Conspiracies

[dougplumb]

Bill P. "The notion that 19 terrorists did it has been pretty well accepted. It is clearly the incumbent theory."

So is global warming. In fascism accepted facts mean nothing.

If you think that because the public believes it and its on TV gives the theory any weight in argument than you are plain crazy and its as simple as that. None of you can come up with a single reason why the official version of 9/11 should be accepted as truth other than "it was on TV". "It is popular opinion" is not in any way, shape, or form remotely connected to any kind of logical argument. Its pure bullshit from people that have absolutely no argument and no evidence to support their claim. Its insulting to the other readers of this forum. You cannot successfully argue anything with me with that kind of thinking.

I have stated my reason for believing 9/11 was an inside job in scientific terms and in terms of other experiences with building fires. - in less than a page of writing. How else would you like it ?

Save me your academic 'baffle them with bullshit and false argument' techniques and show me some evidence.

Have any of you actually read Atlas Shrugged ? Do you like Ayn Rand ?

[dougplumb]

Bill P. "I urge you - - - take a specific conspiracy theory, perhaps your favorite one. Stick to that one. Build the case with facts, specific ones."

I have. Try reading my posts.

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill P. "The notion that 19 terrorists did it has been pretty well accepted. It is clearly the incumbent theory."

So is global warming. In fascism accepted facts mean nothing.

If you think that because the public believes it and its on TV gives the theory any weight in argument than you are plain crazy and its as simple as that. None of you can come up with a single reason why the official version of 9/11 should be accepted as truth other than "it was on TV". "It is popular opinion" is not in any way, shape, or form remotely connected to any kind of logical argument. Its pure bullshit from people that have absolutely no argument and no evidence to support their claim. Its insulting to the other readers of this forum. You cannot successfully argue anything with me with that kind of thinking.

I have stated my reason for believing 9/11 was an inside job in scientific terms and in terms of other experiences with building fires. - in less than a page of writing. How else would you like it ?

Save me your academic 'baffle them with bullshit and false argument' techniques and show me some evidence.

Have any of you actually read Atlas Shrugged ? Do you like Ayn Rand ?

Let's take your assertions in sequence:

1) Global warming is accepted by many. This is why when debunking it, I take the point that I have the burden of demonstrating the theory to be false. What is your point???

2) We have to start somewhere. Are you unwilling to confine yourself to a SPECIFIC CONSPIRACY THEORY, on a specific event, and discuss that in detail, presenting your evidence that the dominant theory is wrong? Or do you not have enough evidence to do this.

No "baffle them with bullshit and false argument" techniques on my part. Are you perhaps referring to the argumentation in the Alex Jones videos you have mentioned?

Bill P

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill P. "I urge you - - - take a specific conspiracy theory, perhaps your favorite one. Stick to that one. Build the case with facts, specific ones."

I have. Try reading my posts.

You haven't done it yet, Doug. I have read your posts. You flitter about from alleged conspiracy to alleged conspiracy.

I guess you don't want to engage. That is an indication that you do not have confidence in your assertions, and prefer to just make allusions, tell folks to watch videos (and, mercy, if the Alex Jones videos are near your best evidence, then you don't have much...), and hope they don't notice the slipperiness.

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

None of you can come up with a single reason why the official version of 9/11 should be accepted as truth other than "it was on TV".

Doug,

This is a false claim about "none of you." It's the kind of thing I was talking about. It presumes an argument where none exists.

You can know what you have seen and read. You cannot know what is in the minds of countless people you have never met, especially of those who have not even expressed themselves.

And no, I do not intend to discuss the merits of this so long as you are in this frame of mind, pretending you can read the minds of others.

Michael

[dougplumb]

Bill P. I read your profile and I know you are a scientist.

Here is my explanation for believing 9/11 was an inside job

*************************************

Three buildings collapsed straight down through a path of greatest resistance, this is impossible by the second law of thermodynamics which dictates that objects fall through the path of least resistance. Fire does not burn hot enough to make this happen [steel buildings collapse], many fires in steel framed structures have occurred both before and after 9/11 and none of them collapsed. The world trade center building (one of the towers) was on fire for 4 hours in 1975 and there was NO structural damage. That fire burned hotter and longer than the 9/11 fires.

