A 911 tragedy comment

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Funny how you got worked up when getting called out on your errors and a "gg" comment. according to your logic... the national archives and the FBI are out to get you....

ok, you really don't have anything to say... i'm done with you

You and your CT buddies are fucking idiots. From the article

"The researchers' re-analysis involved new statistical calculations and a modern chemical analysis of bullets from the same batch Oswald is purported to have used. They reached no conclusion about whether more than one gunman was involved"

LOL. Oh man, that's classic. They have NO PROOF and did testing and have NO CONCLUSION. But your dumb ass is posting it over and over saying it's proof.

Wow, just freaking pathetic. THAT is all I have to say about this.

Since there's no proof, these pathetic wackos need to cling to some hope that their life hasn't been wasted.

B/c some people in gov't thought about doing something but never actually did, run to the hills!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh how funny he forgets to mention this little detail:

"They found that the scientific and statistical assumptions Guinn used -- and the government accepted at the time -- to conclude that the fragments came from just two bullets fired from Oswald's gun were wrong.

"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said. "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely," the researchers said. If the five fragments came from three or more bullets, that would mean a second gunman's bullet would have had to strike the president, the researchers explained."


Also interesting is how linus won't (can't) refute the fact that the was a bullet that struck the limo's windshield

'could have' is not proof.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: noto12ious
Oh how funny he forgets to mention this little detail:

"They found that the scientific and statistical assumptions Guinn used -- and the government accepted at the time -- to conclude that the fragments came from just two bullets fired from Oswald's gun were wrong.

"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said. "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely," the researchers said. If the five fragments came from three or more bullets, that would mean a second gunman's bullet would have had to strike the president, the researchers explained."


Also interesting is how linus won't (can't) refute the fact that the was a bullet that struck the limo's windshield

'could have' is not proof.

I could have had sex with Jessica Alba today.





I had an erection, but she was no where to be found.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: noto12ious
Oh how funny he forgets to mention this little detail:

"They found that the scientific and statistical assumptions Guinn used -- and the government accepted at the time -- to conclude that the fragments came from just two bullets fired from Oswald's gun were wrong.

"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said. "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely," the researchers said. If the five fragments came from three or more bullets, that would mean a second gunman's bullet would have had to strike the president, the researchers explained."


Also interesting is how linus won't (can't) refute the fact that the was a bullet that struck the limo's windshield

'could have' is not proof.

I could have had sex with Jessica Alba today.





I had an erection, but she was no where to be found.

The FBI was waterbording her. She was the second gunman and was about to go public in the new Fantastic Four movie.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: noto12ious
Mentioning northwoods is proof that our government is certainly capable of carrying out attacks on its own people.

No, evidence of the government CARRYING OUT attacks on its own people would be "proof". During the Cold War different people in the government had about a billion plans for nuking the USSR back into the Stone Age, including the preemptive option. A lot of those plans would never pass the presidential veto (President Muffley: "I will not go down in history as the greatest mass murderer since Adolph Hitler!"). And indeed, we did NOT carry out a preemptive nuclear strike. A few whims and plans and hypothetical scenarios which never came to fruition do NOT constitute "proof".

I certainly believe that the government holds secrets, and that they have participated and will participate in a number of "conspiracies". But the evidence for them having staged the WTC attacks is lacking. Indeed, a number of other popular conspiracy theories make more sense and have more evidence behind them than the WTC 'conspiracy'.

 

[BeauJangles]

The problem with conspiracies is that there is no way to conclusively disprove them. By their very nature they morph, take on new shapes, and always use the unknowable as a continuous source of fodder against any explanation.

The 9/11 conspiracy is especially palatable to many because the idea that a bunch of Middle Eastern terrorists perpetrated the attack is far more scary than if the big, bad government did it. People are already wary of the government. They already believe that its out to get them and, in a twisted way, The fact that a bunch of poorly educated people flew half way across the globe to kill US citizens is more scary.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Why does entertaining the thought that the government even might have had a hand in the WTC destruction piss people off so much? It seems highly unlikely to me, but knowing a bit of history (not just US history, but WORLD history) makes me want to keep a wary eye on any government at all times. The government isn't just one big single-minded entity, but a collection of real people. A good portion of these people are in government for personal gain above all else. Just KNOWING people in general, how can you not be somewhat suspicious of the ones that hold the keys to the kingdom?

