The Forum > General Discussion > 9/11 Truth
9/11 Truth
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 49
- 50
- 51
- Page 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- ...
- 81
- 82
- 83
- ›
- All
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 11:58:43 AM
| |
By way of explanation, my most recent post was meant to be posted to the forum "What's happening about the internet censor?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2286&page=0#50359
I would have asked the moderator to delete the post from this forum for the benefit of other OLO users, but he has been decidedly unhelpful when I have made similar requests before. Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 2:46:29 PM
| |
Dagget,
You say >> What Paul.L is trying to do is deal with every argument I put in isolation and hope that people lose sight of the totality. What? The ONLY way to deal with so-called “evidence” of the conspiracy nuts is to examine each piece on its merits. That’s what I have tried to do, and seeing as none of the “evidence” that dagget has put forward has stood up to any kind of scrutiny, it is clear that his attempt to point to the overall conglomeration of fake or mistaken evidence is desperation on his part. Dagget satys >> “In regard to Aaron Russo's statement, obviously it would count for little if we considered it in considered it in [sic]complete isolation from everything else, but I remind everyone that this is in addition to mountains of other evidence of others appearing to have been given advanced warning of the attacks.” It counts for NOTHING as evidence. Russo was another NUT, with a record for stunts and a show business mindset. The “mountains of other evidence” dagget refers to have all been debunked. Which is why Dagget now refers more often to the totality of the evidence and not to the specific parts which supposedly are incontrovertible. Dagget Said >>"On top of that, we have the cover-up of the evidence of the crime, including the astonishingly fast removal of the wreckage of WTC7" Response >> "What? The fast removal of debris is evidence that the buildings were demolished? Really?" It is clearly absurd to suggest that the “ astonishingly fast removal of the wreckage of WTC7” is evidence of anything, yet Dagget has attempted to make that link. Run Forrest Run said >> “ … the existence of "a 9/11 truth candidate." BUT HIS VERY EXISTENCE … provides yet another reason for concluding that a full investigation …is a necessity... Response >> "Molly the dog was running as a candidate for the 2008 presidential election. Should we take her very existence seriously as well?" TBC Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 19 November 2008 12:24:17 PM
| |
cont,
Point, just because there is a 9/11 truth candidate for the 2008 election doesn’t mean we should take them seriously. After all, Molly the dog ran and does anyone take her seriously? Maybe the conspiracy nuts do. Dagget says >> I remind others of the many highly credentialed and authoritative people who challenge the official 9/11 explanation Translation: don’t worry about the evidence you’ve seen, these important people believe it therefore it must be true. Which is just blatant stupidity. You say >> “How about explaining Barry Jennings' evidence of explosions in WTC7 or the videotaped firefighters' evidence at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow You have already shown firefighter evidence which was manipulated to purposely mislead the viewer. I have already explained a number of times that many firefighters did not see the planes fly into the buildings, and only knew that a terrorist attack was occurring, so its no wonder their explanations are in terms of explosions and bombs. The splattering of human bodies hitting the pavement at terminal velocity was described by many firefighters as explosions, or like bombs going off. The ONLY firefighter that you have been able to find to back up this story is John Schroeder. I encourage people to see his video, the man is NOT persuasive. None of the other firefighters have come forward to suggest that there were ACTUAL explosives in the buildings. Don’t let ANYONE tell you that these people would be shy about coming forward if they had evidence that explosives killed hundreds of their brothers and sisters in the FDNY. People need only look over the record of discussion to see the major points of the 9/11 truth movement discussed and debunked. Or if they feel the need to see it all in one place I would suggest http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf http://www.debunking911.com/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ obviously there are hundreds more Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 19 November 2008 12:28:07 PM
| |
Note how Paul.L has failed to explain the testimony of the firefighters at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow which I transcribed above at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#49002 (Sunday, 2 November 2008 9:49:09 PM +10:00) and has failed to offer an explanation for the late Barry Jennings' testimony.
