I fail to see the relevance of this to LIHOP (or MIHOP). I haven't even watched that video.

I really don't see what the point of your post is, other than trying to (incorrectly) associate yourself and 9/11 truth with Noam Chomsky?

One final attempt:

- Reluctance to investigate fully by current administration at the time.
- Reluctance/blocking of top officials from having to provide sworn public testimony.
- The head of a Pakistani intelligence agency was implicated in funding the hijackers, and was later removed at the behest of the US.

Specifically explain why the main conclusion from these facts would be that the US LIHOP.

Also, why do you think the US can just extradite this man from Pakistan and question him, when they may not have any hard evidence with which to get such a request granted? Remember, no such evidence has ever been officially produced that he has funded terrorism, no matter how much we might suspect that he has. Don't you think Pakistan would want pretty huge amounts of evidence before extraditing a highly decorated former military man?

And once again:
Specifically explain why the main conclusion from these facts would be that the US LIHOP
Specifically explain why the main conclusion from these facts would be that the US LIHOP
Specifically explain why the main conclusion from these facts would be that the US LIHOP
Specifically explain why the main conclusion from these facts would be that the US LIHOP.

Please do not respond to this post without doing so in detail. Saying "lol, they obviously do" will not cut it, nor will asking me to prove an alternative explanation for them. If I fail to get this, I'm done, since you will have shown complete unwillingness to actually build a case. So far all you've done is said "heh, here's a fact that proves LIHOP... show me that I'm wrong". May I remind you where the burden of proof lies.

just pointing out that if chomsky's views were presented in this thread that ppl like gorgonian would be like 'lol of course it was the taliban lol of course we are justified to invade afghanistan and occupy their country'

*also i am aware that noam doesn't believe it was an 'inside job'/mihop, nor do i

fail

So you are somewhat interested in crazy 911 conspiracy theories... yet I present you a link to probably the most well-articulated, juicy MIHOP conspiracy theory and you poohpohh it because you assume it isn't well referenced?

Then we're in agreement. Everyone has a 'reason' for their actions. But that doesn't mean you can always accurately predict a persons actions based on what you assume his reasons are.


This flies in the face of what we know about suicide terrorists. We know they are willing to use disguises to achieve their mission. It's really stupid, not to mention self-serving, to think accomplishing their mission doesn't matter.


I don't understand your point here. We're both trying to draw conclusions for their actions. I think that there are plausible explanations for their behavior that doesn't disprove their likely involvement 9/11. You think their actions do disprove their likely involvement.


Without some good counter-reasons to the ones I proposed, I don't see any reason to abandon them. Your counter-arguments have tended to be circular and nonsensical. Perhaps there are better ones, but you haven't yet provided any.


Do you know everything they, specifically, believed or are you assuming what they believed? It's fine to say that a hypothetical muslim person wouldn't do X, but that doesn't tell us much about a particular muslim person unless you know exactly what they believe.

Given that most muslims aren't out killing non-muslims every day, what a "devout" muslim believes and what the 19 hijackers believed may not be perfect matches.

I go with who the evidence points to. What "evidence" that's been presented for the MIHOP/LIHOP side is very unconvincing. Your reasons for casting doubt on the likelihood of the 19 accused hijackers can be easily explained by the desire to misdirect attention to allow time to execute their plan. I've yet to hear a compelling reason from you for why this reason does not work.


We should remember that only 6 of the 19 are alleged to have engaged in these non-muslim acts. I think you are operating under the mistaken belief that being a devout _________ means perfect adherence to a doctrine.

Cool story. ... Very well then.

I can not get you from point A to point Z if you refuse to ever even accept point A on its own merit. ... And that's very convenient for your willful incredulity. Of course exhibit A does not make the case on its own. I never said that. All of the exhibits together does. If you would simply acknowledge that justice was not served and real questions never asked about who financed the attackers ((for which I've given you just one very prime example)), than we can perhaps transition to acknowledging (finally) a pattern of undeniable obstruction of justice that grows exponentially.

You believe Mahmood didn't need to be detained for questioning, I do. I believe that that man's and his assistant's testimony would be at the very heart of 9/11. You, somehow, believe he's irrelevant.

I feel you are that way because you're afraid of where those answers might actually lead, and that is common among coincitards. ... Most often, you're afraid of Pakistan, both in the nuclear capability and in simply the dirt Pakistan has on our clandestine operations in the region.

So, whatever then. But please don't pretend the man has no ties to terror. The historycommons link I provided a couple pages ago on Mahmud Ahmed was chalk full of them.

