IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd April 2016, 09:27 AM   #361
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,789
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You misunderstand what a false flag operation is. Please re-read 2 and 3, and then see if you still stand by the statement you made above.
If you mean these
Quote:
"(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.


(3) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson."
This has what bearing upon the USA? I still stand by what I said and I'll repeat it later. None of those historically known incidents shows that our federal government acted against its own citizens on its own soil or against its own citizens on foreign soil. What we have tried to do against other countries and what other countries have done to there own citizens has no relevance to what you imagine happen on 9/11. What happened on that date was a bunch of people conspired to attack the US by attacking the a symbol of US society and it's citizens. You are wrong and I stand by what I said.

Last edited by Steve001; 2nd April 2016 at 10:39 AM.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 09:36 AM   #362
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,789
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I will add "exceptionalism" to the list of issues you are struggling with.
Huh?

Last edited by Steve001; 2nd April 2016 at 10:38 AM.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 12:31 PM   #363
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
My reason for asking was to find out if there was a legitimate reason to block the release. In my opinion, there was not.
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You are entitled to your opinion. It is nothing more than that. Stop kidding yourself.
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What I think does not matter.
I think we're done here. Seriously. Done.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 12:53 PM   #364
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
This captures very well exactly what I wished to post. Apparently anyone else's rights must be subservient to FalseFlag own, self-created, self-appointed and self-defined "need to know THE TRUTH!" Anyone else's privacy, feelings for their dead loved one's, the entire judicial system, must be sweep away and ignored because FalseFlag and a few other individuals like him/her ARE NOT SATISFIED with the conclusions that multiple democratically elected representatives, senators, and presidents from both political parties, the courts, government investigators, and the press have reached. Not to mention 15 years of the truthers themselves "just asking questions" yet never being satisfied with the answers because the reality didn't conform to the elaborate, impossible, conspiracy which they dreamed up and in which they want to believe no matter the facts. Therefore they believe that they have the right to tear down the carefully created and nurtured human and civil rights that the rest of us possess in the spirit of their own, near-religious zealotry. They have assigned to themselves, in fact insisted on, their own right to peek into our underwear to look for for terrorists, because they have imaged they might be there and they seek to (demand to) indulge their curiosity as if they are the leads in the play and the rest of us are just props.

Well, in common with any democratic republic, we the people recognize that government is not always truthful and we have created in the USA a fairly clever system by which multiple independent entities watch each other, and the need for the society as a whole to identify and prevent such things such as criminal conspiracies and murders is adequately balanced with the rights of the individuals. Is it always perfect- by no means. However, no one, the government, the press, or some random self-appointed judge and jury, should be allowed to throw away all these protections in pursuit of their own compulsions, not even "THE TRUTH" as they image it in their own deluded minds. Certainly most of us here and in the country believe that even if not everything is known about 9/11, the basic story has been revealed by the investigators who have been legally appointed to find out. And after over 15 years, not even the truthers have been able to prove otherwise.

My final point: as I noted, despite it being their stated fervent goal, the truthers will never be happy with the truth. Just look at this particular thread. Falseflag asked, in essence, what was the NYC fight-fighting department hiding in these interviews? The answer was in fact publicly available ten years ago in form of the interviews themselves: nothing. Yet, rather than say "Oh, okay, the truth is that there is nothing in these interviews and we should move on" the truthers instead say that the facts are irrelevant and we should ignore the interviews themselves but focus on the delay in their release. Why? Because the truth revealed by these interviews wasn't the truth that fits the script of the play written by the truthers. This is what makes it extra bizarre and really undermines the nonsense of the truthers. This all played out 10 years ago and has been publicly available for a decade. I might even understand if this thread began before the public release of the interviews "What are they hiding?" and somehow continued after their release. But no, the thread began ten years after this all became old news, when the answer to the question in the OP was very clear before the OP: nothing was being hidden and the opposition was based on both the moral and mandated respect for privacy of the victims in a horrible situation.
Excellent summary. From my spending over half a century reading everything I could get my hands on about the JFK assassination, each of those points would apply to most JFK assassination conspiracy theorists as well.

In spades.

