Conspiracies, sheeple, the universe and everything

[Mittelwaechter]

Penguin

Sorry if I confused you somehow, but I had a discussion with Dowly and the mocking theme is well solved. I didn't felt mocked by you.

I searched for your comment #777 on page 52 right now, to remember you not to be a qualified partner for discussion, considering your stated flat attitude.

Now you show up with this verbose - but well mannered - comment on... well, sorry but I don't get your point.
I read what all the others of your party have to say about CTs, about their totally critic support for the official declarations and about the 9/11 truthers stupidity.

And I read some common truths, some universal accepted statements on green cars or some buzz words like Ockham's Razor or Dawkins, CCC and Nostradamus.

Dowly started this kind of evidence and 'Al Qaeda literally' discussion. I was on topic - more or less - until he came up with his "mocking" and comparing to 9/11.

I was in Saudi Arabia trying to rent the US army for Petro-Dollars to kick Assad.
A statement - some brain food - not to be proved with some media articles, because there are no such articles. Just another unconsidered view on the situation.


Evidence over the internet?
Even if there is an article, a videoclip or a table - if one refuses to read or watch, to realize the validity of the content, to open his mind - there is no evidence possible over the internet.


To show my respect for your attempt to entertain - let's play the game.

You say a plane hit the Pentagon. Your evidence is the plane parts and all the comments and articles on TV and the web. You have no evidence yourself, as you were not there. So you have to rely on the provided information, as we all.

I doubt the whole story and have to find some possible explanations for the plane parts and the comments and articles.

How could someone get some plane parts into the construction area of the Pentagon, but doesn't fly an airplane into the building?
Maybe he has some (military) superiority to order new air conditioner installations for the wing. They have to be proved by the US Army to not contain any buging devices, they have to be sealed into wooden crates and they have to be delivered to the Pentagon. Only to be opened by authorized personnel. Crates A through P to be stored next to the outer wall for easy access. The other crates inside the building.
This superior may order some old airplane parts from Nevada (or wherever this huge parking area in the dessert is) for a shooting test at an army base in Maryland. Metal parts for checking the performance of the new yellow tracer bullets...

Park the two trucks overnight in Kansas next to each other, change the hauling papers and/or order two new drivers.
Now blow the Pentagon and collect the airplane parts and let the Army shoot the air condition.

You say there are too many people involved. I say who knew what he did?
We can go on and on and on.

Sorry, but I'm not really good with this Pentagon issue, you know. I don't gather all the 9/11 information and web it into CT on a regular basis.


Fact is, the believers trust the government to have evidence 19 muslim amateurs were able to run the complex 9/11 attacks, without any further support from the US.
And fact is, there is too much highly sensitive and secret information - as way too much skill - necessary for these 19 guys to perform the shown act.

More CT?

If you find the right patriotic guys within the US, with power to simply order things to be done, you can order a team of subcontractors to place some sealed containers with extreme sensible, seismic eqipment at every second floor in the WTC buildings in may 2001, just to have some data about the stability in high winds, for a new building insurance. A remote control, some fancy thermite in the containers and thousands of kilometers "WiFi-cable" will do the well timed destructive part.

Four drone pilots in a Nevada simulator follow their virtual flight paths, but two are translated into real flight paths for two real drones - through the twin towers?
Which of all the participants are aware of being part of it? A few 'good' men and some clever planning is all you need. A way more likely scenario than the sold one of Atta and his evil 18.

Evidence?

There is no evidence, but the evidence provided by the scientists who examined the debris and found thermite remains, but are discredited, unpatriotic and troofers.
Pilots who state it is impossible for a flight trainee to handle the air liners this way.
Witnesses in the buildings, hearing explosions and where blown around on the ground floor, directly after the impacts. Video clips of original footage of 9/11, showing a very special air plane hitting the second tower. Destruction experts, telling the collapse of WTC7 was a demolition job. Firefighters realizing rhythmic explosions during the collapse of the towers. Cataclystic clouds crawling through the NY streets. An ex-pilot states, found engine parts in New York identifyed to be used by the military (General Electric), but not by United Airlines (only Pratt&Whitney)...

No evidence you see?

The question is, what do we accept to be evidence, or at least justified reason to doubt?


Hoping I didn't dissapoint your expectations in my answer, Sir.

Or the expectations of the other honest society of extraordinary gentlemen.

[Ducimus]

@ The trollmeister

If you think I read all the crap you just wrote your crazy. I read the first sentence, a sentence somewhere in the middle, and the last sentence. I get it, your real life name is Richard Cranium, and you love arguing on the internet. Bravo.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Wouldn't this be more of a right-angled thinker? Or maybe even a square thinker?

Tagging me in?
More like the old flat fore headed thinkers... from conducting the illustrated activity.
The wheels on the bus go round and round....thump, thump.

You don't have to be crazy to post here...
But it helps.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

@ The trollmeister

If you think I read all the crap you just wrote your crazy. I read the first sentence, a sentence somewhere in the middle, and the last sentence. I get it, your real life name is Richard Cranium, and you love arguing on the internet. Bravo.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Should I break down to you what I quoted in post #2? Can you explain to me how "I'm not saying I believe it

Geesh, don't you have some fish to catch or ice to slide down?:

I imagine Skybird will be along to respond with a book of his own..