Fuel doesn't burn very hot at STP. (standard temp and pressure)

The buildings were solid after the crashes, they remained standing perfectly upright. There was no damage on anywhere near the scale that would cause the buildings to fall. By far, the greatest force buildings like this experience is that from wind, not gravity. They are built incredibly strong and the designer of the buildings considered that a plane may crash into them one day and allowed for this contingency.

Several planes could have crashed into those buildings and they still would have stood. The building designer did not consider the affect of the fuel as he stated, probably because it wasn't worth considering, not because he forgot to. The number of experts supporting this hypothesis is too many to even list here- far greater than the number of experts supporting the NIST theory.

NIST is in no way qualified to investigate the incident. If the gov was interested in truth they would have had the FAA and Fire Marshall conduct the investigation.

*************************************

Now, lets hear why you think I should believe the official version. Else I could argue that the Easter Bunny exists because millions of people believe that, and demand you to prove that it doesn't.

I am looking for one reason, one piece of evidence that would suggest the official version was actually true (never mind that the official version has been espoused by people that are in fact, known liars. We know this because they are trying to sell us on man made global warming. Never mind all the lies and cover ups around 9/11.

Give me just one piece of evidence.

[Rich Engle]

I threw some stuff on the wall to stick, and still no specific objections/argument points. You don't get (nor should expect) sublime perfection when you look at various presentations. It's connect-the-dots work. If you don't do it, then you shouldn't talk.

For instance, if you just flatly say something to the effect of "if Jones' is all you've got..." that doesn't address CONTENT. Isn't that just a brush-off?

I believe Doug has his sincerity and his heart in the right place, it's just that he is getting frustrated and it's hard to keep your cool. But that's what we have to do talking about ANYTHING.

When it gets snarky, personal, whatever, for whatever reason, it is no longer cogent on any level. Whether it is willful or not, it just doesn't work.

Don't fix the blame, fix the problem. Henry Ford said that. He was an anti-semite prick, but that still doesn't mean he didn't know what he was talking about sometimes.

[dougplumb]

"This is a false claim about "none of you." It's the kind of thing I was talking about. It presumes an argument where none exists."

By none of you, I mean the people who will argue the official version without giving a single thread of evidence and use "popular opinion" instead.

[dougplumb]

"Global warming is accepted by many. This is why when debunking it, I take the point that I have the burden of demonstrating the theory to be false. What is your point???"

My point is that public opinion on scientific matters does not form an argument.

[Judith]

(Gignon's cartoon Money as Debt is a classic everyone should see), and a thorough uncovering of the relationship between banks and governments.

That was very good. Thank you!

One of the most serious downsides for me is the actual solution presented: the idea that if we take issuing money out of the hands of bankers and put it in the hands of politicians, the politicians will act honorably and in the best interests of the citizens. I find that position to be... er... not in alignment with the nature of the politicians that I have observed.

Yes, that concern did occur to me. :-)

Judith

[dougplumb]

Ayn Rand actually addresses this concern by requiring that business and politics should not ever mix. I did too- I said the same thing. So does Ron Paul.

[Alfonso Jones]

Ayn Rand actually addresses this concern by requiring that business and politics should not ever mix. I did too- I said the same thing. So does Ron Paul.

Doug -

On this, we are in agreement.

Bill P (smiling)

[Judith]

To comment further on some of the content, Alex Jones's take on this stuff seems to be quite grim in what he thinks "The Illuminati" are planning, in terms of prison-camp cities for most of humanity, a feudalistic society, life extension for only the favored few, etc., whereas Joan Veon's take, while not exactly benign, appears to be that "The Illuminati" are a bunch of capitalists who are trying to set up a world in which they can make lots of money -- not nearly as malevolent a view for "the masses".

On the other hand, Jones seems to be somewhat more optimistic in terms of what can be done -- public education, etc. -- whereas Veon seems to think that about the only thing to do at this point is pray.

Rich -- any comments?

Judith

[dougplumb]

Jones was reporting last week that the effective security radius for the Builderbergs increased to about 2.5 miles from a few hundred yards. The folks doing this to us are truly scared. Their plan isn't going along well.

People now largely know that man made global warming is a hoax to bring us carbon taxes.

