Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
Okay, there has been a lot of hashing, rebutting, and rehashing over the months in this "Paranormal" forum (?) concerning the events of 9/11. So, in order to regain some form of sanity in this discussion, I offer a challenge. My claim is that the World Trade Centers 1, 2, & 7 as well as the Pentagon and the crash in Pennsylvania were the responsibility of 19 hijackers. My stance is that a plane hit the Pentagon and that there was no "controlled demolition" that occured at any of the WTC buildings. My belief is that the US government, as well as other country's governments probably had (and have) more information than they have shared on potential terrorist attacks prior to 9/11, but they did all they could do to prevent it in the interest of national security.
My challenge is this. Please provide one piece of evidence that cannot be fairly criticized to prove there was a conspiracy. Please don't provide videos, but just one simple, hard piece of evidence that is concrete and would make a logical person re-think their stance. If your evidence is from a video, then please just print out what was said and by whom. I want to keep this simple.
Well now, whether and how I answer is going to be dependent on just how "simple" you're aiming for. With a modest bit of effort to dig up some specs, I can call into serious question the entire "planes and jet fuel fire did it" scenario, but I'm not going to take the trouble to assemble the data, formulae and calculations with explanations of their relevance and meanings if what you're asking for is just "logical argument". If I do it I'm gonna "show my work", so if engineering terminology and calculations are beyond the scope of your purpose let me know, please.
Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever
Here is what I asked: "Please provide one piece of evidence that cannot be fairly criticized to prove there was a conspiracy."
You're wanting to show information that "calls into serious question." That's not what I was hoping to discuss as if it "calls into question," then it can be fairly criticized. If that's all you have, go ahead and post it in any terminology you wish. Most of the people I have seen in this forum are intelligent and can probably decipher the terms. However, if it can be fairly criticized, then expect it to be done either by me to the best of my ability, someone else in this forum, or someone from outside this forum with more engineering intelligence than I. I would, however, still prefer to keep it as simple as possible as long as you feel justified that your point was properly presented.
Fair enough. Let me consider this a bit since it isn't cut and dried; nostradamus has voiced an interest in the technical discussion, but based on your reply this may well exceed your intent here since it can't really be effectively skimmed or condensed. Since it's an engineering problem it has to be presented as a whole to state the argument accurately, and that will easily span several largish posts.
It's your thread and I don't want to do a hijack even inadvertently. Btw, I'm an old forum and chatroom hand... I fully expect anything, regardless how sound, to be questioned if it carries the slightest cache of controversy
Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever
How about 19 dead terroists, who ain't talking. That proves a conspiracy but you didn't specify who you would like implicated in this conspiracy. I doubt that 19 dead terrorists orchestrated this entire disaster by pooling their collective wisdom and their weekly paychecks.
Uhm, not sure how to answer this. I guess I'm open to any theory that doesn't conform with the generally accepted thoughts as to what happened.
And that's fair enough as well. If you'd like, start a new thread for those interested in the technical details. I'm interested as well, but I'm a management professor, not an engineer so if it's too technical, I would have to devote more time and less writing...
Also, who is it that applies the term 'conspiracy' to these theories? Most of what I have reviewed has shown opinion, expert testimony of the little available facts, a whole bunch of 'we're not really sures' and a report big enough to squish you flatter than a pancake, if it fell on you from 110 stories, not to mention make your head explode if you ever attempted to comprehend the contents.
The "we're not really sures" is precisely why I don't subscribe to many conspiracies at all.
I mean there are questions that surround a lot of things, but that certainly doesn't mean there's always some big "cover up."
From my personal point of view most of the 'complaints' seem to center around the lack of information or quality of information presented to the American people. I am sure some of this claimed missing information is due to perceived national security issues, and I honor their decisions in this area. I would think that this is one point of origin to any 'cover up' or 'conspiracy' claims.
My next bone of contention is motive. Not from a government standpoint but let's use Gage as an example. What is Gage's motive for all this time and energy to prove his point? What's in it for him? Since only Gage knows the answer to that question we can only speculate and give a personal POV. Neither speculation or personal point of view will provide the correct answer, and everyone will have a variation on these things. The best we can do is throw our two cents into the mix and blow another afternoon to heck arguing our view points. I do it because it beats the heck out of watching TV or working and it fills the void on slow days. Meanwhile, I learn more here than I would anywhere else at a much faster speed and it doesn't cost me a dime. I consider it to be a great education into topics that I would otherwise only see one side of if I were researching it on my own.
I am slowly drawing a conclusion about Richard Gage and his materials. I believe that I've seen his good points and his not so good points and can apply that to the next scenario that crops up for discussion. I have been shown some very good information that I would have otherwise probably ignored due to my own feelings about 9/11 and would have remained close minded to opposing viewpoints. Thank you all for not letting me do that.
Sorry, this web site doesn't say anything that supports conspiracy theories. It gives numbers and names of people who believe an investigation should be re-opened. Doesn't mean there is credible proof to support a conspiracy. I'm looking for something a little more specific. As stated, preferrably just one thing that hasn't been readily and easily countered.
That also goes for anyone who wants to post the 911fortruth.org web site...
If anybody researches 9/11 and still does not conclude that it was an inside job, then you are either a) Fearful of an uncomfortable truth.
b) A paid liar employed to sap the energies of good and honest people questioning the official narrative. c) A f***ing dummy.
Now, which are you, Profwag?
Trying to derail threads and profanity laced name calling. Niiiiiiiiice. I now have my own opinion of your views. Wonder what opinion others have formed?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests