

Even when the Secretary of Defense says, "can't quite account for" and YOU have the audacity to claim that it DOESN'T mean 'missing'.
None of the War Games mean anything. Nothing. Not even the NRO one. Or the Army one.
Operation Northwoods, which was made public knowledge four months prior to 9/11, also means nothing. I mean, show me the evidence that al-Qaeda did 9/11.
Insider trading doesn't matter.
Mossad being in New Jersey doesn't matter.
War plans against Afghanistan pre-9/11 don't matter.


Look. I wish it hadn't happened too. I wish our country hadn't changed. I wish our country was better. And like Jimmy Carter said in the New York Times, calling our President out, we've lost our moral compass. Dave asks why I'm disgruntled. I'm upset with my government. We've killed and bombed and maimed and burned and (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up millions of people, man. I mean, when was the last time you sat down and did a real thorough examination of US 'foreign policy'? I've tried to engage you and the others in your beliefs, but you've all shied away completely.

It is as if you're only holding on because of things like excessive patriotism and nationalism and exceptionalism. But you have been shown evidence, so don't say you haven't.

 

And so now Jango, back to my original point, and to the very point of this thread;

a. Do you think you are doing one ounce of good posting and rehashing all these theories on a web forum, where they will invariably be met with skepticism and scorn?

b. Are you willing to band together with like-minded conspiracy-believers, and lobby like-minded financiers and trusted civic leaders, and demand a fresh, new investigation?
(An investigation based upon hard, credible evidence?)

Trust me.
That's the only way you are going to effect change.

Spouting off with nebulous web-links from fanatical web sites, and heavily-edited video links containing spin-doctored portions of interviews,
and then quibbling ad nauseum with people who don't agree with you,
is accomplishing NOTHING.

I'm not here to insult you, nor am I here to argue with you.
I'm just trying to help point you in a positive direction
by pointing out a few simple truths.

 

So why can't you actually PRODUCE said piece of evidence? Is it because you don't want to be associated with the "evidence" when it is exposed as either a lie or opinion and not evidence? Why do people constantly whine about all this evidence yet CANNOT PRODUCE A SINGLE PIECE?!?

I believe you mean it clouds my judgement.

So all you have to do is present the evidence you claim I am looking at in a biased manner and thus misreading it. All you are doing is attacking ME and not debating your claims 9/11 was an inside job. Can you even state the theory you actually believed happened based on all this supposed evidence you've seen? I sincerely doubt it because then you can't have all the fun of pretending all the OTHER theories are somehow now correct down the road.

Really? So the ONLY choices are I am patriotic, a moron or a government plant? WOW! So it isn't possible I am a rational human being looking at the overwhelming evidence 9/11 was caused by 19 hijackers from a group called Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden? Can you PLEASE present ANY evidence this is incorrect?

Yes, I realize my stubborn insistance for EVIDENCE and believing the EVIDENCE can be frustrating, but seriously, why do you ask people to believe stuff neither you nor any other truther can prove, yet pretend is "real as (*)(*)(*)(*)"?

You do understand what evidence is and how it is clearly defined, right? All I am asking for is that claims be backed up by evidence. Yet all you can do is sling mud and hope nobody notices you can't actually produce any evidence.

Because every piece of "evidence" I have seen from truthers is non-evidence. That is why when you ask truthers to present evidence they scatter like cockroaches.

I presented you article after article explaining that they were talking about reconciling multiple accounting systems where transactions didn't meet the GAO requirements for documentation. I even showed you where they had accounted for trillions of dollars worth of transactions that accounted for the money you claim was missing. I explained to you how the amount of money you claim was physically missing was impossible for a person to steal from the military as it was more than the entire operating budget of the entire military several times over. Were you able to refute this? No. If the money were truly missing, that would be a crime. Have you been able to dig up information on any kind of investigation into the largest single theft in human history by several orders of magnitude? No. Have you been able to show a writeoff by the military to the tune of 2.3 trillion dollars that would be seen as a massive spike in the national debt? No.

So what did I miss, Jango? I presented my evidence. You couldn't even begin to refute it and now we see your response is blind alliegance to your anti-American views. I submit that it is you, not I, showing an unreasonable bias that is clouding their judgement.

So show me one shred of evidence ANY of the war games affected our response on 9/11. One single shred. I've shown you how much it delayed our response; by about 5 seconds or the time it took to ask if this was "real world or an excercise". That wasn't good enough for you apparently.

OK, please explain to me how a planned, private drill to evacuate a buiding responsible for analyzing satellite reconnaissance photos somehow affected our response on 9/11, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT WAS CANCELLED!

