Fox News: much more open-minded about explosive devices bringing down 7 World Trade

[SphinxnihpS]

once you acknowledge the basic fact that we have audio of deep thunders / explosions preceeding any official collapse of wtc7, we'll continue.

or, feel free to dodge like jingle and dodgingChick.

edit: wait, i like elfenix's excuse. he pretends to not hear anything at all 😉😉

Do you happen to own a razor? I'm not so sure the song has it right, so you may want to make sure it's sharp.

 

[Analogsoul]

Invoking Occam's Razor to defend the notion that impact damage and fires brought the buildings down is akin to arguing that since ground around you appears fairly flat, the Earth couldn't be round.

You obviously don't understand how Occam's Razor works.

The Razor generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions (aka postulates, entities) when the hypotheses be equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.[2]

The principle is often summarized as "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one". This summary can be misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions [3]. That is, the Razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is often a less accurate explanation (e.g. metaphysical Solipsism). Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place[4].

Where is the burden of proof for these claims? Oh wait there is none.

Obviously it's more logical to believe that in addition to impact damage and fires, there must have been explosives and a government cover up that caused the buildings to collapse. Especially since there is a mountain of evidence that supports that claim /sarcasm

 

[JohnnyGage]

After seeing XJohnx's links I watched this one and thought it would add to the discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k&feature=related


Truthers are such fail


Edit:There is this little ditty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=related

 

[WelshBloke]

The planes provided 19 dead patsies to frame the attacks on, and by extension bin Laden, al Queda, the Taliban, Saddam, and even Arabs and/or Islam as a whole to some. The planes also served to focus the population's attention on the buildings so we would be traumatised by the shock of watching them come down, and to get the buildings mostly evacuated so there would be less victims family members and friends demanding a proper investigation into the people who actually did have the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out such a sophisticated false flag attack.

It would have been easier to go with a false truck bomb, less to go wrong.

I'm unclear about the motivation as well.

So we fake an attack by Saudi terrorists so that we can attack Iraq and then Afghanistan? We pretty much went to war with Iraq because we felt like it, we don't really need false flag reasons to attack. We can just ratchet up the rhetoric in the press, make some impossible to fulfil demands on a country, and when they fail to fulfil those demands begin a course of military/economic escalation.

 

[xj0hnx]

It would have been easier to go with a false truck bomb, less to go wrong.

I'm unclear about the motivation as well.

So we fake an attack by Saudi terrorists so that we can attack Iraq and then Afghanistan? We pretty much went to war with Iraq because we felt like it, we don't really need false flag reasons to attack. We can just ratchet up the rhetoric in the press, make some impossible to fulfil demands on a country, and when they fail to fulfil those demands begin a course of military/economic escalation.

Yip. The whole need for a false flag operation of this scale just doesn't compute. Not just the need for a false flag, but how it was carried out. There are literally hundreds of scenarios that would have not only been easier, and less difficult to carry out with less that could go wrong, but been a LOT better to get America's blood boiling.

 

[xj0hnx]

The planes provided 19 dead patsies to frame the attacks on, and by extension bin Laden, al Queda, the Taliban, Saddam, and even Arabs and/or Islam as a whole to some. The planes also served to focus the population's attention on the buildings so we would be traumatised by the shock of watching them come down, and to get the buildings mostly evacuated so there would be less victims family members and friends demanding a proper investigation into the people who actually did have the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out such a sophisticated false flag attack.

The means is an airline ticket, some basic flight instruction, and the will to die for their cause, nothing complicated, or cloak and dagger there. The motivation, the desire to strike at the heart of the Great Satan, the infidels that have been meddling Islamic affairs and nations for decades driven by the radicalization of their religion, nothing complicated, or cloak and dagger there either. The opportunity created through means, and by motivation, coordinating 19 people divided into smaller units to carry out high visibility, symbolic attacks.

