9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

Discussion in '9/11' started by phoenyx, Feb 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    MOD WARNING!!!

    After much reflection (just clock the amount of time I spent between this post and my last one -.-), I've decided that I'd like to start on a fairly broad and neutral title.

    As to the content of the OP, I'm thinking we could start with a statement in the original Zeitgeist film, which is, to my understanding, the official story's version of events and something that the Zeitgeist film contests:

    ***
    19 hijackers, directed by Osama Bin Laden, took over 4 commercial jets
    with box cutters and, while evading the Air Defense System (NORAD), hit
    75% of their targets. In turn, World Trade Towers 1, 2 & 7 collapsed due
    to structural failure through fire in a "pancake" fashion, while the
    plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane
    that crashed in Shanksville. The 911 Commission found that there were
    no warnings for this act of terrorism, while multiple government
    failures prevented adequate defense.
    ***

    As I was speaking to Hannibal, I would like to ask him if this is the general outline of what he believes happened on 9/11? I would also like to hear what others believe happened on 9/11.

    As to what I believe, this is exemplified by the concluding statement of Zeitgeist in its 9/11 section:
    ***
    Criminal Elements within the US government staged a "false flag" Terror
    attack on its own citizens, in order to manipulate public perception
    into supporting its agenda.

    They have been doing these for years.

    9/11 was an Inside Job.
    ***
     
  2. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is the cohesive alternative?
     
  3. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let me clarify.

    Conspiracy theorists love generalities. Their theories exist in the realm of innuendo and speculation. This is because when pressed for specifics their theories fall apart.

    Hannibal's challenge was for honest debate of specific aspects of the conspiracy theory. If you feel the government staged a false attack, then please argue a specific aspect of this false flag narrative using your evidence for your claims and a logical cohesive argument that does not rely on innuendo and speculation.
     
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I requested a specific instance, not a broad and neutral post. As to the topic of this thread, I'll stop you where I edited your post: the mocking and overly simplified Zeitgeist proclamation bears very little resemblance to the generally accepted narrative.

    No need to start another thread, but please choose one specific aspect of the accepted narrative you would like to contest. Present your evidence as to why you think it is false, and let's have a mature discussion of the facts.

    Thanks
     
  5. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    This reminds me of this article:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/twenty-five-rules-of-disinformation/24889

    Specifically, Rule 14:
    "14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely..."

    I believe there is plenty of evidence that the official story isn't true, but I'm not claiming I can prove this. Questions I think should be asked are:
    1- How much are you willing to listen to what the other side has to say?
    2- With what tone do you respond?

    I have given the general outline of what I believe regarding 9/11, but I haven't seen Hannibal do the same.
     
  6. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    We may disagree on that, but for our purposes, this doesn't really matter. I don't really care what the "generally accepted narrative" is in this instance; what I care about is what -you- think happened on 9/11. So, have at it.
     
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Radical religious fanatics hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings.

    Since you don't want to talk specifics, it seems we aren't having a discussion. (Take a look at the chart I posted.) I requested (not demanded, don't change my words) that someone choose a specific instance and subject it to debate.
     
  8. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Wow, I was half expecting a dissertation :p. Anyway, that's a good start, thanks.

    I never said I didn't want to talk specifics. I just wanted to get a general outline of what you believed first. An english teacher of mine taught me to "know your audience" when writing an essay, I'm simply trying to apply this. You've now given me an outline, so now it's time to think of something more specific. I think I'll be going to bed now though, so thinking tomorrow.
     
  9. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't want to debate a specific aspect of the event?

    I think the question you need to ask yourself is, "How does my argument diverge from rule 14?" You have an impression that the government is somehow involved in the attack that took place on 9/11. You also disbelieve what you outlined as the generally accepted narrative (I concur with Hannibal that your account of the "official story's version of events" is not accurate). Which came first for you? Was it the suspicion of government involvement, or the investigation of the straw man narrative you were given by Zeitgeist? How have you insulated yourself against the problem of what you reference as rule 14? After all, if you have not established your own narrative using evidence, aren't you doing the exact same thing? That is, are you being as critical, or more critical of the investigation into the attacks than you feel people who challenge you are being with your own arguments?

    Judge for yourself.



    I have given the general outline of what I believe regarding 9/11, but I haven't seen Hannibal do the same.[/QUOTE]
     
  10. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Your first mistake. Directed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with help from Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, and fronted, coordinated and executed by 3 members of the Hamburg Cell.

    Your second mistake. They also wore fake bomb vests, filled the first class cabin with mace, and used several very large, well trained muscle hijackers to slit the throats of the pilots and several passengers.

    You got this correct, but you don't understand why, or how.

    Correct.

    You ignore the two 120,000kg airliners that smacked into the towers, and the massive chunks of the North Tower which smacked into 7.

    Wrong. The towers tore themselves apart. Anyone who thinks that looks like a 'pancake' is kidding themselves.


    Wrong. http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ - Plenty of identifiable remains.

    Wrong. https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1 - Plenty of identifiable remains.

    No actionable warnings. c0ck-up before conspiracy.

    Anyone who believes anything word of 'Zeitgeist' has seriously discernment issues.

    http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/
     
  11. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    28
    As mentioned the Hannibal, that's not the case at all. I think that without specifics, debates generally don't last very long and for good reason; vague statements are frequently unprovable one way or the other.

    I'm not saying that official story supporters need to explain everything that happened on 9/11 in order for the official story to be true.

