Al_jazeera showing video of OBL/Al-Queda planning 9/11

[Looger]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Well as I said the biggest red flag is that the poll was sponsored by the 911truth.org. I'd like to see a copy of the survey itself to truly assess if it was valid.

As for zogby, not sure if they are credibile or not but this on their site is a red flag:

"We poll only likely voters who are different from just all adults. In addition, we poll all day long - 9am to 9pm local time (to the region we're calling). Finally, we apply weighting for party identification to ensure that there is no built-in Democratic bias in our sampling."

Not even sure what that means. But the fact they are only concerned about a built-in Democratic bias, and not a built in Republican bias suggests to me that they do have their political leanings and agenda.

considering that the 9/11 truth movement was started by paleo-conservatives and are attacked by the 'left gatekeepers' CONSTANTLY, then i'd consider the movement either non-partisan or anti-democrat as well as anti-republican by and large.

but that's my view.

zogby's site has all the relevent info you say you want.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Looger

considering that the 9/11 truth movement was started by paleo-conservatives and are attacked by the 'left gatekeepers' CONSTANTLY, then i'd consider the movement either non-partisan or anti-democrat as well as anti-republican by and large.

but that's my view.

That's fine but my concern is the fact that on their site they specify being concerned about a democratic bias, with no mention of a republic bias. Again - that suggests they have a leaning in one direction.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

That's fine but my concern is the fact that on their site they specify being concerned about a democratic bias, with no mention of a republic bias. Again - that suggests they have a leaning in one direction.

not disputing a left-leaning.

i am disputing the relevence of the (FALSE) left-right paradigm in this issue.

the democratic party clings pretty tightly to the official 9/11 myth.

but whatever. if zogby's polls are inadmissable... well they are THE poller, so i guess you're just going to have to start phoning people.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Looger

building was evacuated. like all controlled demolitions.

Are you freaking serious!!!?????

I hate to weigh in on this but are you actually using the fact that WTC 7 was evacluated as an arguement that it was a controlled demolition.

This is by far the best example of consipiracy "theory" I've ever seen. Take one tiny bit of information. Use it to connect in the smallest way to your theory and discount any other explination no matter how plausible it may be.

It's great.

Fact: WTC 7 was evacuated
Fact: When buildings are demolished, they are evacuated first

Facts to ignore:
1) Any idiot working in a building that was next to two that just got hit by what was clearly a terrorist attack (or government ploy, I guess that bit is irrelevant) would probalby want to get the hell out of there.
2) Any idot who is coordinating any sort of response and saw the damage to the WTC towers would probalby tell people that it's not a good idea to be in the building next door, cause you know, it might take a little bit of damage should the two towers come down.

Concluson: Building being evacuated = Building was brought down by a controlled demoltion

I love it!

I'll bet I can make my own.

Fact: Birds fly
Fact: The WTC was hit by things that fly

Conclusion: Disoriented pigeons brought down the WTC

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Looger

not disputing a left-leaning.

i am disputing the relevence of the (FALSE) left-right paradigm in this issue.

the democratic party clings pretty tightly to the official 9/11 myth.

but whatever. if zogby's polls are inadmissable... well they are THE poller, so i guess you're just going to have to start phoning people.

Why? I'm not the one offering up a biased poll as legitimate proof of what the American people think about 9/11. You are the one that is claiming all of this stuff - the burden of proof rests with you, not me.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Are you freaking serious!!!?????

I hate to weigh in on this but are you actually using the fact that WTC 7 was evacluated as an arguement that it was a controlled demolition.

This is by far the best example of consipiracy "theory" I've ever seen. Take one tiny bit of information. Use it to connect in the smallest way to your theory and discount any other explination no matter how plausible it may be.

It's great.

Fact: WTC 7 was evacuated
Fact: When buildings are demolished, they are evacuated first

Facts to ignore:
1) Any idiot working in a building that was next to two that just got hit by what was clearly a terrorist attack (or government ploy, I guess that bit is irrelevant) would probalby want to get the hell out of there.
2) Any idot who is coordinating any sort of response and saw the damage to the WTC towers would probalby tell people that it's not a good idea to be in the building next door, cause you know, it might take a little bit of damage should the two towers come down.

Concluson: Building being evacuated = Building was brought down by a controlled demoltion

I love it!

I'll bet I can make my own.

Fact: Birds fly
Fact: The WTC was hit by things that fly

Conclusion: Disoriented pigeons brought down the WTC

it was a response to the question of deaths in the building. take it for all the mileage you can get though, you're doing great!

[Looger]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Why? I'm not the one offering up a biased poll as legitimate proof of what the American people think about 9/11. You are the one that is claiming all of this stuff - the burden of proof rests with you, not me.

i was just putting up the zogby poll in question, i didn't bring it up.