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

Hoping I didn't dissapoint your expectations in my answer, Sir.

Not at all, man, I thought you are certainly capable of wrtiting a well written response and you proofed it. That's the level and niveau I expect from subsim. Just please don't call me Sir - somehow this word hurts me - in contrast to some internet tough guy who comes up with a pseudo clever way to say dick head as his only argument.

I'd like to answer to you later and explain my verbal diarrhea to you and continue the discussion, but I've got some real life stuff to attend. So I might write a drunken response at 3am or a sober, but not necessarily more consistent onen tomorrow. Have a good Friday night - and I mean it!

[Dowly]

I know this was aimed at Penguin, but:

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

I doubt the whole story and have to find some possible explanations for the plane parts and the comments and articles.

May I ask why you doubt the whole story?

Originally Posted by Dowly

Honestly, I don't think Ducimus believes it as some CTer would, he was just throwing it out there.
The time I've "known" Ducimus, I've never seen him promote CTs.

In all fairness, of late on politics and especially single issue politics to make his points he has been posting a lot of links to people and groups who can only be described as CTs.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

In all fairness, of late on politics and especially single issue politics to make his points he has been posting a lot of links to people and groups who can only be described as CTs.

Yeah, I've noticed. But I still have hope for him. He hasn't gone bat**** nuts with it.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Dowly

It's a fairing, which houses the undergarriage.
See here for example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0_planform.jpg

And here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...200_N324AA.jpg

"Extra equipment..."

Gotta love it.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...200_N324AA.jpg

"Extra equipment..."

Gotta love it.

Ah, didn't even notice I posted the wrong 767. Thanks for correcting me.

Oh come on now!

You guys know that all images and planes were modified AFTER the event, right?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by privateer

Oh come on now!

You guys know that all images and planes were modified AFTER the event, right?

Actually, there was a guy who said that they edited the videos in real time so it looked like a plane hit the South Tower.

Pretty hilarious, and sad at the same time, but worth a watch still:

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

...let's play the game.

Two can play the same game, so I'm joining in.

You say a plane hit the Pentagon. Your evidence is the plane parts and all the comments and articles on TV and the web. You have no evidence yourself, as you were not there. So you have to rely on the provided information, as we all.

Are the plane parts not enough evidence? Possibly. What other evidence is there?

I doubt the whole story and have to find some possible explanations for the plane parts and the comments and articles.

Do you doubt the whole story because the evidence looks wrong, or does the evidence look wrong because you doubt the story? You claim that those of us who accept the evidence are just believing what we are told, but there is also no evidence to support what you claim. None at all. This means that you are believing what someone told you, just as you claim we are.

How could someone get some plane parts into the construction area of the Pentagon, but doesn't fly an airplane into the building?

That's a whole lot of "maybes". Yes, anything is possible, but that's an awful lot of work to make an excuse to start a war, especially when we didn't need an excuse in the first place. And, has been shown, if they were that good why didn't they get away with it?

Fact is, the believers trust the government to have evidence 19 muslim amateurs were able to run the complex 9/11 attacks, without any further support from the US.
And fact is, there is too much highly sensitive and secret information - as way too much skill - necessary for these 19 guys to perform the shown act.

Actually, learning to fly a plane isn't that hard, even a big one. They didn't have to learn how to take off or how to land, just how to point it at something and die.

If you find the right patriotic guys within the US, with power to simply order things to be done, you can order a team of subcontractors to place some sealed containers with extreme sensible, seismic eqipment at every second floor in the WTC buildings in may 2001, just to have some data about the stability in high winds, for a new building insurance. A remote control, some fancy thermite in the containers and thousands of kilometers "WiFi-cable" will do the well timed destructive part.

If? Is there one single shred of evidence that this was done? If not, then it's all imaginings.

Four drone pilots in a Nevada simulator follow their virtual flight paths, but two are translated into real flight paths for two real drones - through the twin towers?
Which of all the participants are aware of being part of it? A few 'good' men and some clever planning is all you need.

Again, is there any evidence of this happening, or is it just a case of "they could have"?

A way more likely scenario than the sold one of Atta and his evil 18.

Several hundred people being led through a conspiracy to make drone planes crash and blame the Arabs more likely than a few crazies killing themselves and taking innocent passengers and workers with them? Maybe more likely if you already believe it, but not near as likely if you look at it without bias.

There is no evidence

Spot on the money. No evidence. Period.

Destruction experts, telling the collapse of WTC7 was a demolition job.

Already covered in a thread all its very own. And debunked.

An ex-pilot states, found engine parts in New York identifyed to be used by the military (General Electric), but not by United Airlines (only Pratt&Whitney)...

Actually they use both.

The question is, what do we accept to be evidence, or at least justified reason to doubt?

There is always reason to doubt. The problem is that you already doubt, and do nothing but look for reasons to support your doubt.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Ah, didn't even notice I posted the wrong 767. Thanks for correcting me.

Oh, yours clearly shows it too. I was just adding to the obvious.