The idea that the most visible, blatant and disastrous attacks on American civilians, on American soil in the nations history was done with thought to minimize casualties to lessen the investigation is beyond ...well, there just aren't words extreme enough to explain how dumb that idea is.

 

[kylebisme]

Where is the burden of proof for these claims? Oh wait there is none.

Feel free to read my posts throughout this thread and address the evidence I've presented in them. Until then, you're just handwaving.

It would have been easier to go with a false truck bomb, less to go wrong.

Nah, trying to pass off a single truck bomb as responsible for bringing all three buildings down would surely go wrong, while two planes was apparently enough to convince most people.

So we fake an attack by Saudi terrorists so that we can attack Iraq and then Afghanistan?

No, not "we" by any stretch, as I most certainly had no hand in that, and I rather doubt you did either.

We pretty much went to war with Iraq because we felt like it, we don't really need false flag reasons to attack. We can just ratchet up the rhetoric in the press, make some impossible to fulfil demands on a country, and when they fail to fulfil those demands begin a course of military/economic escalation.

While it seems you consider yourself one of the warmongers who wanted to invade Iraq regardless of 9/11, most people weren't buying into such rhetoric until after the attacks.

The means is an airline ticket, some basic flight instruction, and the will to die for their cause....

Nope, that's far short of what it took to bring the buildings down.

 

[WelshBloke]

Nah, trying to pass off a single truck bomb as responsible for bringing all three buildings down would surely go wrong, while two planes was apparently enough to convince most people.

You can fit roughly, a crap load, of high explosives in a truck, and you can use as many vehicles as you like.

No, not "we" by any stretch, as I most certainly had no hand in that, and I rather doubt you did either.

By 'we' I was referring to countries as listing all the supporters by name may take a while.

While it seems you consider yourself one of the warmongers who wanted to invade Iraq regardless of 9/11, most people weren't buying into such rhetoric until after the attacks.

I'm trying to stay polite and also taking your argument seriously, you're not making that easy.

 

[xj0hnx]

Nope, that's far short of what it took to bring the buildings down.

Only to demented Truthers, and what? No comment on the rest?

 

[kylebisme]

You can fit roughly, a crap load, of high explosives in a truck, and you can use as many vehicles as you like.

You'd have a hell of a time setting up the patsies for being able to acquire such crap loads of explosives and slip all the trucks past security, particularly since the 1993 bombing had people on the lookout for Muslims with truck bombs..

By 'we' I was referring to countries as listing all the supporters by name may take a while.

Your were speaking of people behind setting up the patsies, and it takes a wild stretch of the imagination to suggest everyone who supported the invasions had a hand in that.

I'm trying to stay polite and also taking your argument seriously, you're not making that easy.

You are the one who suggested you wanted to invade Iraq regardless of 9/11, how should I take that as anything but you declaring yourself a warmonger?

No comment on the rest?

The rest of your argument is based on the fallacious notion that the two planes were means enough to bring the three buildings down, and hence aren't worth commenting on.

 

[xj0hnx]

The rest of your argument is based on the fallacious notion that the two planes were means enough to bring the three buildings down, and hence aren't worth commenting on.

No, it was a comment on the stupidity of thinking that the targets were chosen by the government because they wouldn't draw enough attention to warrant a "real" investigation.

And that's a hoot, the conspiracy theorist calling someone's notion "fallacious". It's amazing the lengths you people will go to to avoid having to answer the real questions that shoot your BS theories to oblivion.

 

[xj0hnx]

You'd have a hell of a time setting up the patsies for being able to acquire such crap loads of explosives and slip all the trucks past security, particularly since the 1993 bombing had people on the lookout for Muslims with truck bombs..

Right, which is why it was so easy for the "real" perpetrators to sneak in literal metric tons of explosives, and wire three entire buildings to blow. Do you ever listen to yourself, and the shit that comes out of your mouth versus your theories? Your own theories are at odds with each other, no wonder no one can take you seriously.

You are the one who suggested you wanted to invade Iraq regardless of 9/11, how should I take that as anything but you declaring yourself a warmonger?