[Jonathan]

Maybe you will come up with some evidence that supports your position on things.

Check out Mike Riveros' "WhatReallyHappened.com". I think he knows a little bit about video.

If this is what you're talking about, then you're wrong. In proportion to the faces, none of the noses is smaller than the others.

I am not formally schooled in the art of debate, nor am I a mathematician but I know 2+2 isn't 5.

I'm not so sure about that. When measuring noses in proportion to faces, it appears that you believe that two plus two can be something other than four.

How about this as a starting point: The government did 9/11, you must prove that 19 terrorists did it with supporting evidence. So far this thread has no evidence supporting the official version and piles of it supporting the alternative. You wish to spike the debate with an assumption that has no known basis in reality.

So far, in looking closely at the photographic evidence that you've presented, and about which I have some expertise, none of it supports your conclusions.

For what it's worth, Doug, I'm not using the government's official position as my starting point. I'm not supporting or defending it. From what I've read, it appears to contain errors, inconsistencies, things that seem counterintuitive, and little sections where those who authored it should have said "we don't know" instead of making definitive claims. The problem that I have with your approach, though, is that your errors and inconsistencies are much more obvious than the government's, and when your errors are pointed out to you, you refuse to correct them. I'm not a big fan of government, but when the government's official position is that 2 + 2 = 5, and your position is that 2 + 2 = -14.713, it doesn't make me a government dupe if I think that they're much closer to the truth than you or your sources are.

This is how a responsible citizen should look at it, always being suspicious of government. Governments should NEVER be trusted.

I agree that we should be suspicious of government and that governments should not be trusted. But that doesn't mean that any alternative view that you come up with should be trusted just because it's anti-government.

J

[Rich Engle]

Judith...

I can see how one could get takes like that on Veon, Jones. Sure, to a good extent. Both are activists in different ways. Veon's work is more narrowly-focused, she is more of an educator/lecturer type. Jones is a noisy bulldog, which pretty much is exactly what one expects (and requires) out of someone spearheading an effort like this. But they both know one thing--the main line of defense, solution, is to first get dirty dealings out into the sunlight...this is what really messes up people up to shady capers.

As to the "Illuminati" thing...that's just a tagline people use. The real "Illuminati" was a very specific group begun in 1776. When you see all this stuff like in "Angels and Demons," and that...the Illuminati thing gets thrown all around. That movie is, of course, just a mix of entertainment, information-scrambling, and a little bit of predictive or preconditioning style programming.

I just call them globalists.

[Selene]

Rich:

Precisely. Knowing our history as a human race and constantly checking that history with the "new finds", "new theories" and "new technologies" is a constant rational effort.

I am 100% comfortable with globalists.

C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite is an excellent source to support how with history, monetary policy and human nature combine so that there is a powerful structural draw to centralize, protect and control human beings.

In many ways, a "conspiracy solution" is very comforting psychologically for an individual because it resolves the stress of the cognitive dissonance in their heads.

At any rate, I am glad that your move has been beneficial for you, you seem to be happy and as astute as ever.

Adam

Edited May 24, 2009 by Selene

[dougplumb]

The best overall source of info on globalization is radioliberty.com IMO.

Johnathan, I looked at the photographic evidence a long time ago. I don't depend on it for my case on 9/11 being an inside job. many people on my side agree with your take on the photographic evidence. With the photos you presented, the faces do look similar but there aremany problems with this confession tape, missing audio is only one of them.

My case for 9/11 being an inside job is based purely on science, as I have explained earlier. The buildings were demolished, there is no shortage of building experts that agree with me, there are hundreds. Only a handful of government lobbyists and employees publically support the official version of 9/11. Anyone that questions the official version of 9/11 in the universities loses their tenure, I expect the same as with government employees and closely associated contractors. University profs in civil engineering up here in Canada WILL NOT discuss 9/11 with their engineering students. This is from two different students from two different schools who did not know each other. I have heard it from others as well.

[Alfonso Jones]

(snip)

Anyone that questions the official version of 9/11 in the universities loses their tenure, I expect the same as with government employees and closely associated contractors. University profs in civil engineering up here in Canada WILL NOT discuss 9/11 with their engineering students. This is from two different students from two different schools who did not know each other. I have heard it from others as well.