Our government is not somehow immune to the disease that makes some people willing to do terrible things, and it is certainly not somehow beyond question or reproach. People who actually get pissed in the manner that the OP seems to be do it not because they have any good reason, but because they think that this is the good ol' US of A, and the good ol' US of A always made the right decisions according to their HS history books. The good ol' US of A does no wrong no matter what it happens to be doing.

The government is not some big benevolent "thing", but real people just like you and me. Some of it are just like the asshole next door who keeps letting his dog poop in your yard, or the guy that sells crack on the corner, or the guy that puts his video poker machines right outside the town limits after the city council votes them out. You can't just let these people do their thing, because they aren't automatically magically on your side the moment they take office. One of our jobs as the voting public is to keep the government in check. Watch it warily at all times. While it may not be out to get you necessarily, chances are the people who make it up are looking out for number one at all times, just like the rest of us.

 

[vhx]

Lol. Why do some here believe the government can do no wrong? The sheer sheep-like attitude some of you have posted, kind of bewilders me. People have posted links on several cover ups and wrong doings the government has done in the past. I am not a conspiracy nut by any means, but it's obvious the government has done lots of questionable things. The Manhattan project is an example of a secret project, and that wasn't even a conspiracy or anything as such, just a really well kept secret. Just imagine the really dark ones they don't tell you.

I believe in the possibility the government had some type influence on the attack, maybe not even the attack itself. Just kind of provoking, being lax about security on purpose, ignoring signs, etc. The whole wink wink nudge nudge thing. It's hard to say, but there have been lots of miscommunication and discrepancies in a lot of the things. I can't say either way. And George Bush is obviously too stupid to do it on his own, for those who think he did. Those large funds for campaigns have to come from somewhere, those with specific interests.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
The problem with conspiracies is that there is no way to conclusively disprove them. By their very nature they morph, take on new shapes, and always use the unknowable as a continuous source of fodder against any explanation.

The 9/11 conspiracy is especially palatable to many because the idea that a bunch of Middle Eastern terrorists perpetrated the attack is far more scary than if the big, bad government did it. People are already wary of the government. They already believe that its out to get them and, in a twisted way, The fact that a bunch of poorly educated people flew half way across the globe to kill US citizens is more scary.

I'm honestly surprised there hasn't been more. Or heck, if they'd trained a bit more, they might have aimed for the base of the towers instead - imagine the devastation if they'd started to tip over, and fall sideways.

All kinds of small acts of mischief could be done. I know of a few ways that could cause serious problems with railroads. And that big blackout for parts of the northeast US and the southern Canadian border a few years ago showed that our power grid is quite vulnerable. Last I checked, substation security consists of a chain-link fence with barbed wire. Not a big deal to get through. Acts of terrorism are just so damned easy to do, it could also be a viewed as a bit of a surprise that more hasn't been done already. Maybe it'd be best not to detail much more on how to go about causing destruction. I don't feel like being "detained" as an enemy combatant.

Though one thing I have wondered, and I don't know the chemistry of it - as I understand it, oil pumps force water into underground chambers, to produce pressure. Could some sort of high-level radioactive waste be pumped in there instead, effectively irradiating an oil field? It's one thing to destroy the pumping stations above ground, but perhaps this would render the oil well useless for a few thousand years.
Note, I know nothing about the consistency or density of any form of nuclear waste. This was a passing thought, and I have no idea if it would even be physically possible. I can't say that I've had many opportunitys to futz around with either high-level radioactive waste or fresh crude oil.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Ns1
Don't get mad. Just give them a tin foil hat and be on your merry way.

Arguing with CT's is like battling a level 61 elite with 3 toothpick's and a murloc fin.

as a feral I could pull that off.