Note also how Paul.L has failed to tell us what he thought the CIA station chief in Dubai was doing when he met Osama Bin Laden in a hospital in July 2004 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html) in spite of his undertaking to do so. -- The removal of the debris from WTC7 is obviously not proof in and of itself that the buildings was demolished and I never claimed it was. That is why I listed his claim that I did as an example of one of Paul.L's many stupid statements. However removal of evidence that would have either confirm that the building had collapsed as Paul.L had claimed it was or that it had been demolished looks like a coverup, especially given that the collapse looked exactly like a controlled demolition and (notwithstanding Paul.L's shrill assertions to the contrary) has not been explained. Whether or not we agree that proof exists that the September 11 attacks were orchestrated from within the U.S. government, there was certainly a lot of suspicious behaviour on the day, particularly on the part of George Bush and many other senior US Government figures. One particular example of suspicious behaviour was Bush's claim on 4 Dec 2001, which he has never retracted nor explained, that he saw the first impact on 11 September 2001 before he met with school children that morning,when he could not have seen it on ordinary TV that. --- Just because Paul.L aggressively insists over and over again that he has debunked all my arguments does not mean that he has. What he has done, in my opinion, as I have said before, is, amidst personal attacks, engage in very elaborate sophistry, not all of which I have made the effort to deconstruct. Until I complete the promised guide to this debate at http://candobetter.org/node/905,others will have to unfortunately do it for themselves. Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 19 November 2008 2:26:59 PM
| |
The following letter from American Actor Ed Asner is worth sharing:
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/41 EDWARD ASNER October 6, 2008 To Whom It May Concern: I would like to thank Richard Gage, AIA and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for presenting the scientific facts behind the unprecedented destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. AE911Truth presents solid research that contradicts the official story of the building's destruction with the overwhelming evidence of explosive controlled demolition. An accurate understanding of history is required to make good decisions in the future. Over and over again, history has shown that the first public perceptions of historical events are not always correct. I, along with millions of others, have serious questions about our country's recent history about 9/11. I have signed the AE911Truth.org petition (http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php) calling for an unbiased investigation of the "collapses" of these three high-rise buildings. I encourage everyone to do the same, and also become a Sustaining Member (http://www.ae911truth.org/sustain.php) of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Sincerely, /s/ Edward Asner --- Paul.L wrote, "Translation: don't worry about the evidence you've seen, these important people believe it therefore it must be true. ..." Paul.L knows perfectly well that that was not my point. My point was simply that if many credible and credentialed people reject the Official Conspiracy Theory, then people should take the time to consider the evidence for themselves. If, to the contrary, few credentialed and credible people had taken that stand, then it would be understandable if most people here decided not to check the evidence for themselves. One person who did look at the evidence from himself, who clearly had an open mind at the start of this discussion was Forrest Gump. He made the effort to read David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbour". He read many of the links I gave including "The Ultimate 9/11 'Truth' Showdown: David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi" at http://www.alternet.org/rights/100688/?page=1 (tobecontinued) Posted by daggett, Thursday, 20 November 2008 11:42:01 AM
|
The fact is that the Australian public has been prevented from knowing that a controversy even exists, and they have been prevented from knowing this not only by the corporate newsmedia, but even by virtually all of the supposed alternative and ostensibly left newsmedia.
It is not much more than a year since significant doubts entered my head about the official story. The principle reason it took me so long to question the Official Conspiracy Theory was that I had assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that the alternative newsmedia in this country would have alerted me a long time ago if there was anything suspicious in the US Government's case.
In my opinion, whilst online journals such as http://webdiary.com.au are entitled to publish or not publish what they choose, they are doing the public an immense disservice by deliberately concealing alternative views about 9/11 from them.
Not only do they not allow discussion of the issue on their web site, they even actively prevent their visitors from finding out for themselves about this by deleting links to web resources which question the Official Conspiracy Theory.
If you are interested to know why I have firmly changed my view on the 9/11 question in the last three months, I am happy to calmly explain why, possibly on the "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0#50196
Can I also suggest that you view such resources as:
See http://www.911oz.com http://911truth.org http://911bloggers.org http://ae911truth.org http://pilotsfor911truth.org http://stj911.com http://www.nyc911initiative.org
Ellen Mariani's open letter to President George W Bush at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRBOUildaJE
The speech "I call it Treason" by retired US Air Force Colonel Dr Robert Bowman at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4976139611627220171
Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker's excellent 70 minute documentary "The Great Conspiracy" at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623