Doug -

That's a pretty impressive statement about losing tenure. It is a significant legal action for a professor to lose tenure.

Can you provide the specific names, departments and schools for a few of the professors who have lost tenure? Your statement above that "anyone that questions the official version of 9/11 in the universities loses their tenure" certainly implies that there have been actual cases of this.

Bill P

[dougplumb]

"That's a pretty impressive statement about losing tenure. It is a significant legal action for a professor to lose tenure.

Can you provide the specific names, departments and schools for a few of the professors who have lost tenure? Your statement above that "anyone that questions the official version of 9/11 in the universities loses their tenure" certainly implies that there have been actual cases of this."

There is Dr. Stephen Jones of Brigham Young. There are others.

Jones found the vidence of Thermate used to destroy the towers. He is the guy the gov trusted to look into this whole cold fusion thing for the dept of energy.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Doug Plumb

[Alfonso Jones]

"That's a pretty impressive statement about losing tenure. It is a significant legal action for a professor to lose tenure.

Can you provide the specific names, departments and schools for a few of the professors who have lost tenure? Your statement above that "anyone that questions the official version of 9/11 in the universities loses their tenure" certainly implies that there have been actual cases of this."

There is Dr. Stephen Jones of Brigham Young. There are others.

Jones found the vidence of Thermate used to destroy the towers. He is the guy the gov trusted to look into this whole cold fusion thing for the dept of energy.

Can you provide a few, and not only the one? Are you personally aware of the details on Jones of BYU? BYU doesn't technically award tenure to any professors, so I am not certain he's an ideal sole example to offer for a professor who lost tenure.

Now, they do have a sort of "continuing employment" status which is not that unlike employment at many major corporations. But that's not tenure as commonly understood.

Bill P

Edited May 24, 2009 by Bill P

[Selene]

Bill:

I will take money and odds on that disclosure never occurring with any risk to Doug

As a point, when I literally responded to Doug's question - how do you know that Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks?

My response was the confession in multiple places including the tape.

Doug kinda reminds me of the last juror in 12 Angry Men[in my top 200].

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

The best overall source of info on globalization is radioliberty.com IMO.

Johnathan, I looked at the photographic evidence a long time ago. I don't depend on it for my case on 9/11 being an inside job. many people on my side agree with your take on the photographic evidence. With the photos you presented, the faces do look similar but there aremany problems with this confession tape, missing audio is only one of them.

My case for 9/11 being an inside job is based purely on science, as I have explained earlier. The buildings were demolished, there is no shortage of building experts that agree with me, there are hundreds. Only a handful of government lobbyists and employees publically support the official version of 9/11. Anyone that questions the official version of 9/11 in the universities loses their tenure, I expect the same as with government employees and closely associated contractors. University profs in civil engineering up here in Canada WILL NOT discuss 9/11 with their engineering students. This is from two different students from two different schools who did not know each other. I have heard it from others as well.

Doug -

Is that URL typed correctly?

radioliberty.com

Seriously?

Bill P

[dougplumb]

Where were the other confessions other than the tape ? Does anyone think that confession would enter a court of law as evidence - with no audio ?

What do you think of the earlier statement that bin Laden said he was not in any way involved ? Two contradictory statements, why does one carry more weight than the other ?

If bin Laden did this he obviously had inside information about the excercise that day that would generate the necessary confusion. Why wasn't anyone arrested from the inside ?

Same argument for London 7/7 and the OKC bombings - there is always an identical excercise happening at the same time. Why isn't anyone arrested from the inside for telling bin Laden ?

Why didn't anyone get demoted or fired for the series of blunders that day that allowed 9/11 to occur ?

[dougplumb]

"Doug -

Is that URL typed correctly?

radioliberty.com

Seriously?"

Bill P

www.radioliberty.com, Dr Stan Monteith has been investigating globalism for a very long time and has an impressive array of guests on his radio talk show. I don't agree with everything that is on there, I am not a religious believer. Look for Dennis Cuddy, William Grigg, Bob Chapman, Joel Skousen, Gerald Celente, Michael Shaw, Jerome Corsi, and various doctors for good interviews from the Listen Online link.