They are more than willing to trample the constitution to 'solve' (to their satisfaction, of course) the assassination. They still complain that Oswald never got his day in court, so that means he's innocent; while ignoring the fact that one of their favorite scapegoats, Clay Shaw of New Orleans, was actually tried by an over-zealous District Attorney and found 'not guilty'.

In their zeal to find Oswald somehow innocent, they don't mind throwing almost every acquaintance or co-worker or relative of Oswald under their bus. So Ruth Paine, a Quaker woman who tried to help the Oswald fsmily out by taking his wife into her home, getting her free pre-natal care, and helping him obtain a job, is accused of setting up Oswald. A co-worker of Oswald's who testified he saw Oswald on the sixth floor shortly before the assassination, is accused of lying under oath. An uncle of Oswald's who made money on the side as a bookie is accused of helping the mafia become aware that Oswald would make a perfect assassin / patsy (the versions vary).

Etc. Ad nauseum.

Sorry for the digression.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 2nd April 2016 at 01:09 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 12:59 PM   #365
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Excellent summary. From my spending over 50 years reading everything I could get my hands on about the JFK assassination, each of those points would apply to most JFK assassination conspiracy theorists as well.

In spades.

Sorry for the digression.

Hank
And Apollo
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 01:22 PM   #366
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
And Apollo
Absolutely. And a couple dozen more. Pearl Harbor, RFK assassination, Sandy Hook, the Holocaust, MLK assassination ...

It's the same old methodology... misinterpret something, take something out of context, utilize hearsay instead of eyewitness testimony, discard the hard evidence on one pretext or another, ignore expert testimony and substitute your own opinion, employ logical fallacies, suspicion, innuendo and character assassination, as well as other tricks of the trade, to try to keep the conversation going.

As I first read from Jay Utah, the goal isn't to solve any these incidents. It's merely to keep the conversation going so it appears they have a legitimate argument.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 01:32 PM   #367
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Absolutely. And a couple dozen more. Pearl Harbor, RFK assassination, Sandy Hook, the Holocaust, MLK assassination ...

It's the same old methodology... misinterpret something, take something out of context, utilize hearsay instead of eyewitness testimony, discard the hard evidence on one pretext or another, ignore expert testimony and substitute your own opinion, employ logical fallacies, suspicion, innuendo and character assassination, as well as other tricks of the trade, to try to keep the conversation going.

As I first read from Jay Utah, the goal isn't to solve any these incidents. It's merely to keep the conversation going so it appears they have a legitimate argument.

Hank
And as FF is demonstrating in the LS thread, no one ever ever makes a mistake or misstates anything. It's all part of "it".
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 01:37 PM   #368
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
The fact that all you can do is call my post "dumb" is a clear indication my post is 100 percent accurate. You have nothing left in your bag of tricks. All you can do is make a "dumb" remark.

Thanks for validating my post.
I didn't just call it dumb, I said it was quite possibly the "dumbest" thing I've ever read here. What about that do you not understand?

I noticed you completely ignored this:

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post



Do you think all the posts you dodge are helping to convince lurkers of the truth?
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 02:43 PM   #369
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Absolutely. And a couple dozen more. Pearl Harbor, RFK assassination, Sandy Hook, the Holocaust, MLK assassination ...

It's the same old methodology... misinterpret something, take something out of context, utilize hearsay instead of eyewitness testimony, discard the hard evidence on one pretext or another, ignore expert testimony and substitute your own opinion, employ logical fallacies, suspicion, innuendo and character assassination, as well as other tricks of the trade, to try to keep the conversation going.

As I first read from Jay Utah, the goal isn't to solve any these incidents. It's merely to keep the conversation going so it appears they have a legitimate argument.

Hank
This is a perfect summary.

My years as a CT-moron this was the game:

1. Make a claim based on a tangent.
2. Fabricate evidence.
3. Claim is attacked.
4. Counter-attack with claims that the skeptics are either sheep or are "In on it."
5. Change the subject, move the goal post.
6. Cite actual conspiracies that have nothing to do with what you're talking about as "proof" that your theory is valid.
7. Repeat.

FF isn't even good at it, the majority of Truthers are not.

