Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Care to answer it?

National security?

 

[treeman]

Anybody of the non believers read this:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

 

[Long Live HFC]

http://911truth.tripod.com/pentagon.html

other than being a page absolutely full of nonsense, what does it have to do with the pic of the plane that you said wasn't there?

 

[Glacier]

Anybody of the non believers read this:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Hey treeman
For every article debunking there is another that debunks the debunkers
In fact there is a recent book out that is solely about debunking anything popular mechanics comes up with on the issue, that's how this game works

 

[treeman]

Hey treeman
For every article debunking there is another that debunks the debunkers
In fact there is a recent book out that is solely about debunking anything popular mechanics comes up with on the issue, that's how this game works

Lol so I suppose I'm better off leaving right now.

 

[Glacier]

Lol so I suppose I'm better off leaving right now.

Not at all
We are all mates here!!
And if its actually discussed its an interesting topic

 

[treeman]

Okay well if anyone hasn't feel free to listen to this:

http://raasnio.com/GenerationWhyPodcast/911-truth/

I'm sure we'll get people saying they talk crap but it is definitely a good listen.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

I noticed you and the rest of the believers in the official story have let this go through to the keeper:



Care to answer it?

No they won't. Because it would make a lie of this:

To plan and conduct their attack, the 9/11 plotters spent somewhere between $400,000
and $500,000, the vast majority of which was provided by al Qaeda. Although the origin
of the funds remains unknown, extensive investigation has revealed quite a bit about the
financial transactions that supported the 9/11 plot. The hijackers and their financial
facilitators used the anonymity provided by the huge international and domestic financial
system to move and store their money through a series of unremarkable transactions. The
existing mechanisms to prevent abuse of the financial system did not fail. They were
never designed to detect or disrupt transactions of the type that financed 9/11.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_App.pdf

 

[Long Live HFC]

again, just because somebody claims something, does not make it true. clearly the "inability to tell good evidence from bad" in this instance would refer to the claim that the engine part in question did not come from a 757.

 

[Glacier]

again, just because somebody claims something, does not make it true. clearly the "inability to tell good evidence from bad" in this instance would refer to the claim that the engine part in question did not come from a 757.

Claim ?
This came from the manufacturer themselves
Hardly a claim
Does this make it bad evidence because it doesn't fit the official version ??

 

[Smiling Buddha]

again, just because somebody claims something, does not make it true.

Do you apply the same logic to the government or the mainstream media?

If so, can you please share with us a time when you disagreed with the government or the mainstream media?

 

[Long Live HFC]

Claim ?
This came from the manufacturer themselves
Hardly a claim

sigh. if the engine in question was THE ONLY piece of evidence that proved flight 77 crashed into the pentagon, the supposed identification by boeing might warrant further investigation. since it isn't though, it would take more than a supposed comment by boeing. in my experience dealing with truther "evidence", the claims are almost never accurate. i mean american airlines are convinced that their plane ended up in the pentagon. truthers' mischaracterisation of evidence makes it tiresome to chase down every last red herring.

Does this make it bad evidence because it doesn't fit the official version ??

no, it makes it "bad evidence" because it (the supposed boeing response) is used to ignore all the other evidence that confirms flight 77's fate. if you could link the boeing commentary though it would be appreciated. i can remember the original claim from years ago, but not the exact text.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Do you apply the same logic to the government or the mainstream media?

of course i do.

If so, can you please share with us a time when you disagreed with the government or the mainstream media?

really? any topic in particular?

 

[Smiling Buddha]

really? any topic in particular?

Indulge us. Any major historical incident where you disagree with the official narrative.

 

[Kellythatsit]

Claim ?
This came from the manufacturer themselves
Hardly a claim
Does this make it bad evidence because it doesn't fit the official version ??

Glacier, Glacier, Glacier my old friend and sparring partner.

I know what you are referring to here but you are wrong. This claim has been around since 2002 and it has been shown to be simply wrong, a misleading claim promoted by pilots for 911 truth (I know, incredible but true).

Yes, sorry to disappoint you but it's that old chestnut again ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Glacier]

sigh. if the engine in question was THE ONLY piece of evidence that proved flight 77 crashed into the pentagon, the supposed identification by boeing might warrant further investigation. since it isn't though, it would take more than a supposed comment by boeing. in my experience dealing with truther "evidence", the claims are almost never accurate. i mean american airlines are convinced that their plane ended up in the pentagon. truthers' mischaracterisation of evidence makes it tiresome to chase down every last red herring.



no, it makes it "bad evidence" because it (the supposed boeing response) is used to ignore all the other evidence that confirms flight 77's fate. if you could link the boeing commentary though it would be appreciated. i can remember the original claim from years ago, but not the exact text.