Strawman. I have never said he did not need to be detained, nor that he was irrelevant. I merely maintained that you assumed the US would have actual hard evidence (rather than just strongly suspected ties) that would persuade Pakistan to extradite him for US questioning. It'd be great if he had be questioned, but you're assuming that the lack of such questioning is purely because the US LIHOP.

How many terror suspects are there in Gitmo whom the US strongly suspect to be linked to terrorism, but don't have the evidence to get a conviction? You're assuming they have the evidence in this case, to get another country to extradite a top military man. It's quite possible that they knew they didn't have the evidence, and the best they could do was request his removal as head of ISI.

Or perhaps they simply knew that Pakistan would never allow the extradition of such a decorated man, and the only compromise was to get him fired.

Since you're alleging there's a sinister LIHOP aspect to their lack of questioning, it's up to you to prove this.

How do you ever expect to lead anybody through your evidence if you continue to act brash and call them names throughout? It's impossible to discuss this with you - you've jumped to ridiculous "LIHOP" conclusions off every fact you see, and are unwilling to accept that everybody else won't jump to the same conclusions without actual evidence.

Instead of actually proving your case, you just respond aggressively to anybody who provides the slightest bit of resistance. I'd like to see you trying this in court. You'd get thrown out after 5 minutes for calling the Judge a coincitard, merely for some benign questioning and pointing out an assumption you made.

Strawman. Pretty sure I actually said he was strongly suspected of having ties to terror.

Once again, you've failed to actually address what I wanted you to address - how all these facts lead to the main conclusion that the US LIHOP. You cannot simply rely on gross assumptions.

Every time I keep pressing you on this, you simply respond with an aggressive post and completely sidestep it.

I'm done. Cya.

Ok.

So we've established that the terrorist have some form of reason, or motivation driving their action. Can we identify this reason? How then to go about adjusting to this reason--similar to how if someone threebets you a lot in position you will have to adjust, or they will get the best of it.


My point is, your plausible explanation is only potentially so. Its' potentiality hinges on (1) in the diagram being true... or the people are actually who they are being framed as. If (1) is not true and the people actually aren't who they are being framed as, say they are patsies or something, then of course your potentially plausible explanation would not be applicable, hence no reason to step to 2a. 2b etc.

I don't necessarily have to in this case.

There is dissonance because of the dichotomy in their action and their supposed fundamental beliefs.

You attempt to ameliorate that dissonace with justifying reasoning, but that potentially justifying reasoning doesn't necessitate that (1) is true, or that the people are actually who they are being framed as. Therefore, I don't necessarily have to counter your argument, since there is simply the option that the people are not in fact who they are being framed as, or that (1) is false.

Yea I'm assuming, but by your rationale can we then never know anything, or assume anything to be true? Or maybe you're calling for the need to be very skeptical about what we know of the terrorists. I would agree with that. So much so in fact that I think we should pull our troops out and try to reconcile our differences with the so called terrorists.

Ok so then can we not infer unto what anybody is thinking ever? Or can we make som educated guesses and proceed from there?

What you call 'easily explain' intrinsically doesn't mesh with some fundamentals regarding the situation.

The alleged terrorists are supposedly devout muslims. they get virgins in heaven if they conduct their lives with stringent adherence to the Word.

You're assuming that they can FUDGE! on the Word and still get virgins in heaven. Like 'oh that Allah will forgive us... we're doing his dirty work for him!'

That's fundamentally a perversion of the Word.

To believe that this is the case, we would have to accept that these fundamentalists are perverted... again, it's a stretch away from the simplist explanation.


devout, devoted, earnest, sincere. more perfect than not is my argument, an aim at perfection at least.

There is certainly enough evidence to call into question the veracity of the official story. What that then points doesn't necessarily need to be crystal clear at the moment for the first to hold true.

If the first investigation has proven to be biased, incomplete or a distortion, a new investigation is in order, and a clearer picture will emerge as a result. What that clearer picture is we don't know yet, we know just it will be clearer.

Right... You said this five pages ago, and back you came. Because you thrive on it.

Again, I can not get you from point A to point Z if you refuse to ever even accept point A on its own merit.

Mahmood's white-washing is part of a wider case of gross negligence and omission/obstruction of justice. That screams of a cover-up. You are acting like a juror who refuses to hear even the first bits of evidence in the case unless the closing arguments are presented first. That's ridiculous, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

You're being willfully obtuse, even though you admit the man has terror ties, U.S. intel ties, and monetary ties to the attacks. All you can focus on is "so? prove it!" I'm trying to, but you won't budge an inch (while, curiously admitting he's a suspect).

Anyhow, now that we've established he was never detained, has extensive ties to terror, was in the U.S. that week, and the FBI knew all about him, can we establish that the Commission was grossly inadequate before moving on? Or do you need more "proof" that they never investigated much of anything in regards to the money trail?