If Truther-nut jobs had any brains they would start the conspiracy after the attacks, let the obvious truth of Al Qaeda's hijackings stand, and instead fabricate secret meetings between the White House, Halliburton, the Saudis, Israel, Girl Scouts of America, and Zack Snyder to use the attacks as an excuse to do all kinds of evil stuff. Why? There's no conclusive video evidence to the contrary, the people at these fantasy meetings would be small numbers of the usual suspect who will never talk. So you spin your yarn from there.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 02:54 PM   #370
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
This is a perfect summary.

My years as a CT-moron this was the game:

1. Make a claim based on a tangent.
2. Fabricate evidence.
3. Claim is attacked.
4. Counter-attack with claims that the skeptics are either sheep or are "In on it."
5. Change the subject, move the goal post.
6. Cite actual conspiracies that have nothing to do with what you're talking about as "proof" that your theory is valid.
7. Repeat.

FF isn't even good at it, the majority of Truthers are not.

If Truther-nut jobs had any brains they would start the conspiracy after the attacks, let the obvious truth of Al Qaeda's hijackings stand, and instead fabricate secret meetings between the White House, Halliburton, the Saudis, Israel, Girl Scouts of America, and Zack Snyder to use the attacks as an excuse to do all kinds of evil stuff. Why? There's no conclusive video evidence to the contrary, the people at these fantasy meetings would be small numbers of the usual suspect who will never talk. So you spin your yarn from there.
There's also several perfectly good CT's that could legitimately be looked at; most surrounding CYA after the fact, but even the accommodations to the NYPA that allowed the Towers to be built.

But that just isn't near as sexy as nanothermite!
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 04:14 PM   #371
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
One question, FF:

What intention do you assign to those in the FD who tried to withhold the information?
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 04:22 PM   #372
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
One question, FF:

What intention do you assign to those in the FD who tried to withhold the information?
Past that. What explains the fact not one FDNY member complained their story was not being told.

Are they all in on the cover-up?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 05:17 PM   #373
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by cantonear1968 View Post
There's also several perfectly good CT's that could legitimately be looked at; most surrounding CYA after the fact, but even the accommodations to the NYPA that allowed the Towers to be built.

But that just isn't near as sexy as nanothermite!
When I read the recommendations in the NIST report on WTC7 the first thing I thought was that somebody had cut corners. Later I read about how NYC building codes had been changed to allow the WTC to be constructed as it was.

My problem is that I lack the technical expertise to make a credible claim, and those who do (including the Slide Rule Committee on this forum) have been careful about what they've said about the designs of the buildings. So I take my cue from them and get on with my life.

Then there are the actions of Clinton's former NSC Adviser, Sandy Berger, who stole and destroyed classified documents from the National Archives under the cover of representing Clinton for the 9-11 Commission. I'm not a CTist anymore, but I'm hard pressed to recall a time when someone destroyed documents that were favorable to them. Berger is ALWAYS absent from the Truther narrative, even while alleging CIA malfeasance. Berger was the guy that the CIA reported to, yet his name doesn't raise Truther red-flags, false or otherwise.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 07:36 PM   #374
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Yes, this is an issue. I have already given a detailed explanation why. It's in this thread.
Yes, and it smacked of feigned outrage and over produced drama-nothing of any merit.

It's just creating unnecessary hysteria over an inconsequential point, and that is why this thread is moronic.

But by all means, chase the blue flame little moth.
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 08:25 PM   #375
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
When I read the recommendations in the NIST report on WTC7 the first thing I thought was that somebody had cut corners. Later I read about how NYC building codes had been changed to allow the WTC to be constructed as it was.

My problem is that I lack the technical expertise to make a credible claim, and those who do (including the Slide Rule Committee on this forum) have been careful about what they've said about the designs of the buildings. So I take my cue from them and get on with my life.
Good move. The underlying issue is probably too subtle for discussion in a forum. It involves"shades of grey" decisions which are site specific - and both polarised "sides" on a forum prefer "yes" <> "no" or "black" <> "white" arguments.

Reality is that there is often much room for variation of what look like rigid code rules to allow for specific aspects of a project where the code does not fit well.

It could mean increasing design loads in some circumstances - reducing them in others. All subject to legitimate assessment and appropriate management of risks and liabilties.

When the issue is raised in the false setting of untruthful conspiracy claims you get no prizes for guessing how specific reductions will be misrepresented.

