Morons....

[John White]

........ I am dismayed by the emotional disconnect shown in the attitudes of critics, especially when they consider mass murder in the middle east against innocents to be serving the interests of the victims of this terrible crime: but then , that is the same shriveled and retarded empathy shown by the criminals themselves

And I am dismayed at your attempt to cloud the issue by bringing up emotionally intense but irrelevant topics such as the war in Iraq. Most critics would agree with you that 1) 9/11 was used as justification for the war, and 2) the war is ill advised and/or badly executed. What we don't agree is that 9/11 was part of a plan to allow the US to go to war.

Well gee, have you even considerd the motivation for the attack from the al-Queda POV? Lets say the Official Story is completely true (hypothetically)

What were Al-Queda thinking? Could it be they were manipulataing the US into going to War? You clearly must be joking if you are suggesting Islamic fundamentalists would plan, orchestrate and carry out this attack (impossible as it would be for them to do so without assistance from inside the US at the highest levels) and NOT expect America to react?

Unless critics are suggesting Osama Bin Laden is a moron?

I know you're upset about the fate of your hero, Saddam Hussein, but sheesh, try to stay on topic.

I'm happy to accept your apology now for suggesting I hero worship dictators, even CIA installed ones like Saddam Hussein. Last week a critic slandered me by calling me anti-semitic, so its not as if I am suprised, but even so I find that unacceptable

[chipmunk stew]

........ I am dismayed by the emotional disconnect shown in the attitudes of critics, especially when they consider mass murder in the middle east against innocents to be serving the interests of the victims of this terrible crime: but then , that is the same shriveled and retarded empathy shown by the criminals themselves

And I am dismayed at your attempt to cloud the issue by bringing up emotionally intense but irrelevant topics such as the war in Iraq. Most critics would agree with you that 1) 9/11 was used as justification for the war, and 2) the war is ill advised and/or badly executed. What we don't agree is that 9/11 was part of a plan to allow the US to go to war.

Well gee, have you even considerd the motivation for the attack from the al-Queda POV? Lets say the Official Story is completely true (hypothetically)

What were Al-Queda thinking? Could it be they were manipulataing the US into going to War? You clearly must be joking if you are suggesting Islamic fundamentalists would plan, orchestrate and carry out this attack (impossible as it would be for them to do so without assistance from inside the US at the highest levels) and NOT expect America to react?

Unless critics are suggesting Osama Bin Laden is a moron?

He's obviously not a moron. And it's not as though he's kept Al Qaeda's motivations a secret. His interpretation of Islam calls on him to wage war and promises great rewards for doing so.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/osam_qts.htm

We are seeking to incite the (Islamic) nation to rise up to liberate its land and to (conduct) jihad (holy war) for the sake of God.

I was never afraid of death ... As Muslims, we believe that when we die, we go to heaven. Before a battle, God sends us ... tranquility.

I'm fighting so I can die a martyr and go to heaven to meet God. Our fight now is against the Americans.

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.

It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities.

Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.

Let me return the question to you: have you even considerd the motivation for the attack from the al-Queda POV?

[John White]

Let me return the question to you: have you even considerd the motivation for the attack from the al-Queda POV?

Certainly. And the ideological parrellels between Al-Queda and the Neo Conservatives are strongly suggestive that the two would co-operate. Both see themselves as Revolutionaries seeking to transform socities that have lost their core values through conflict with exterior enemies, for example

[chipmunk stew]

Let me return the question to you: have you even considerd the motivation for the attack from the al-Queda POV?

Certainly. And the ideological parrellels between Al-Queda and the Neo Conservatives are strongly suggestive that the two would co-operate. Both see themselves as Revolutionaries seeking to transform socities that have lost their core values through conflict with exterior enemies, for example

Except that their ideological differences, such as the core values they seek to restore, are strongly suggestive that deliberate cooperation would be unthinkable.

[James C]

........ I am dismayed by the emotional disconnect shown in the attitudes of critics, especially when they consider mass murder in the middle east against innocents to be serving the interests of the victims of this terrible crime: but then , that is the same shriveled and retarded empathy shown by the criminals themselves

And I am dismayed at your attempt to cloud the issue by bringing up emotionally intense but irrelevant topics such as the war in Iraq. Most critics would agree with you that 1) 9/11 was used as justification for the war, and 2) the war is ill advised and/or badly executed. What we don't agree is that 9/11 was part of a plan to allow the US to go to war.