ALL polls are biased. we've all been called with loaded questions.

zogby is the biggest and most legitimate polling service, i don't know where i can go to satisfy your requirements here so i'm dropping the issue.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Article i stumbled across today about conspiracy theories...pretty balanced look at things. And at a mainstream media site to boot.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/

i read that this morning, it is actually a monumental one.

good article.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Looger

it was a response to the question of deaths in the building. take it for all the mileage you can get though, you're doing great!

OK...but his post was right on the mark.

Why wouldn't that, and ALL buildings in the immediate vicinity, of been evacuated??

It would of been assinine to not get people the hell out of the area, don't you agree?

More to the point? If, as you claim, the government was complicit in the events of that day, why would they choose a time of day when those buildings were full...and not of done this kind of thing in the early evening when the loss of life would of been so much less? The effects would of still been the same as far as using the attacks as a catalyst for starting a war in the middle east....right?

[worth]

Any comments on this article?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...nladentape.htm

[Looger]

Originally Posted by transplant99

OK...but his post was right on the mark.

Why wouldn't that, and ALL buildings in the immediate vicinity, of been evacuated??

It would of been assinine to not get people the hell out of the area, don't you agree?

More to the point? If, as you claim, the government was complicit in the events of that day, why would they choose a time of day when those buildings were full...and not of done this kind of thing in the early evening when the loss of life would of been so much less? The effects would of still been the same as far as using the attacks as a catalyst for starting a war in the middle east....right?

calgary tower was evacuated on 9/11 as i recall. and yes i agree.

his post was one in a long string of insults and diversions. i'm leaving it at that.

as to motives, debunkers of the 'conspiracy theorists' CONTINUALLY bring up what the plotters were thinking with this, or with that. WHO KNOWS. i'm concerned with the evidence at hand.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by worth

Any comments on this article?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...nladentape.htm

listening to jones' radio show right now. how's that?

EDIT: seen "terrorstorm" yet? in the sig.

[transplant99]

i'm concerned with the evidence at hand.

Well then.....isn't the evidence that Bin Laden/Al-Queda have repeatedly claimed responsibility for the attacks? Is it not evidence that two of the hijackers that day have now been shown on a video tape stating their martyrdom with pictires of the WTC and the Pentagon right behind them?

Honestly.....if you want to use the word "evidence" in your argument, then use it in all facets, such as the claim by the MIT professor that there is no other way the WTC could of fallen other than the way it did.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Looger

his post was one in a long string of insults and diversions. i'm leaving it at that.

There's nothing in his post that is an insult. If you are unable to counter his arguments that's fine but to suggest his post is insulting is a diversion in and of itself by you.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

There's nothing in his post that is an insult. If you are unable to counter his arguments that's fine but to suggest his post is insulting is a diversion in and of itself by you.

wow.

i am so rebuked.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Looger

his post was one in a long string of insults and diversions. i'm leaving it at that.

I would disagree. His post outlined what many CTs do. They take one piece of fact; extrapolate it and then outline their theory. Best part was this:

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Concluson: Building being evacuated = Building was brought down by a controlled demoltion

I love it!

I'll bet I can make my own.

Fact: Birds fly
Fact: The WTC was hit by things that fly

Conclusion: Disoriented pigeons brought down the WTC

The problem I have found with CTs is they have the "prove me wrong" line of thinking. Now I can prove BBS wrong because I saw the 2nd plane hit the WTC live on TV. But so much of what CTs say cannot be verified either way.

Now, the fact that it cannot be verified does not on its own mean it can be dismissed; however I have found many CTs who upon being confronted with a different opinion take up an attack posture, and accuse us of being sheep, or stupid; when all we are really trying to do is look at the information at hand objectively.

It isn't that I doubted the CTs to begin with. It's the "you are a stupid sheep following the heard" arguement that makes the Conspiricy Theory lose credibility for me.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Looger

wow.

i am so rebuked.

I was not rebuking you but rather pushing you to actually respond to a legitimate counter to your position. If you are going to make the claims you are and request legitimate debate - you can't pick and choose which items to discuss and which to dismiss as "insults" when they aren't.

You wanted debate and BSS gave it to you. What's the problem?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I would disagree. His post outlined what many CTs do. They take one piece of fact; extrapolate it and then outline their theory. Best part was this:

what people assume i meant aboot building seven is nothing i can control.

find MY post, and dispute me on THAT.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I was not rebuking you but rather pushing you to actually respond to a legitimate counter to your position. If you are going to make the claims you are and request legitimate debate - you can't pick and choose which items to discuss and which to dismiss as "insults" when they aren't.

You wanted debate and BSS gave it to you. What's the problem?

i wanted debate on what i bring, not what someone else interprets.

this is such crap.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Looger

i wanted debate on what i bring, not what someone else interprets.

this is such crap.

Interpretation is part of debate. You are interpreting information as is he. But if you have no counter to his position that's fine...