Research 9/11

[Zippo342]

Tone, some advice for the future when you try to put forth your arguements.

You may think you have a good arguement in your head, but what you have shown us is that you have done a lot of research, and then made some assumptions. In the future, you need to make sure you have a good arguement put together with a solid foundation. From what you have given us here, here's what I think you need to concentrate on next time:

1) Find atleast 3 good facts that link your target with the events. (In this case link Bush to the attack.) Remember these are facts, and while 1 is enough, someone may be able to brush it aside with something else you haven't seen. 3 is usually the minimum, more is better as it solidifies your arguement.

2) Summarize in your own words. This is very important as it lets others know that you know what you are talking about, doesn't force them to do the research themselves, and allows you to make your arguement as understandable as possible. A summary could be as simple as Person A. has stated that so and so was seen here on the day in question, then link to the article in question.

3) Verify your sources. Very important. Are their facts correct? Can you back them up with another site? Is it taken in context? Are there no assumptions made? If any of these things aren't true, then it invalidates your whole point, no matter how right you are.

4) Make sure your case is watertight BEFORE you present it. Once people start punching holes in it, no matter how much you patch it up with facts, noone is gonna take you seriously.

5) Finally, present it in an objective fashion, this means no propaganda. Don't come out like you are trying to force people to take your view, this makes them defensive. When you put someone on the defense, they won't ever see that they're wrong, or that you're right. If you keep your arguement objective, there won't be any chance to put people on the defensive, and you'll have a better chance of convincing them to see it your way.

In summary, you've really lost this arguement here I'm sorry to say. I give you kudos for trying. I'd suggest backing off for now, and if you come up with a better case months or a year down the road, maybe present it again, but take my suggestions to heart or it may end up just like this time.

[Tone]

the holes in the story have been shown. the CIA has been shown to being running drills of planes fying into buildings and ordering NORAD to stand down on the very morning of 9/11. the reaction of bush and rumsfeild on 9/11 has been shown. the fact that jets from a near by base were not scrambled to flight 77 well after the WTC impacts occured, etc etc. the physical evidence that it wasnt arab terrorist is overwelming, and the circumstantial evidence of othe theories is quite shocking. when buildings are demolished under control and the wreckage is sold over seas as scrap metal immediately without investigation, it is not an arab terrorist attack. and especially when there was more evidence of prior knowlege than i could read on top of all that.

i didnt see very many holes punched except for in the offical alice in wonderland-like story

[Zippo342]

Tone, that drills that resemble the events that took place are called circumstancial evidence. Alone, it cannot be used as proof. A court would throw out a case that was held together by only that kind of evidence, and would only accept that evidence as support to real proof that there was a link.

I don't think anyone's really said this yet, but if so I reiterate it.

[edit]This kind of evidence shows that there should be an investigation into this only. If the current administration won't investigate, we can only hope the next one will, and it won't be too late.[/edit]

[Tone]

Tone, that drills that resemble the events that took place are called circumstancial evidence. Alone, it cannot be used as proof. A court would throw out a case that was held together by only that kind of evidence, and would only accept that evidence as support to real proof that there was a link.

I don't think anyone's really said this yet, but if so I reiterate it.

[edit]This kind of evidence shows that there should be an investigation into this only. If the current administration won't investigate, we can only hope the next one will, and it won't be too late.[/edit]

there will be no farther investigation of 9/11 because it wasnt a terror attack. the 9/11 commission has spoken and nothing farther will be done. you can count on that.

if you want to talk about weak evidence, you can look at the offical story of 9/11 the list of 19 hijackers, and the whole bogus deal. my information has many sources, i have researched 9/11 for 3 and a half years. if you look into 9/11 you can see for yourself. activist and info websites, and the online versions of main stream alphabet news companies are not the only place to go, there are several dozen books out on the subject. Governments have been staging phony terroist events since governments existed and 9/11 is no exception, as it occured 10 months after project for the new american century called for a new pearl harbor in one of their own essays on their own site. PNAC formed in 1997 and many of its members suddenly became the current admin in jan 2001.

now what you can do, is go by the popular version of events, that 19 arab hijackers , many of who are still alive and never were on the passenger lists and failed out of flying school, hijacked planes with box cutters and flew them into buildings which then crumbled to the earth along with building 7. and go by that as the deafult truth, as strange and wild as it may be, while you research 9/11.

nothing is really reconized as truth until its widely on the TV, like watergate. First its "No evidence, not a shred!" then when its shown on the TV screen and talked about by everybody, all of the sudden theres evidence that was always there. the media can pick what has a feel for being reality and project that onto the public. then the public believes it because it has a feel for being right despite the evidence, because its just on the TV so much. even something so solid and mathmatical as the voting results from diebold machines being drastically different from the voting results of paper ballots, it will be ignored until its talked about on the TV as a 'scandel' which would instantly change zombie and sheep opinion.