And whether the changes were legit or not will be hard to determine. Because the real world also does have behind the scenes exchanges of brown paper parcels of green backed currency. My own experience on building approval ranged from the large denomination dollar bill in the end of transaction handshake thru to the large envelope of building plans which contained more paper in currency than in the full suite of architectural and building plans.

The bottle of wine token gift at Christmas may be tolerated BUT when it becomes 24 x 40fl oz bottles of premium Scotch...midway through the year..... But I'm drifting in reminiscences.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 09:55 PM   #376
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I think we're done here. Seriously. Done.

Hank
You take three sentences from three different posts and then you make the statement above. Your trick of taking sentences completely out of context is lame, absurd, and even the most fact-challenged skeptics can see what you are doing. The only thing your posts prove is that you have no legitimate point whatsoever, but for some reason you felt the need to post something.

Since you have no legitimate point at all, yet you still decided to post, why should anyone listen to anything else you write? I certainly won't.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 10:06 PM   #377
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
Yes, and it smacked of feigned outrage and over produced drama-nothing of any merit.

It's just creating unnecessary hysteria over an inconsequential point, and that is why this thread is moronic.

But by all means, chase the blue flame little moth.
You're calling me a moth? OK, this is a new one.

The release of the oral histories was blocked. That is a fact. The court had to order the release of the oral histories. That is also a fact. I have my opinion about this, and you have yours. Our opinions do not change the facts. Skeptics seem to have a major issue with this basic concept.

What skeptics have done in this thread, predictably, is take the opposite position of a truther. This is simply because that is what skeptics do, regardless of how absurd the opposite position is. The consequence of this is that the skeptics in this thread are supporting secrecy. Think about that. Why would anyone support secrecy? Secrecy has no place in a democracy or a free society. Secrecy is absolutely inappropriate where 9/11 is involved. Secrecy obscures the truth, and as long as it exists, the "truth" will always be in question.

I have read all of the absurd arguments that have been posted, and they have no merit. They are simply posted because skeptics feel the need to do whatever they can to argue with a truther no matter how bad it makes them look. Anyone can see this, the skeptics here simply choose not to.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 10:09 PM   #378
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
Do you think all the posts you dodge are helping to convince lurkers of the truth?
I never dodge anything that is relevant. You claim I have dodged something, and I claim I never dodge anything that is relevant. Based on the previous sentence, what is the only logical conclusion?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2016, 10:10 PM   #379
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
One question, FF:

What intention do you assign to those in the FD who tried to withhold the information?
I have already stated all of my positions. They are here in this thread. Your question has already been answered.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 01:10 AM   #380
Jaytje46
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: https://t.me/pump_upp
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I never dodge anything that is relevant. You claim I have dodged something, and I claim I never dodge anything that is relevant. Based on the previous sentence, what is the only logical conclusion?
That you are delusional?
__________________
https://t.me/pump_upp
Jaytje46 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 01:11 AM   #381
Jaytje46
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: https://t.me/pump_upp
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I have already stated all of my positions. They are here in this thread. Your question has already been answered.
And so has your questions been answered, so we can close this thread.
__________________
https://t.me/pump_upp
Jaytje46 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 01:21 AM   #382
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Jaytje46 View Post
That you are delusional?
That wasn't a choice.
I appreciate your opinion, but the evidence suggests a different conclusion is correct.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 01:30 AM   #383
Richard the G
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
This is a perfect summary.

My years as a CT-moron this was the game:

1. Make a claim based on a tangent.
2. Fabricate evidence.
3. Claim is attacked.
4. Counter-attack with claims that the skeptics are either sheep or are "In on it."
5. Change the subject, move the goal post.
6. Cite actual conspiracies that have nothing to do with what you're talking about as "proof" that your theory is valid.
7. Repeat.

FF isn't even good at it, the majority of Truthers are not.

If Truther-nut jobs had any brains they would start the conspiracy after the attacks, let the obvious truth of Al Qaeda's hijackings stand, and instead fabricate secret meetings between the White House, Halliburton, the Saudis, Israel, Girl Scouts of America, and Zack Snyder to use the attacks as an excuse to do all kinds of evil stuff. Why? There's no conclusive video evidence to the contrary, the people at these fantasy meetings would be small numbers of the usual suspect who will never talk. So you spin your yarn from there.
Yes they do all that. They say a bunch of extreme and nutty opinions with little or no technical basis. And this gets people all riled up. They then become a celebrity, at least in their own mind, as the conversation is all about them and their questions. FF does it to wonderful effect and the reason FF asks you to prove everything, is simply to widen the conversation, not to get answers. She/he is best ignored.