OK, this is a new one on me. Which army war game affected the army's ability to respond on 9/11. What was the army suppose to do? Storm the planes mid flight?

First off, don't try to lie. Operation Northwoods was made public September 30th, 1998, not four months prior to 9/11. Which conspiratard site lied to you about when Operation Northwoods was released? And you still believe them? WOW!

Second, how do the plans of completely different people in a completely different administration in a completely different era to try and address a completely different problem somehow prove 9/11 was carried out by our government? It doesn't. Does it prove people can think up evil things? Absolutely. I've never denied that. Does it prove our government COULD have dreamed up something like 9/11? Absolutely. I've never denied that. But instead of desperately grasping on to antiquated documents and pretending they somehow validate my beliefs that the government was behind 9/11, I look at the evidence. COULD the government have been behind 9/11? Yes. Does the evidence back up this assertion? Not even close.

You're kidding right? You don't consider numerous leaders of Al Qaeda admitting to 9/11 evidence? You don't consider KSM admitting he was behind 9/11 evidence? You don't consider the conviction of Moussaoui, a self confessed member of Al Qaeda, for being a material part of the 9/11 attack evidence of Al Qaeda being behind 9/11?

Show me evidence that overrides the FBI and SEC's investigations that identified one institutional trader and a newsletter. Your OPINION that the insider trading is somehow part of 9/11 doesn't make insider trading evidence.

You think we don't have agents in Israel? Do you have ANY evidence Mossad was behind the attacks?

Not unless they said "Wait for 9/11/2001". Come on. You keep claiming you are ex-military. How can you NOT know we have plans for invading EVERY country?

Sure doesn't seem like it. What else gives you the kind of soapbox you need to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about the government?

Maybe you should seek help for your depression and irrational views.

We know that. You whine about it constantly. Does that justify blaming them for 9/11? No. That is dishonest and rather petty.

What does that have to do with 9/11? Shouldn't you be able to back up your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims with EVIDENCE and not have to try and justify your beliefs the government was behind 9/11 by pretending the government is so evil they are the only ones capable of 9/11? Has the US been responsible for attrocities? Yes. But, like many truthers, you can't differentiate between the government and the people holding office in the government. That is tantamount to pretending every police officer is guilty of police brutality and racism because other police officers have been guilty of those crimes. IT. IS. RETARDED.

That is your own rationalization for why people don't hate America like you do. Again, I follow the evidence. That isn't too hard to understand, but you are so blinded by hatred you insist reality is different.

WHERE? All you've done is presented coincidences and then your retarded opinion that it somehow consititutes evidence even though you can't actually show HOW it proves 9/11 was done by someone other than Al Qaeda. In the mean time, you have absolutely zero evidence that Al Qaeda WASN'T responsible for 9/11. So do I get to add you to the LONG list of truthers who have failed to actually present evidence and instead posts lies, coincidences and opinion instead of evidence in the hope nobody notices it isn't evidence?

 

Show me the evidence that al Qaeda performed 9/11, please.

 

Wow.

I mean, WOW, Jango.

You do know how absurd that sounds to the average, reasoning, voting-age, fairly-well educated person, right?

*break, break*

Say admins or mods;
Do you have the powers to move the past few exchanges regarding 911 conspiracy theory nonsense to an appropriate 911 conspiracy theory nonsense thread?

This thread was actually started (with all due good intentions) of discussing conspiracy theories in general, and just how it might be for conspiracy theorists to become more effective and results-oriented.

The ugly tit-for-tat over 911 conspiracy theory fantasies threatens to derail an otherwise meaningful and beneficial thread.
Thanks!!

 

Sorry, Sparky. I've created a new thread in the 9/11 section called evidence thread and have moved the current conversation there.

 

You are the man.
Thank you sir.

 

On a more interesting and thread related point, I'm not sure you've been following what has been going on in the 9/11 forum, specifically the "truther heaven" thread. Seems one of our regulars started touting another forum specifically geared for truthers. When he was outed for having abandoned that site months ago several days after registering, he went back. Apparently he was not crazy enough for them. He was banned after being called a CIA agent and paid government shill, which is hysterical since that is what he calls everyone who doesn't agree with him.

I find it interesting how conspiracy communities can be so quick to lash out at anyone who does not tote the line even when there are numerous conflicting lines to tote. The intolerance is mindbogglingly intense.

 

Never, ever underestimate the power and the passion of a handful of guys who live in their mommy's basement, and who have access to the internet.

 

I honesty try. I keep putting the bar lower and lower and they keep digging under it! I just had a guy try to convince me all the evidence used in the Moussaoui trial proved the government was behind 9/11, not Al Qaeda.