[Kolar]

The media is not the end all be all of justice. Until the United States Admin. stops dealing with bullshit like flag burning or the next 200 terri schiavo cases then maybe an invesigation can take place, maybe not since a lot of what you have is not crediable and would not stand in a court of law like Zippo342 said. Until then all you have is a theory, ideas and discredited and poorly connected evidence (which is in error offically but does not discount other facts) to support it so don't expect a warm welcome from people here until you can understand that and actually debate it. This forum is not your personal blog.

[Tone]

Until then all you have is a theory, ideas and discredited and poorly connected evidence .

right, thats what they did with the offical story of 9/11. it was like the didnt even try to have credible evidence, being very sloppy. i applude those who are skeptics and can at least use their head a little.

[Squeezer]

right, thats what they did with the offical story of 9/11. it was like the didnt even try to have credible evidence, being very sloppy. i applude those who are skeptics and can at least use their head a little.

A FUCKING PLANE HIT 2 BUILDINGS AND A TERRORIST GROUP TOOK CREDIT FOR IT!

that would hold up in a court of law.

If you're accused of murder, and you say "Hey I murdered that guy" They will find you guilty.

USE YOUR FUCKING HEAD.

[Tone]

A FUCKING PLANE HIT 2 BUILDINGS AND A TERRORIST GROUP TOOK CREDIT FOR IT!

that would hold up in a court of law.

If you're accused of murder, and you say "Hey I murdered that guy" They will find you guilty.

USE YOUR FUCKING HEAD.

right, as if they arent CIA manufactured. all you read is a news story about how an organization takes credit and you consider that stronger evidence that the fact that none of these men were on the passenger lists
and many of them were confirmed alive by over a dozen sources (there is a page that links to all 16 sources of reports of alive hijackers and cases of 'mistaken identity'. how do you suppose none of the hijackers were on the Airliner's passenger lists? you can research that and youll find many sources reporting that as well. if you consider showing clips of bin laden walking around with a stick as stronger evidence then you are the one who needs to use your fuckin head.

How To Create Martial Law:

The government wanting to do this may detonate an atomic bomb in a major city and produce false intelligence evidence that a terroist group was behind the attack. this broadcast in the media will sufice for credibility. very few people will question the credibility, those who do will be easily discredited without having to use farther evidence. one hudred thousand deaths and several more injuries should sufice, but its a small price to pay to build an order of lasting peace.

well got to go, this 9 pages should be long enough for this one.

Because this one got so big, Im going to have to wait a good 2 weeks now before starting another major thread. i dont board hog

[Squeezer]

They went on Al-Jezeera TV and claimed responsability.

But oh, I'm sure that's controlled by the American Govt too.

Quit being so far-fetched.

[Shas'la T'au Kais]

i like zippo

[DoTheFandango]

Zippo lighters are the shit.

[Shas'la T'au Kais]

in other news, why the hell is "leader" starred out in my custom name thing

edit: ok it hates me

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

if you consider showing clips of bin laden walking around with a stick as stronger evidence then you are the one who needs to use your fuckin head.

Is this supposed to mean that just because he's disabled that he's incapable of carrying out something like this? What the hell kind of crack are you smoking?

You're right though. Stephen Hawking's theories are also bullshit. He's a fucking hack artist--I mean come on... the dude can't even move his arms or legs! How am I supposed to take him seriously?

Beethoven was deaf! Now you're going to try and tell me that he wrote some of the world's most revered music? I'm smarter than to believe your facist propoganda!

[Theif of Time]

Nine pages wow wtf can we close this now?


It's not getting anywhere. If Conc posted some more amusing pics of 80's comedians attacking the pentagon with giant swords, it might have a purpose.

[Troll King]

I like how he quoted my previous post and then started talking about something else entirely. I couldn't think of a better way of proving my point.