Sounds a little like Donald Trump doesn't it?
Richard the G is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 02:16 AM   #384
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You're calling me a moth? OK, this is a new one.

The release of the oral histories was blocked. That is a fact. The court had to order the release of the oral histories. That is also a fact. I have my opinion about this, and you have yours. Our opinions do not change the facts. Skeptics seem to have a major issue with this basic concept.

What skeptics have done in this thread, predictably, is take the opposite position of a truther. This is simply because that is what skeptics do, regardless of how absurd the opposite position is. The consequence of this is that the skeptics in this thread are supporting secrecy. Think about that. Why would anyone support secrecy? Secrecy has no place in a democracy or a free society. Secrecy is absolutely inappropriate where 9/11 is involved. Secrecy obscures the truth, and as long as it exists, the "truth" will always be in question.

I have read all of the absurd arguments that have been posted, and they have no merit. They are simply posted because skeptics feel the need to do whatever they can to argue with a truther no matter how bad it makes them look. Anyone can see this, the skeptics here simply choose not to.
How did anyone take an opposite view to you when at the start of the thread you asked for reasons without giving any of your own. It is you thst disagreed with other posters.

You do it in other threads, you 'just ask questions' then reject the answers you are given but never give any conclusions of your own.

There are many long, detailed, thoughtful and reasoned replies to your questions in all the threads you take part in.
You just dismiss and ignore thrm.
Why do you think that most posters no longer bother? My hat is off to those that still have the energy to put in the effort required.
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 03:45 AM   #385
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I have already stated all of my positions. They are here in this thread. Your question has already been answered.
I don't think you have addressed the motive of those withholding the information. Care to repeat it, or point me to a post number? I've been following the thread but I haven't seen that.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 04:13 AM   #386
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I don't think you have addressed the motive of those withholding the information.
You are correct. I have not addressed the motive. I have refused to do so because it is nothing more than speculation.

The issue is that the release was blocked. The only reason given was privacy. This could have been addressed through anonymity. Since the privacy issue could have been addressed, continuing to block the release is withholding information. Withholding information is a form of secrecy. There should be no secrecy when it comes to 9/11. Those are my points and conclusion.

There is nothing more to add. This really should have been the end of the discussion.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 04:15 AM   #387
BNRT
Muse
 
BNRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Why would anyone support secrecy? Secrecy has no place in a democracy or a free society.
Except secrecy absolutely does have a place in democracy. Voting is done in secrecy, for very good reasons.
BNRT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 04:20 AM   #388
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by BNRT View Post
Except secrecy absolutely does have a place in democracy. Voting is done in secrecy, for very good reasons.
OK. I understand your point, and it's partially correct. Voting is not done in secret. It is done in a public place, and a record of a person's vote is kept. What you mean to say is that voting is anonymous to protect privacy. Privacy is a valid concern, and it is addressed through anonymity.

Records of each vote are public, or at least they should be in every state. Anonymity is preserved by not attaching a name to each ballot.

It should also be noted that when I have filled out an absentee ballot, my vote was not anonymous.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 05:13 AM   #389
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
So, correct me if I'm wrong. It's not that you think that the fire department who withheld the information was "in on it", but that you're upset that it did. Is that it?
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 05:48 AM   #390
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,789
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You're calling me a moth? OK, this is a new one.

The release of the oral histories was blocked. That is a fact. The court had to order the release of the oral histories. That is also a fact. I have my opinion about this, and you have yours. Our opinions do not change the facts. Skeptics seem to have a major issue with this basic concept.

What skeptics have done in this thread, predictably, is take the opposite position of a truther. This is simply because that is what skeptics do, regardless of how absurd the opposite position is. The consequence of this is that the skeptics in this thread are supporting secrecy. Think about that. Why would anyone support secrecy? Secrecy has no place in a democracy or a free society. Secrecy is absolutely inappropriate where 9/11 is involved. Secrecy obscures the truth, and as long as it exists, the "truth" will always be in question.