    The outline was from Zeitgeist, but I clearly felt it was adequate for the task or I wouldn't have used it. Nevertheless, even after I quoted that statement, I asked Hannibal if that was what he believed. As I also mentioned to him, ultimately I'm not particularly interested in what the "generally accepted narrative" is, as I'm not a politician trying to get votes here. What I wanted to know was what Hannibal thought, and I simply brought it up in the hopes that, given a template, he would then either acknowledge that that was what he thought or he would say what he agreed with or disagreed with. He did neither, but later on he made a brief mention of his views on what happened on 9/11, and that was really all that I needed to continue.

    Actually, I read Jim Marrs book The Terror Conspiracy long before I saw Zeitgeist. I simply used Zeitgeist's synopsis of what it believed to be the official story because it was short, which was what I was looking for. Furthermore, in the film, it expands upon various points brought up regarding its summary of the official story, which makes it easier for me to argue against many points in it.

    Rule 14 is the idea that someone won't accept a theory unless all things are explained by that theory. It is meant to discredit perfectly valid theories simply because they can't account for everything. It's also a tactic frequently used against conspiracy theorists, which is why I brought it up.

    It's difficult to measure how critical one is of one's own arguments. That being said, I think it's safe to say that many people have come to appreciate that I am frequently willing to listen to various points of view on a subject.

    I do. So far, I do believe people are listening to what I have to say and I like the tone as well. This forum seems to be more respectful of those who don't believe in official narratives then the forum I'm coming from; I believe that as time goes by, I'll be spending more time here and less time there.
     
  12. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great. I hope you hold to this position during the course of the discussion.

    This question was not about Hannibal. This question was about rule 14. I want to know how you have insulated yourself against one of the classic logical fallacies that most conspiracy theorists employ to discredit commonly held narratives. A theorist will exploit discrepancies in a narrative (whether real or imagined) expand them, and use them to argue that if discrepancies in the story are incorrect, then the entire story must be incorrect.

    Also, I don't doubt that it makes it easier to argue against points that have been fabricated. Take for example the claim that aircraft were "vaporized" What does that mean? Which investigation came to that conclusion?

    I know I've spent a considerable amount of time scratching my head in discussions with people who insist that if there aren't enough photographs and video of debris and human remains then that is evidence that the debris that was photographed was planted, and that everyone who insists they combed the scene for bodies and debris is either lying or was duped by conspirators. I find such a logical leap ludicrous, but it would be a prime example of a theorists employment of rule 14. They demand photographs, and if there are none, they feel justified in discounting the testimony of people on the scene, they feel justified in discounting the rest of the documented evidence.

    I find that theorists narratives account for very little. They are fantasies that start from a predetermined conclusion and are based on an eclectic mess of misunderstood evidence and fallacious reasoning. I think that theorists get frustrated when others don't follow down the same course of flawed logic that the theorists fabricated in order to maintain their predetermined conclusion. Others dismantle the false logic and this is what gets misconstrued as use of rule 14.

    Let's keep it this way.
     
  13. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Think about this:

    Conspiracy theorists don't really have a cohesive narrative to attempt to apply rule 14 to. They have a mish mash of alternative ideas that they use to attempt explain what they feel are discrepancies in the more commonly held belief.

    A common frustration in the debate between theorists and people who disbelieve them is the tendency for theorists to abandon and rejoin positions at will. When position A is shown to be incorrect theorists will take up position B. This is not the case for people who hold the common belief. The common belief stays generally the same as theorists dance all around it. This is because the theorists agenda is to locate areas in the narrative where they can insert their alternative belief. It's not an agenda to find the truth, per say, it's an agenda to pin the crime on a specific villain, be it Jews, or conservatives, or Illuminati, or the ubiquitous men in black helicopters.
     
  14. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1. I've never heard this claim before.
    2. By all appearances, they appeared to be average.
     
  15. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I really do hate this. It assumes from the start of the conversation, that you must be able to know the entirety of what happened on 9-11, from motivation, to intricate details of the operation, to question the official narrative.

    I need none fo these things to question the official narrative. I believe Sibel Edmonds testimony under oath, the failure of Iraqi WMD intelligence, and swaps market activities that defy rational explanation without prior knowledge of 9-11, are more then enough for people to demand a new transperant investigation into 9-11.
     
  16. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That Bush the Lesser and his merry morons were pond scum does not mean that ObL did not do it.

    The stock trades are not proof of anything unless they can be tied to someone with the resources to pull off a job this massive.
     
  17. pimptight

    pimptight Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why don't you go look at your buddy Fangbeer's post that I liked above, and see why your assertion that I must be able to explain to you everything that happened from motive, to conclsion is a logical fallacy.

    Do you dispute that those swaps market trades defy logical explanation without prior knowledge of 9-11?

    Iraqi WMD is the precedent for intelligence manipulation, to meet a political goal resulting in the death of American citizens. That very much has a bearing on what you should accept from the government as fact as far as 9-11 goes.
     
  18. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You still need to address the actual facts of what occurred at the scene of the crime.

    If there is an empty vodka bottle in the front seat of a crashed car, it does not matter how much unicorn poo the driver's neighbor has in his compost bin.

    - - - Updated - - -

    They did undergo Special Operations training in Afghanistan.
     
  19. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay... and?
     
  20. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is nothing unusual about their being able to take control of the aircraft.
     
  21. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What do you think the term 'muscle hijackers' meant?
     
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Passengers and flight attendants on 11, 175 and 93 reported that the hijackers had what appeared to be bombs. They also reported stabbings and the use of mace or pepper spray.
     
  23. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know what it means. I'm just contesting that they were 'very large'.
     
  24. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm aware of their dastardly deeds on the planes. But I thought it was that they threatened that they had bombs, not that they had "bombs". Would you mind sourcing that?
     
  25. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why?....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page