 

[Coldkilla]

Our government cannot keep shut about anything, the accidentally leak shit left and right. Something as big as this would have been leaked years ago by some govt. employee.

 

[eits]

911 is an emergency number. wtf is this thread about? a tragedy when someone called for an emergency?

 

[Printer Bandit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=player_embedded#

 

[SonicIce]

Originally posted by: Printer Bandit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=player_embedded#

lol why u revive 2 year old thread?

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: SonicIce

Originally posted by: Printer Bandit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=player_embedded#

lol why u revive 2 year old thread?

he must've found this thread stuck in the rollers of an Epson he "found".

 

[DivideBYZero]

9/11 was arranged by the Asia/Pacific Banana trade organizations in combination with the major US condom manufacturers.

 

[oddyager]

Originally posted by: Printer Bandit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=player_embedded#

Please go back to giving away free printers.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Mr Incognito
I think Bush is a war criminal, a civil criminal and an overall war hawk that has destroyed our economy and pretended that he could start a war, have his fun and leave.

EDIT: I wouldn't put it past Bush given his past 6 years. The guy is in a world of his own, and I wish America would have the collective nads to impeach him and try him in civil court.

*knee-jerk*

 

[Miramonti]

The government didn't do it.

And the government didn't stop it either...

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
9/11 was arranged by the Asia/Pacific Banana trade organizations in combination with the major US condom manufacturers.

Knock off the banana condom stuff; it's a bunch of crap, a cover story for the IABPC.

 

[Wheezer]

Huh, surprisingly this is the first time I have seen this topic covered on ATOT...where the hell have I been?

 

[thehstrybean]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Time to pull out the lawn chair and ice tea.

<--brings pizza and chair

 

[thehstrybean]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: techgamer
The event was a tragedy and one of the most horrific moments for our country. I hate when people claim or even suggest that a horrendous event such as 911 could have been staged by our own gov't. People must have a lot of contempt for their country if they believe that our gov't would create a terrorist act against its own country. You dont have to like the way Bush has run things. I think he has made mistakes throughout his Presidency, but by no means would I go so far to blame this event on him or his council. It makes me soo mad. Am I alone on this?

Yours is a dangerous attitude. It presupposes the invalidity of any given argument simply because it results in a strong negative emotional response from you. I don't see much validity to any of the arguments that suggest our government planned 9/11, but I consider those arguments objectively before rejecting them, instead of resorting to knee-jerk emotional reactions. So no, it doesn't leave me angry, just sort of bewildered.

This.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: techgamer
The event was a tragedy and one of the most horrific moments for our country. I hate when people claim or even suggest that a horrendous event such as 911 could have been staged by our own gov't. People must have a lot of contempt for their country if they believe that our gov't would create a terrorist act against its own country. You dont have to like the way Bush has run things. I think he has made mistakes throughout his Presidency, but by no means would I go so far to blame this event on him or his council. It makes me soo mad. Am I alone on this?

Yours is a dangerous attitude. It presupposes the invalidity of any given argument simply because it results in a strong negative emotional response from you. I don't see much validity to any of the arguments that suggest our government planned 9/11, but I consider those arguments objectively before rejecting them, instead of resorting to knee-jerk emotional reactions. So no, it doesn't leave me angry, just sort of bewildered.

I know this thread is old as well as this post.

It is a dangerous attitude to invalidate arguments outright, but have you seen the CTs? They start from invalid positions. Thus, whatever follows would subsequently be invalid, as it is based on an invalid assumption. And then trying to convince them otherwise - you come at the with reason and facts, they throw back random, pulled-out-of-the-ass speculation and rhetoric and some garbage YouTube videos filled with leaps of logic, logical errors, and completely made up stuff. They don't listen or provide any legitimate, evidence-based reason to back their inane and insane positions.

If people were coming at me with legitimate evidence and a legitimate premise to counter the work that the NIST did, then yes, I'd consider it.

Finally, since the NIST's work and Occam's Razor say that conspiracy theorists are crazy, I will continue to roll my eyes at them wishing something might hit them in the head hard enough to cure them of their insanity.

 

[Regs]

Never lose a holy curiosity.