I have read all of the absurd arguments that have been posted, and they have no merit. They are simply posted because skeptics feel the need to do whatever they can to argue with a truther no matter how bad it makes them look. Anyone can see this, the skeptics here simply choose not to.
Finally you've admitted you are a "truther". It's no wonder you think any answer that does not fit the suspicion based narrative you come to know in your heart must be true is not satisfactory. I've read all of the posts and not one poster supports secrecy; I dare you to find one post that does. There are often good reasons why information isn't disclosed right away contrary to what you think ought to be done.

The thing I can't comprehend is why you and persons just like you choose not to acknowledge a bunch of foreign terrorists hijacked commercial jets and turned them into weapons? Yet you find the utmost plausibility that the US government did the very thing. At the core of your being there's something about you that makes you see the world differently than nearly everyone else here so would you take time to explain why please? I'd really like to understand your perspective.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 06:41 AM   #391
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,120
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
With all due respect, you can keep asking. I will respectfully decline answering because it's not relevant to this thread.
So, in your mind, if the sum total of these histories was the question "what color was the sky in New York City on 9/11?" Which was answered by 504 people "blue", and this was handled the same way as the documents we have, would that be likewise suspicious to you?
__________________
COMING SOONFinding the Ark of the Covenant by Brian Roberts, in the iBook Store on iTunes, a new investigation into the Hebrew’s Most Sacred Relic!
OCaptain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 07:00 AM   #392
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What skeptics have done in this thread, predictably, is take the opposite position of a truther. This is simply because that is what skeptics do, regardless of how absurd the opposite position is. The consequence of this is that the skeptics in this thread are supporting secrecy.
The support of the right to privacy does not imply a support of secrecy. This is a false claim you advance. The right of the government to keep some secrets to protect its citizens must be balanced against the rights of the rights of the people to make informed decisions and both must be balanced against the right of individuals to maintain their privacy. You pretend your curiosity takes primacy over all that. It doesn't.


Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Think about that. Why would anyone support secrecy?
Why would anyone support secrecy? There are numerous good reasons for secrecy. Imagine we received good intel from Castro's butler during the cold war. Imagine he is still alive in Cuba. Do you think revealing his name at this point would do any good, or would it just get him imprisoned or killed? Why would anyone support secrecy?

Why would anyone support secrecy? We should tell ISIS how a build a nuclear weapon? How best to obtain fissionable materials? Why would anyone be opposed to revealing that?

Why would anyone support secrecy? We should let the Soviet Union what capabilities our spy satellites have, so that they know exactly what we can detect, and what we can't? Why would anyone support secrecy?

Why would anyone support secrecy? The English should have let the Germans know when they captured the German's Enigma Machine, because we should be opposed to secrecy just on general principles, right? Why would anyone support secrecy?

Why would anyone support secrecy? I take it you're opposed to encryption on your cell phone? You have no problems with the NSA or anyone else being able to track your whereabouts and who you're communicating with at all times? Why would anyone support secrecy?

Why would anyone support secrecy? Why are you concealing your name and your whereabouts? Your argument fails because your own actions reveal there are sometimes numerous and sundry good reasons to support secrecy.


Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Secrecy has no place in a democracy or a free society.
Asked and answered above. Of course it does. Your simplistic responses aside, you cannot justify your suspicions (and that is all they are) and you cannot support your claims.


Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Secrecy is absolutely inappropriate where 9/11 is involved.
Yeah, that's what JFK conspiracy theorists argue about the JFK assassination. And other conspiracy theorists argue about their favorite "cover-up". They want everything released merely to satisfy their curiosity... or so they have more data to mine and take out of context. Do you think there's a clause in the constitution giving you the right to satisfy your curiosity at the expense of others' right to privacy?


Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Secrecy obscures the truth, and as long as it exists, the "truth" will always be in question.
Secrecy sometimes protects the truth. Or should we tell Castro all our sources just to speed up the process of ending the 56-year embargo against Cuba?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 07:04 AM   #393
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You take three sentences from three different posts and then you make the statement above. Your trick of taking sentences completely out of context is lame, absurd, and even the most fact-challenged skeptics can see what you are doing. The only thing your posts prove is that you have no legitimate point whatsoever, but for some reason you felt the need to post something.

