Small fires my.....

[PhantomWolf]

Have a look at the top photo in this post and then tell me that they were small fires.

[SpitfireIX]

Gravy is to September 11 conspiracies what Jay is to moon-hoax conspiracies. Figures that he would have found a photo like that.

[3onthetree]

spitfireix said:

Gravy is to September 11 conspiracies what Jay is to moon-hoax conspiracies. Figures that he would have found a photo like that.

Yes I agee, methinks they both protest too much too. Both have put more people on the woo woo choo choo than any other group. ;D

Actually what i said was a bit unfair to Jay, I was only kidding though.

[gillianren]

Fine. Tell me, with the same clarity and erudition as Jay uses, exactly what happened on 11 September, 2001. With specifics, and lots of 'em.

[3onthetree]

gillianren said:

Fine. Tell me, with the same clarity and erudition as Jay uses, exactly what happened on 11 September, 2001. With specifics, and lots of 'em.

It's impossible for me to make a start, the main suspect denies any responsibility and his main accuser has proven to be a liar. Unlike Jay I'm in the unfortunate position of a state of disbelief, he has a strong conviction that the Apollo landings took place as recorded, I respect that. I can't accept the official 911 story as it is based on lies. Any substitute theory has more weight simply because I'm not sure if the substitute in BS or not.

archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

[Data Cable]

3onthetree said:

...the main suspect denies any responsibility...

Since guilty suspects always confess immediately...

[SpitfireIX]

It's impossible for me to make a start, the main suspect denies any responsibility

Irrelevant. As Data Cable has pointed out, guilty suspects routinely claim innocence.

and his main accuser has proven to be a liar.

Ad hominem. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, [edit: in and of itself, the fact that a person may have lied in one case has no bearing on the truth or falsity of his or her other statements]

Unlike Jay I'm in the unfortunate position of a state of disbelief

Jay has pointed out that this is one of the hallmarks of conspiracism--"I don't know what happened, but I can sure tell you what didn't happen." Therefore a conclusion can never be reached--more investigations are needed, more discussion, etc. Meanwhile, the discussion becomes hopelessly bogged down, thus ensuring continuing attention (and profits, in some cases) for conspiracy theorists.

he has a strong conviction that the Apollo landings took place as recorded, I respect that.

If you respect his views so much, whence the comment about his allegedly contributing to conspiracism? (Which is total nonsense in any case.)

I can't accept the official 911 story as it is based on lies.

Specific examples, please.

Any substitute theory has more weight simply because I'm not sure if the substitute in BS or not.

So you have no idea whatsoever what might have actually occurred on September 11, 2001?

[Jason]

The conspiracist logic on 9/11 goes like this:
1) I believe the Bush Administration/United States is evil and/or immoral, and is largely responsible for all that is evil in this world.
2) 9/11 was an evil/immoral event.
3) Therefore the Bush Administration/United States must be somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
4) Therefore the official story, no matter how much evidence there is for it, must be false.
5) Therefore...[Insert alternate conspiracy theories here] is more likely.

[gillianren]

Quite right.

Let me ask again--and again, and again, until one of you gives me a realistic answer. None of you ever have.

Tell me what you believe happened. Give me names and dates if you've got 'em, or admit you don't. Tell me what explosives were used. Tell me what happened to the planes if you don't believe there were planes. Tell me what happened to the passengers. Tell me how many people had to be involved in every stage of the operation; tell me how they've since been kept silent against the probability of history.

I want details from you; I've never gotten them. None of you have ever explained why engineers all over the planet go alone with the "official story," regardless of their country's relationship to the US.

[3onthetree]

jason said:

The conspiracist logic on 9/11 goes like this:
1) I believe the Bush Administration/United States is evil and/or immoral, and is largely responsible for all that is evil in this world.
2) 9/11 was an evil/immoral event.
3) Therefore the Bush Administration/United States must be somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
4) Therefore the official story, no matter how much evidence there is for it, must be false.
5) Therefore...[Insert alternate conspiracy theories here] is more likely.

Give that man a cigar, and he knows numbers too.

[3onthetree]

gillianren said:

Quite right.

Let me ask again--and again, and again, until one of you gives me a realistic answer. None of you ever have.

Tell me what you believe happened. Give me names and dates if you've got 'em, or admit you don't. Tell me what explosives were used. Tell me what happened to the planes if you don't believe there were planes. Tell me what happened to the passengers. Tell me how many people had to be involved in every stage of the operation; tell me how they've since been kept silent against the probability of history.

I want details from you; I've never gotten them. None of you have ever explained why engineers all over the planet go alone with the "official story," regardless of their country's relationship to the US.

This information is probably only known to the perpetrators, what usually happens is you catch em and ask em and then you go oh I see, you were tricky buggers weren't you.
Stick with the official conspiracy theory, ask no questions get told no lies and pass the ammunition.

[gillianren]

Not good enough. If it's so bloody obvious that it couldn't be what actually happened, that it has to have been a conspiracy, you should be able to give more details. Heck, we can give more details than that about conspiracies where the participants are hundreds of years dead and didn't leave written records, even though it, too, is supposition. (Don't believe me? Get me started on the death of Amy Dudley.)

[twinstead]

gillianren said:

Not good enough. If it's so bloody obvious that it couldn't be what actually happened, that it has to have been a conspiracy, you should be able to give more details. Heck, we can give more details than that about conspiracies where the participants are hundreds of years dead and didn't leave written records, even though it, too, is supposition. (Don't believe me? Get me started on the death of Amy Dudley.)

Yes, this is what just kills me. Do These CT folks seriously think the evidence of conspiracy is really SO rock-solid, the official story really SO totally impossible?

The only thing worse in my mind than somebody insisting that I should be seeing something that I honestly don't see and inferring I am either a blind fool or in on the plot because of it, is somebody insisting that so many experts in relevant fields world-wide should be seeing something they honestly don't see and inferring they are either blind fools or in on the plot because of it.

[SpitfireIX]

This information is probably only known to the perpetrators

Then how do you know there was a conspiracy?

what usually happens is you catch em and ask em

How would you catch "them" without proving the existence of a conspiracy? And how would you prove the existence of a conspiracy without being able to explain how "they" did it?

Stick with the official conspiracy theory, ask no questions get told no lies and pass the ammunition.

You and other conspiracists have failed to raise a single objection to the "official" story that has proven it can withstand scrutiny from science, engineering, history, or other relevant disciplines. Further, the conspiracists' pattern is invariably to avoid admitting that their accusations have been conclusively refuted.

[3onthetree]

The only thing worse in my mind than somebody insisting that I should be seeing something that I honestly don't see and inferring I am either a blind fool or in on the plot because of it, is somebody insisting that so many experts in relevant fields world-wide should be seeing something they honestly don't see and inferring they are either blind fools or in on the plot because of it.

I don't remember asking you anything. If this is offensive to you look away, turn off your monitor or go outside and pat the dog.