I know you're upset about the fate of your hero, Saddam Hussein, but sheesh, try to stay on topic.

Still sleeping fluffy owl?

O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11

Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

Bush always suspected Saddam was behind 9/11

I can go on and on. Of course, it would be foolish to assert that Bush ties any emotion with 9/11 and Iraq. Nah, that is taking it too far....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSU_sU_r ... ed&search=

[John White]

Let me return the question to you: have you even considerd the motivation for the attack from the al-Queda POV?

Certainly. And the ideological parrellels between Al-Queda and the Neo Conservatives are strongly suggestive that the two would co-operate. Both see themselves as Revolutionaries seeking to transform socities that have lost their core values through conflict with exterior enemies, for example

Except that their ideological differences, such as the core values they seek to restore, are strongly suggestive that deliberate cooperation would be unthinkable.

I believe I could make a stab at showing how that apparent difficulty could be worked around, but I could only do so on the basis of speculation.

So I won't, unless critics specifically asked me to on the basis that we were speculating.

[scubadiver]

Still waiting for a single shred of it. Let me know when you are ready to release it.

I'm not going to put in 5 hours doing all the research to debunk some stupid video just so you can ignore it all the answered I've lovingly provided, and post some new video next week.

Is it because you are frightened that these documentaries contain factual information?

If it actually contained factual information you'd provide that information instead of link-dumping and refusing to think for yourself.

The one thing I am sure of is that I will stay away from the silly arguments about intricacies of the twin tower collapse and for the impossible "proof" for the WTC CD that you are so longing for.

Didn't you know that a court of law doesn't require absolute proof, only requires evidence that puts a case beyond a reasonable doubt?

The one thing you are good at is stopping people from looking at the big picture.

[aggle-rithm]

Well gee, have you even considerd the motivation for the attack from the al-Queda POV? Lets say the Official Story is completely true (hypothetically)

What were Al-Queda thinking? Could it be they were manipulataing the US into going to War? You clearly must be joking if you are suggesting Islamic fundamentalists would plan, orchestrate and carry out this attack (impossible as it would be for them to do so without assistance from inside the US at the highest levels) and NOT expect America to react?

You're making the mistake of projecting Western thinking onto al-Qaeda. They don't really HAVE a realistic goal that they strive for. They don't have a strategy. Their entire way of thinking is tactical: Attack America, then attack them again. Continue.

If they did have a strategy, then they should have given it a serious re-think. They haven't made anything better in the Middle East; if anything, it's far worse. But, THEY DON'T CARE. They will continue to attack, any way they can, without regard for the consequences.

I know you're upset about the fate of your hero, Saddam Hussein, but sheesh, try to stay on topic.

I'm happy to accept your apology now for suggesting I hero worship dictators, even CIA installed ones like Saddam Hussein. Last week a critic slandered me by calling me anti-semitic, so its not as if I am suprised, but even so I find that unacceptable

If the CIA installed Saddam Hussein, what was he doing with all that Soviet weaponry?

You DO wish Saddam Hussein was still in power, don't you?

[aggle-rithm]

Didn't you know that a court of law doesn't require absolute proof, only requires evidence that puts a case beyond a reasonable doubt?

It's possible you don't understand the concept of reasonable doubt, so let's just clear it up.

You don't find someone guilty because there's reasonable doubt that they are innocent. You find them guilty because there is evidence and NO reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

In other words, you can have all sorts of evidence linking somone to a crime, but if there is any reasonable possibility that they might NOT have done it, they go free.

[John White]

If you want to delude yourself that Al-queda dont have an intelligent strategy, thats your buisiness.

Still waiting for the apology

[Anti-sophist]

Didn't you know that a court of law doesn't require absolute proof, only requires evidence that puts a case beyond a reasonable doubt?

I don't know this means, but I am certain that it is completely and totally irrelevant. Is this another case of someone substituting random decision criteria instead of time-honored science and the scientific method?

The one thing you are good at is stopping people from looking at the big picture.