Since you have no legitimate point at all, yet you still decided to post, why should anyone listen to anything else you write? I certainly won't.
Sorry, merely claiming I have no legitimate point when I pointed out the precise issue using your own words isn't a valid response.

Claiming I took those quotes out of context - without telling us what you actually meant, in context - isn't a valid response either.

We'll await your clarifications of those three posts and the points you were actually trying to make, before we'll accept your attempt to hand-wave the contradictions in your posts aside.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 3rd April 2016 at 07:24 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 07:05 AM   #394
Jaytje46
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: https://t.me/pump_upp
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You are correct. I have not addressed the motive. I have refused to do so because it is nothing more than speculation.

The issue is that the release was blocked. The only reason given was privacy. This could have been addressed through anonymity. Since the privacy issue could have been addressed, continuing to block the release is withholding information. Withholding information is a form of secrecy. There should be no secrecy when it comes to 9/11. Those are my points and conclusion.

There is nothing more to add. This really should have been the end of the discussion.
So you're upset, because the Fire department gave a damn about the privacy of the first responders?

What's next? You gonna be upset that several portions of the oral interviews are blacked out? Because that's mighty suspicious don't you think, that they had to block out several portions of the interviews. Who knows what they are trying to hide.
__________________
https://t.me/pump_upp
Jaytje46 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 07:13 AM   #395
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
The issue is that the release was blocked.
"WAS" is the operative word. The data you're quibbling over has been available for a decade. Hasn't it?



Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
The only reason given was privacy.
That's the only reason given here, online, that you've been willing to accept. And then only grudgingly.


Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
This could have been addressed through anonymity.
Or by releasing the data. Consider it done - a decade ago. Right?
So what's your complaint today?


Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Since the privacy issue could have been addressed, continuing to block the release is withholding information.
I'm laboring under the impression the data was already released. So what is this "continuing to block the release is withholding information" argument you're advancing? It makes no sense in the real world.


Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Withholding information is a form of secrecy. There should be no secrecy when it comes to 9/11. Those are my points and conclusion.
Which is a ironic argument since the data you're complaining about was released a decade ago. And you have yet to tell us what the 'big reveal' is from that information.


Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
There is nothing more to add. This really should have been the end of the discussion.
Yes. We're done. Seriously. Done.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 3rd April 2016 at 07:24 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 09:08 AM   #396
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by Jaytje46 View Post
So you're upset, because the Fire department gave a damn about the privacy of the first responders?

What's next? You gonna be upset that several portions of the oral interviews are blacked out? Because that's mighty suspicious don't you think, that they had to block out several portions of the interviews. Who knows what they are trying to hide.
Questions asked and answered.
Accounts withheld were released ten years ago.
Posters inquire what the point of this thread is and those inquiries are rebuffed as supposedly irrelevant.

Quite astounding. N'est pas?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 03:27 PM   #397
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Quote:
The release of the oral histories was blocked. That is a fact.
Fact: Blocked for three years, then released in 2005.
Fact: 2005 was 11 years ago.
Fact: You have nothing.

Quote:
The court had to order the release of the oral histories. That is also a fact
Yes, and yet your superior deductive skills have not illuminated anything...like the fact that by being forced to release the histories under court order releases the city from liability from privacy lawsuits.

Quote:
I have my opinion about this, and you have yours. Our opinions do not change the facts. Skeptics seem to have a major issue with this basic concept.
Our issue is that we accept reality, not interpret it to conform to our delusional thinking.

Quote:
What skeptics have done in this thread, predictably, is take the opposite position of a truther. This is simply because that is what skeptics do, regardless of how absurd the opposite position is.
In this case, you are wrong. Even a hardcore Truther would tell you this.

Quote:
The consequence of this is that the skeptics in this thread are supporting secrecy. Think about that. Why would anyone support secrecy?
Let's see. I don't want people having my bank account's routing number, pin-code. I don't want my Social Security number available. I don't want my medical records free to view for anybody. I don't want my ex-girlfriend's personal information easily accessed by the man who tried to kill her in 1988, he gets out of prison next year.

Larger example: Should the US hammer out a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians it will involve a long list of dirty, or at least questionable back-room deals between the three parties and their neighboring states, and Europe. Public knowledge of these secret deals would sink the peace agreement, and people continue to die all because FF and his like abhor secrets.


Quote:
Secrecy has no place in a democracy or a free society
If secrecy is forbidden then it's not a free society.