Little steps here. I'm trying to run the ball forward, and you're demanding a
deep pass on first down.

Hi Guys,

I've got a few points to make and I'm not sure if they've been brought up yet.

1. False Flag Terrorism

Its now undeniable that the USA has been involved in false flag terrorism in the past. Thanks to freedom of information and extensive research we know that the Vietnamese didn't attack in the Gulf of Tonkin and that the USA.

This site has some explanations. Its worth reading the references.

Anyway, the #1 Average Joe counter argument to 9/11 being an inside job is: "Come on man they wouldn't do that". They've done it in the past to engineer wars, why wouldn't they do it again?


2.Crash Timings

Flight 11 made its first distress call around 8.20am and crashed at 8.47am. I guess we can put this down to incompetence but, the Flight 175 making its way into NY unmonitores at 9.03am is just ridiculous.

Almost 3/4 of an hour after a stewardess reported a hijacking on flight 11 they've still not got fighter jets up there? What the jets do when they're up there is another matter but, they needed to get them up there.

There are still a ton of innacuracies concerning the times that the jets were scrambled but, its either incompotence at an unprecedented level or an inside job.

3. Pentagon

I'm not going to get into a debate about the lawn, alleged lack of debris or how the relative lack of structual damage demonstrates it was a missile - By the looks of this thread we could go around in circles for days on that stuff!

We know that all CCTV tapes within a certain radius (can't remember how big but, I think it was 150+ tapes) were confiscated after the hit. Some of these tapes have the ability to put this whole debate to an end. Why can't they be released? The only footage that's been released at the moment is a joke, even the counter-conspiracists can agree with this.

Full timeline here

American security will not be put at risk by the relase of the crash footage. I just don't get it.

4. Fake Osama Bin Laden Confession

Here

I don't have much time for Alex Jones and I'd probably mute this video but, the 9.11 video seems to be of a completley different person. Its nothing to do with distortion - the nose is not the same

Bush Knocked Down The Towers (Rap Song)

This song is "bump in your car" worthy

Will someone sticky the Onion piece on the truther vs. Al Qaida?

Yes most of that has been taken care of in this thread and is wrong. On a mobile device but basically:

1. No and irrelevant
2. No the damage is consistent with an airplane crash and not a missle, and no none of the videos show the crash.
3. No
4. Yes thats Bin Laden and the distortion comes from being displayed in the wrpng aspect ratio.

How can you say previous instances of false flag terrorism are irrelevant? Such a lol response.

Why can they not release the 150 or so confiscated crash tapes - there will certainly be cameras that picked up an extremely low flying way on its way the the pentagon so I don't understand the beef with showing us.

You need to remember that at the time no one expected terrorists to hijack planes and use them as missiles. Even after the first plane hit the first tower, how does anyone know that's the same plane that was hijacked? How do they know that WTC2 and the Pentagon or White House are next? How do they track the planes without transponders to give intercept vectors to the fighters?

There were fighters up, but they had no information on where to go. The sky is HUGE, and it's filled with planes, all moving really, really fast, and dozens of them all bear exactly the same markings as the hijacked planes.

Besides, even if they had intercepted the hijacked planes, the only person who could give the order to actually shoot one of them down was President Bush, and it's well documented that he gave that order only after the whole thing was over and U93 had already crashed.

There's no evidence whatsoever that it was a missile. That's a fantasy. As for the alleged 85 tapes, as I recall they were all released by the FBI to a FOIA application and were virtually all shown to show nothing relevant. The reason why the others aren't all over the internet is precisely because they show nothing of interest. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FB...entagon_videos



However, could you please explain WHY the 'conspirators' would bother using a freakin' missile when they had no problem using planes over at the WTC?

I mean, one videotape of a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon, one witness who wouldn't shut up, one shred of evidence that leaks and that's the ball game! Why go to all that trouble?

Right, but you don't even have actual evidence of your point A. I've asked for it several times and so far you've provided nothing. Without it the whole thing falls apart. I can't wait to see it.

Sup Geese.

If you haven't read Gorgonian's prior work, he will categorically deny anything supporting alternative explanations regarding 911.

He does this because he starts from the premise that the official story is true, rather than beginning with an open mind--as would be standard practice in any otherwise scientifically-sound pursuit.

The result being he is forced to take extreme points of view in defense of the official story due to this inherently biased approach.

Look at your first point for example. It's now documented that the US have carried out false flag acts before, but to Gorgonian this doesn't matter because he filters all information relating to 911 through these three steps:

1. The official explanation is true.
2. Because of the official story is true, any other explanation is false.
3. If this evidence supports a different explanation, it must be false somehow.