Because you seem to think if you ignore the 1000 small errors in your logic, the big picture becomes clear. That's obviously gibberish. How can you get the big things right when you fail so badly at the small ones? This is classic crank and crackpot logic... to ask everyone to stop getting bogged down in "details". That's what science -is-. It's details. The "big picture" is pop-science that scientists use to teach general concepts to lay-people. Actual science is nothing but details.

[aggle-rithm]

If you want to delude yourself that Al-queda dont have an intelligent strategy, thats your buisiness.

I read this article a number of years back, and it makes a lot of sense:

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

This is my basis for saying that al Qaeda doesn't have a strategy. Viewed in any other context, their actions make very little sense.

Still waiting for the apology

Why? You're the one who supports al Qaeda in their quest to kill innocent civilians.

[John White]

Aggle Rythm, NeoCons and Al-Queda are NOT opposites

They are both opposames: different expressions of the same thinking

And guess who cops it? Thats right: the innocent civilians

What would you tell the Iraq and Afghani dead? that they deserve it for having the poor judgment to live in a country your (and my) governement had decided was where the enemy lived? Well here's a news flash: the Afghani's and Iraqi's might very well say the same about the American dead: and everybody would be wrong, vicitms of cruel deciet

I deplore the regime of Saddam Hussein, equally I deplore the hypocrasy of his conviction, when the US and UK forces have killed more Iraqi's with chemical weapons than Saddam ever did (White phospherous): and it didnt trouble the members of the current NeoCon administration when he was killing Iranians with them: they were eager to supply more. Perhaps I will see Bush dance on a rope one day by the same "justice", though I dont consider that would be "balancing the books": I'd rather see life imprisonment for the both of them

What would the middle east have been like if it hadnt been subject to continous manipulation throughout the 20th century? What would Iran be like if the US had not overthrown the democratic government in 1953 and replaced it with a savage dictator? What was Mosedeq's crime? Wanting Oil revenues to benefit his own people instead of the corporate cartels? But the people of the west have been encouraged to believe all these woes are simply because all Arabs are ignorant and stupid savages, deeply ironic for a culture that was the fountain of civilisation for much of the thousand years before

If you want to know which "side" I am on it is very very simple:

I am on the side of the Humans

[aggle-rithm]

Aggle Rythm, NeoCons and Al-Queda are NOT opposites

They are both opposames: different expressions of the same thinking

And guess who cops it? Thats right: the innocent civilians

What would you tell the Iraq and Afghani dead? that they deserve it for having the poor judgment to live in a country your (and my) governement had decided was where the enemy lived? Well here's a news flash: the Afghani's and Iraqi's might very well say the same about the American dead: and everybody would be wrong, vicitms of cruel deciet

I deplore the regime of Saddam Hussein, equally I deplore the hypocrasy of his conviction, when the US and UK forces have killed more Iraqi's with chemical weapons than Saddam ever did (White phospherous): and it didnt trouble the members of the current NeoCon administration when he was killing Iranians with them: they were eager to supply more. Perhaps I will see Bush dance on a rope one day by the same "justice", though I dont consider that would be "balancing the books": I'd rather see life imprisonment for the both of them

What would the middle east have been like if it hadnt been subject to continous manipulation throughout the 20th century? What would Iran be like if the US had not overthrown the democratic government in 1953 and replaced it with a savage dictator? What was Mosedeq's crime? Wanting Oil revenues to benefit his own people instead of the corporate cartels? But the people of the west have been encouraged to believe all these woes are simply because all Arabs are ignorant and stupid savages, deeply ironic for a culture that was the fountain of civilisation for much of the thousand years before

If you want to know which "side" I am on it is very very simple:

I am on the side of the Humans

I have to apologize. My crack about you "supporting al Qaeda in its quest to kill innocent civilians" was meant to prove a point -- accusing you of this is no different from accusing the Bush administration of carrying out 9/11.

But, you've never said this, have you? I've looked through your posts, as I did earlier with James C, just to make sure I was correct in my suppositions about your views. However, just as I did with James C, I found that you have vehemently avoided stating what you believe. Readers go away with the IMPRESSION that you think the Bush administration is responsible for 9/11, but for whatever reason, you have never SAID this. Instead, you simply attack the statements of others who DO say what they believe and who provide you with the basis for that belief.