Quote:
Secrecy is absolutely inappropriate where 9/11 is involved. Secrecy obscures the truth, and as long as it exists, the "truth" will always be in question.
The problem is that there are so few secrets surrounding 9-11. We know who hijacked the planes, why they hijacked them, and how they got into the country. We know why the buildings came down. We know how every person died.

Your "suppressed" oral histories didn't reveal anything that the NY Times, and every major news outlet had not already reported in the thousands of interviews with NYPD, FDNY, and PA first responders which were available to anybody wishing to read them.

The other thing you fail to understand is that you are calling the FDNY liars, implying that they had a hand in the murder of 343 of their own men and women. In doing so you have become another poster-boy for everything that is ugly and evil about 9-11 Truth.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 04:04 PM   #398
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Questions asked and answered.
Accounts withheld were released ten years ago.
Posters inquire what the point of this thread is and those inquiries are rebuffed as supposedly irrelevant.

Quite astounding. N'est pas?
And even the CTists can't find any "there!" there. FF is saying that skeptics are only reflexively responding to a Truther argument by taking an opposite position, no matter what the merits of the Truther position. But I can't think of anything much more knee-jerk than saying, of information released 11 years ago with no secret information revealed, that it must have been withheld because of secret information. There's nothing useful to the Truther in the information itself, so the conspiracy must be found elsewhere- the Truther will find his merits wherever he can make them.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 04:33 PM   #399
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You're calling me a moth? OK, this is a new one.
Well, it's a metaphor that you'd probably have to think about for a while.

Quote:
The release of the oral histories was blocked. That is a fact. The court had to order the release of the oral histories. That is also a fact. I have my opinion about this, and you have yours. Our opinions do not change the facts. Skeptics seem to have a major issue with this basic concept.
They were released, so your 'problem' doesn't exist.

Quote:
What skeptics have done in this thread, predictably, is take the opposite position of a truther. This is simply because that is what skeptics do, regardless of how absurd the opposite position is. The consequence of this is that the skeptics in this thread are supporting secrecy. Think about that. Why would anyone support secrecy? Secrecy has no place in a democracy or a free society. Secrecy is absolutely inappropriate where 9/11 is involved. Secrecy obscures the truth, and as long as it exists, the "truth" will always be in question.
Utter drivel. What people have done is shown that your contention is false as they were released. Furthermore, you are conflating privacy with secrecy, and I suspect it is not an honest mistake. Your whole argument smacks of desperation.

Quote:
I have read all of the absurd arguments that have been posted, and they have no merit. They are simply posted because skeptics feel the need to do whatever they can to argue with a truther no matter how bad it makes them look. Anyone can see this, the skeptics here simply choose not to.
I don't even think you believe that effluent (a false fug perhaps there, Bob? ). Now, where's that blue flame?

Last edited by HotRodDeluxe; 3rd April 2016 at 05:11 PM.
HotRodDeluxe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 08:48 PM   #400
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Quote:
The release of the oral histories was blocked. That is a fact.
Fact: Blocked for three years, then released in 2005.
Fact: 2005 was 11 years ago.
Fact: You have nothing.
OK. You quote me saying "the release of the oral histories was blocked. That is a fact."

Then, and this is brilliant, you confirm that the release was blocked.

Then, you say 2005 was 11 years ago, so I have nothing. You quote my fact. You confirm my fact. And then, you say I have nothing.

Brilliant. I keep thinking there is nothing you skeptics can do to surprise me, but then you post something as ridiculous as this.

Once again, your post needs to be a sticky.

But, wait, as hard as it might be to believe, your post gets even more absurd. You post this gem, where you criticize my deductive skills, even though I have not deduced anything. I only stated a fact. I also have said absolutely nothing in this thread about privacy lawsuits.
Quote:
Yes, and yet your superior deductive skills have not illuminated anything...like the fact that by being forced to release the histories under court order releases the city from liability from privacy lawsuits.
Then, you claim that i interpret things to conform to my delusional thinking.

Quote:
Our issue is that we accept reality, not interpret it to conform to our delusional thinking.
Your post really, really, really needs to be a sticky. I don't even know why you even keep trying. The funny thing, is that you keep rambling on in your post. It's just not worth addressing.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.