So you ignore the problem but keep using the evidence??
Quote-Honeywell
" there is no way that is any part of a APU engine we manufacture"

So we have an engine part at the Pentagon that the official version tells us is proof that a Boeing hit the Pentagon yet the manufacturer of the Boeings engine says that it isn't theirs??
Do we just ignore this on the basis that there is " all this other evidence " ??
Does that wreckage you speak of include the part that was also recognised as a JT8 D Turbo from a US AIRFORCE A-3 Skywarrior, or is that bad evidence ??

 

[Kellythatsit]

Indulge us. Any major historical incident where you disagree with the official narrative.

I'll give you a few off the top of my head:

Both gulf wars
The pacific solution
Tampa and children overboard
The PNG solution (yes I don't think there is real crisis with boat people as pushed by both sides of the political spectrum)
AWB scandal

Is that enough or do I still need to provide more examples to build up cred?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Long Live HFC]

Indulge us. Any major historical incident where you disagree with the official narrative.

Does laughing at the Y2K nonsense count?
But really, I think “major historical incidents” are normally well-understood, if not at the time, then in subsequent months/years. One issue where I remain on the fence is the Lockerbie bombing. Subsequent investigation certainly puts the “official narrative” in doubt.

 

[Glacier]

Glacier, Glacier, Glacier my old friend and sparring partner.

I know what you are referring to here but you are wrong. This claim has been around since 2002 and it has been shown to be simply wrong, a misleading claim promoted by pilots for 911 truth (I know, incredible but true).

Yes, sorry to disappoint you but it's that old chestnut again ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pilots for 9-11 truth ??
It was a quote from Honeywell, not some truth org
Discredited by who, popular mechanics ??
They have about as much credibility as your old mate Griffin !!

 

[Glacier]

I'll give you a few off the top of my head:

Both gulf wars
The pacific solution
Tampa and children overboard
The PNG solution (yes I don't think there is real crisis with boat people as pushed by both sides of the political spectrum)
AWB scandal

Is that enough or do I still need to provide more examples to build up cred?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm both surprised and heartened by this post mate, particularly the parts in relation to " boat people "
A big

 

[Long Live HFC]

So you ignore the problem but keep using the evidence??

no, i simply disagree that with the mis-identification.

" there is no way that is any part of a APU engine we manufacture"

again, you'll need to do more than type what was supposedly said. i'd like the source. for all i know truthers showed boeing a pic of a zebra when asking if it was a plane part.

So we have an engine part at the Pentagon that the official version tells us is proof that a Boeing hit the Pentagon yet the manufacturer of the Boeings engine says that it isn't theirs??

no, we have a multitude of pieces of evidence that i have covered exhaustively already, and we have your claim that boeing supposedly stated the plane part in question is incorrect.

Do we just ignore this on the basis that there is " all this other evidence " ??

no, we take it into consideration with all the other evidence, and (even if true), deduce that the person in question making the comment was mistaken (or misled).

Does that wreckage you speak of include the part that was also recognised as a JT8 D Turbo from a US AIRFORCE A-3 Skywarrior, or is that bad evidence ??

bad evidence because they're wrong.

 

[Glacier]

no, i simply disagree that with the mis-identification.



again, you'll need to do more than type what was supposedly said. i'd like the source. for all i know truthers showed boeing a pic of a zebra when asking if it was a plane part.



no, we have a multitude of pieces of evidence that i have covered exhaustively already, and we have your claim that boeing supposedly stated the plane part in question is incorrect.



no, we take it into consideration with all the other evidence, and (even if true), deduce that the person in question making the comment was mistaken (or misled).



bad evidence because they're wrong.

So long story short because it doesn't fit you dismiss it??
The quote from Honeywell is just that, a quote
I think the manufacturer would know their own product, would they not?

 

[Long Live HFC]

So long story short because it doesn't fit you dismiss it??

no; i dismiss it because i don't feel the evidence is accurate or was accurately obtained because i have 10 years' experience with truther "evidence" (and again, because it isn't the one and only piece of evidence to rely upon).

The quote from Honeywell is just that, a quote

so, provide the quote and the source rather than typing it out.

I think the manufacturer would know their own product, would they not?

without being shown the quote, the source and the context, how would i know?

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Subsequent investigation certainly puts the “official narrative” in doubt.

If we don't have a thread on that topic already, I think it would be terrific if you could start one on this board. Get the conversation going.

 

[Long Live HFC]

If we don't have a thread on that topic already, I think it would be terrific if you could start one on this board. Get the conversation going.

i don't have anywhere near the knowledge or exposure to Lockerbie that i do 911, sorry. i also don't particularly care.