What should I conclude from this? That you lack the courage of your convictions to just come right out and say what you believe? Or that you really don't buy into the whole CT mess, and you're just doing this because you thrive on conflict? I'm not sure, and somehow I doubt you will have anything to say to clear the matter up.

[John White]

"We are all alone on a rock in space and each other is all we have"

Thats my beliefs, right there in a nutshell

But regarding communication, well thats a more difficult matter

"communication is only possible between equals" (Robert Anton Wilson)

There is a basic duality represented in our communication on this site aggle Rythm

I percieve that the official account of 9/11 is propoganda, and that such an attack can only be the result of co-operative orchestration..so in many ways I stand between polarities of certainty (Al-queda did it! vs The Neocons did it!)

The critics coming here are essentially of the belief that the propoganda must be largely true: so what benefit simply to acuse each other of being "stupid morons" or some such for understanding the world as we each do? the freedom to know our own mind is the greatest freedom a human can have

If you observe both myself and James C more closely, you may see that our interest is in building bridges and finding common ground: but to do so, first their must be a mutual willingness to listen

Thanks for the apology btw, I didnt really need it (I've been called far far worse!), but it is appreciated

[aggle-rithm]

"We are all alone on a rock in space and each other is all we have"

Thats my beliefs, right there in a nutshell

Yeah... I figured it would be something like that.

I percieve that the official account of 9/11 is propoganda, and that such an attack can only be the result of co-operative orchestration..so in many ways I stand between polarities of certainty (Al-queda did it! vs The Neocons did it!)

The critics coming here are essentially of the belief that the propoganda must be largely true: so what benefit simply to acuse each other of being "stupid morons" or some such for understanding the world as we each do?

Critics base their beliefs on the evidence available to them. We look at what if available in the media, in published investigations and studies, and other sources. If this happens to be in agreement with the "official" story, that does not mean we are "buying into" propoganda. To me, the term "official story" is meaningless. The same conclusions have been reached by many different organizations and individuals. None of them had to get together and get their stories straight, nor did they look to any governing body for an "approved" conclusion; they simply all looked at the same evidence.

If you automatically dismiss any evidence that conflicts with your world-view as "propoganda", that will inhibit your ability to get to the truth, not to mention make you look more than a little paranoid.

[TimmyG]

the same conclusions have been reached by many different organizations and individuals. None of them had to get together and get their stories straight, nor did they look to any governing body for an "approved" conclusion; they simply all looked at the same evidence.

ya see i'm not so sure about that. if we take the case of the towers and wtc7 for example.. if i'm not mistaken the direct evidence regarding the damage and collapse has only been examined by FEMA, NIST and the NTSB. All of which are acting under the executive order of Philip D. Zelikow. If scientific bodies, say from another country, had access to all the evidence and information from ground zero, and were encouraged to examine any number of hypothesise before presenting their independent findings, i might agree with you.

[aggle-rithm]

the same conclusions have been reached by many different organizations and individuals. None of them had to get together and get their stories straight, nor did they look to any governing body for an "approved" conclusion; they simply all looked at the same evidence.

ya see i'm not so sure about that. if we take the case of the towers and wtc7 for example.. if i'm not mistaken the direct evidence regarding the damage and collapse has only been examined by FEMA, NIST and the NTSB. All of which are acting under the executive order of Philip D. Zelikow. If scientific bodies, say from another country, had access to all the evidence and information from ground zero, and were encouraged to examine any number of hypothesise before presenting their independent findings, i might agree with you.

Here's just two examples of investigations other than those you've listed:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-W ... -06%20.pdf

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0128.html

[James C]

the same conclusions have been reached by many different organizations and individuals. None of them had to get together and get their stories straight, nor did they look to any governing body for an "approved" conclusion; they simply all looked at the same evidence.

ya see i'm not so sure about that. if we take the case of the towers and wtc7 for example.. if i'm not mistaken the direct evidence regarding the damage and collapse has only been examined by FEMA, NIST and the NTSB. All of which are acting under the executive order of Philip D. Zelikow. If scientific bodies, say from another country, had access to all the evidence and information from ground zero, and were encouraged to examine any number of hypothesise before presenting their independent findings, i might agree with you.

Here's just two examples of investigations other than those you've listed:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-W ... -06%20.pdf

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0128.html

Don't forget to point TimmyG in the direction of the Improbable Collapse thread where the Implosion World article has already been shown to be biased and inaccurate.