It's a logical approach, but not sound because the premise (1.) is false http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...1821567284154#

Here's another example:

All organisms with wings can fly.
Penguins have wings.
Penguins can fly.

Logical, but not sound because the first premise is false.

Another tactic of deception or ignorance found itt, whichever it may be, is to nitpick over semantics... when nitpicking works to stifle exposition of evidence which inherently supports an alternative explanation.

For example, another poster itt, 'Triforcharity' would have you believe that WTC7 does not come down into it's own footprint; relatively so at least. Collapse-into-footprint is of course one of many charactaristics normally associated with CD, which if happened on 911 would ultimately point to an explanation apart from the official story. If however it can remain unclear whether WTC7 collapsed into its own footprint or not, the case for CD becomes somewhat compromised.

One however only need to look at a video of WTC7 to see that the building collapses straight down, relatively enough anyways, to be considered to be 'into it's own footprint'.

The bias and or deceptive tactic becomes clear at that point: Support evidence relating to the support of the official story, discredit evidence pointing to an alternative explanation.

Complete unbashed bias pawned off as sound science, it's a hilarious joke.

You may also want to read up on Cass Sunstein, his essay on Conspiracy Theories, and David Ray Griffin's book titled 'Cognitive Infiltration'. Basically Sunstein was just hired as Administrator of the the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and recently published a paper calling for the 'cognitive infiltration' of groups/threads such as the one you are in right now, by the government, in order to dissuade the conception and amalgamation of alternatives to the official conspiracy theory.

Yes the official version is a conspiracy theory as well, of course, by definition! and yet this new White House appointee does not realize the government's own theory falls under this categorization he is consequently demonizing?

If you're asking yourself wtf is going on, you're in good company, welcome to the thread.

This is true of any explanation for anything unless you know with 100% certainty the answer. Since those men are dead, we will never know for certain what was going on in their head at all times.


If you're trying to convince me or others that some of the 19's behavior indicates they weren't involved with 9/11, you need to eliminate plausible explanations for their behavior. You're the one who brought this up. The burden of proof is on you.


That may be so, but that doesn't mean that wasn't their thought process. That's the problem you keep running into. You're assuming that a) they were 100% committed to their moral code (further assuming you know what that is) and b) they have no other ways of justifying their actions. I see no reason to assume such things except to make your case easier to swallow.


Are you a religious person?

Stop arguing with people like this and go out and make a difference.

You guys that believe 9-11 was an inside job, what are you doing about it? I understand the start is getting this information out over the internet via forums. But then what?

But we can speculate of course, build inductive arguments etc.

1. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm only looking for the answers and keep running into what I see as ******ed logic, so it's invigorating my investigation into the matter!
2. The burden of proof is not on me. If someone presents bullsh*t as not bullsh*t, and I call it bullsh*t, it is on them to prove it's not bullsh*t. I'm calling the official story bullsh*t, it's on you, the defenders of the official story to prove it's veracity. As of now there is massive and ever-mounting evidence that it's a complete and utter farce, yet you hang on to this perverse logic that somehow the burden is on me. I didn't posit the official theory, I'm analyzing it using sound logic and it's coming up fallacious.

If I'm assuming they were 100% committed to their moral code, you are assuming they were less than 100% committed to their moral code, or that they would fudge on their moral code. Look at the situation, we have people supposedly willing to die, for what they believe in, they maintain that level of committment to their code, yet you prefer to walk the avenue of them fudging on their moral code rather than maintaining strict adherence to it? Which option is a more realistic base assumption I'm asking?

No I use a dictionary, but by your question am I right in assuming you are an atheist?

Love the dig on '******ed logic' in #1, then you post #2.

OK...I call ******** on you calling ********. Balls now back in your court--now you have to prove that you calling ******** is not ********. EZ game.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you're making the argument that the actions of some of the hijackers casts doubt on the mainstream theory. If I can come up with plausible counter-arguments, the burden is back on you to show those arguments are nevertheless wrong for X, Y, Z. Your attempts so far have been very unconvincing.

Given your answer below, my assumption is much more reasonable.

No. I ask because the way you talk about religious people indicates you don't really know much about it. Your posts certainly sound like your knowledge comes from a dictionary definition and not actual experience.

You're funny, but you have it twisted. The onus is on the government to support their assertions, or if their assertions are weak, to have their assertions be seen as such.

Think about it this way:

Before 911: no theory about 911
After 911: a government provided theory about 911

The government took on the burden of proof, I do not necessarily have to pose an alternative sum explanation, to take issue with the original, I can simply have an issue with an error in argument, or an omission by the Commission, or a distortion of the facts, whatever it may be.