[Ignatz]

Don't forget to point TimmyG in the direction of the Improbable Collapse thread where the Implosion World article has already been shown to be biased and inaccurate.

Don't forget to point chek to the fact that Prophet Jones has removed the "pyroclastic" nonsense from his "paper that refuses to be peer-reviewed - ever", and that Hoffman's pyroclasticity drivel is still under development and probably always will be. Oops.

[chek]

Don't forget to point TimmyG in the direction of the Improbable Collapse thread where the Implosion World article has already been shown to be biased and inaccurate.

Don't forget to point chek to the fact that Prophet Jones has removed the "pyroclastic" nonsense from his "paper that refuses to be peer-reviewed - ever", and that Hoffman's pyroclasticity drivel is still under development and probably always will be. Oops.

Care to think of an acceptable explanation (government friendly, of course) for all those burnt out cars then?
Compared to where explaining that might go, I'd stick with the pyroclastic as the lesser of a range of publicly forgotten evils.

[Patrick Brown]

Don't forget to point TimmyG in the direction of the Improbable Collapse thread where the Implosion World article has already been shown to be biased and inaccurate.

Don't forget to point chek to the fact that Prophet Jones has removed the "pyroclastic" nonsense from his "paper that refuses to be peer-reviewed - ever", and that Hoffman's pyroclasticity drivel is still under development and probably always will be. Oops.

Balls.

I see a bright light and it's not thermite rather it's the end of your folly! Yes it fell and we all saw it, the lie that it was.

Another tower of babel won't reach. Sorry the end really is nigh.

I'll leave the foot for a while but it's your choice.

Good luck.

[aggle-rithm]

Don't forget to point TimmyG in the direction of the Improbable Collapse thread where the Implosion World article has already been claimed to be biased and inaccurate.

I've fixed that for you.

[Anti-sophist]

I fail to see what is notworthy about cars being set on fire below a building that was just impacted by a jetliner, had a multi-floor fire, and then collapsed.

Are you claiming that the cars shouldn't be on fire?

There are many first-responder accounts of car-fires in the "falling debris" zone, and car-fires spreading from car to car. Some were extinguished and some were ignored.

[chek]

I fail to see what is notworthy about cars being set on fire below a building that was just impacted by a jetliner, had a multi-floor fire, and then collapsed.

Are you claiming that the cars shouldn't be on fire?

There are many first-responder accounts of car-fires in the "falling debris" zone, and car-fires spreading from car to car. Some were extinguished and some were ignored.

What ground level fires where those then?

[Anti-sophist]

I fail to see what is notworthy about cars being set on fire below a building that was just impacted by a jetliner, had a multi-floor fire, and then collapsed.

Are you claiming that the cars shouldn't be on fire?

There are many first-responder accounts of car-fires in the "falling debris" zone, and car-fires spreading from car to car. Some were extinguished and some were ignored.

What ground level fires where those then?

I don't understand your question. Are you denying there was ground-level fires before the collapse or are you denying that many many many many firefighters reported car fires in the "falling debris" zones?

[chek]

I fail to see what is notworthy about cars being set on fire below a building that was just impacted by a jetliner, had a multi-floor fire, and then collapsed.

Are you claiming that the cars shouldn't be on fire?

There are many first-responder accounts of car-fires in the "falling debris" zone, and car-fires spreading from car to car. Some were extinguished and some were ignored.

What ground level fires where those then?

I don't understand your question. Are you denying there was ground-level fires before the collapse or are you denying that many many many many firefighters reported car fires in the "falling debris" zones?

Apologies AS, but even the enormity of your self-regard is no longer amusing. Just forget it.

[Anti-sophist]

Apologies AS, but even the enormity of your self-regard is no longer amusing. Just forget it.

And just a few posts ago you were so eager for evidence, and now you've become disinterested, so quickly? It appears a quick google search on your part resulted in realizing you were about to embarass yourself.

I'll let you off the hook, though, since I'm a nice guy. Let's consider the matter resolved, then.

[chek]

Whatever.

[Anti-sophist]

Thanks for posting more pictures confirming the official (and many firefighters) story. Their many and varied testimony established the existence of these fires, and I appreciate you confirming it for us.