No he didn't, not even close. He was only explaining that your whole cloak and dagger false flag theory is a bunch of bullshit because it wasn't necessary. Interesting how you twist, and place words into people mouths to avoid the shortcomings of your own deluded theories.

 

[BeauJangles]

Right, which is why it was so easy for the "real" perpetrators to sneak in literal metric tons of explosives, and wire three entire buildings to blow. Do you ever listen to yourself, and the shit that comes out of your mouth versus your theories? Your own theories are at odds with each other, no wonder no one can take you seriously.

Wait, are we back to explosives or are we still pretending that the building was packed with thermite? Because as little evidence as there is for thermite, there's even less for convention explosives.

 

[Ns1]

Wait, are we back to explosives or are we still pretending that the building was packed with thermite? Because as little evidence as there is for thermite, there's even less for convention explosives.

depends on which truther you talk to.

they're all over the place - hard to keep straight.

 

[alkemyst]

Wait, are we back to explosives or are we still pretending that the building was packed with thermite? Because as little evidence as there is for thermite, there's even less for convention explosives.

I just don't think the jets did it all.

Thermite is probably a red herring.

 

[WelshBloke]

You are the one who suggested you wanted to invade Iraq regardless of 9/11, how should I take that as anything but you declaring yourself a warmonger?

😵

The only way you could possible get that out of what I wrote is if you take the 'we' out of context and believe that I am some shadowy, powerful figure that makes government decisions.


Also if you could just open your curtains a bit and turn the light on we'd be grateful.

 

[xj0hnx]

Wait, are we back to explosives or are we still pretending that the building was packed with thermite? Because as little evidence as there is for thermite, there's even less for convention explosives.

Dang it, I forgot to use the all inclusive "demolitions" instead of explosives, sorry 😛 And as NS1 said, depends on which Truther you talk to, some have accepted the fact that no evidence of explosives was found so they moved on to thermite, some are a mix of both, then you have the micro-nukes crowd, the "it wasn't planes it was missiles", the disappearing planes, the drone crowd, the planes loaded with explosives, the drones loaded with explosives, the Mossad, the CIA, the secret government assassins, etc ...

 

[Ns1]

Dang it, I forgot to use the all inclusive "demolitions" instead of explosives, sorry 😛 And as NS1 said, depends on which Truther you talk to, some have accepted the fact that no evidence of explosives was found so they moved on to thermite, some are a mix of both, then you have the micro-nukes crowd, the "it wasn't planes it was missiles", the disappearing planes, the drone crowd, the planes loaded with explosives, the drones loaded with explosives, the Mossad, the CIA, the secret government assassins, etc ...

don't forget super stealth ninjas with technology 50-100 years ahead of what we're told.

 

[xj0hnx]

I just don't think the jets did it all.

Thermite is probably a red herring.

No? So what "helped" them?

 

[xj0hnx]

don't forget super stealth ninjas with technology 50-100 years ahead of what we're told.

Cybernetic super stealth ninjas.

 

[Ns1]

No? So what "helped" them?

micronukes planted by super stealth ninjas

 

[k3n]

nm

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

- Her Majesty's Husband, Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh

Local news proving toxic elements in chemtrails
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI

lol. Smart move by the airlines...kill off their customers.

And to quote Joe Jackson - "Everything gives you cancer."

 

[k3n]

nm

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

http://letsrollforums.com/mystery-flights-11-77-f21.html
That forum details the roles "potential customers" may have played on 9/11. Those supposed flight phone calls were proven to be fakes, so much that the FBI refused to use 'em in the Mossaui trial.

Also a great number of the passengers were either millionaires or CEOs. Mark Wahlberg, and Seth MacFarlane somehow never got onto those flights due to sudden rescheduling.

Also ever wonder why the FBI and co. have yet to release surveillance footage of the passengers either waiting or getting onto their flight? or their taking off from the runway?

Upon research i've come to the conclusion that many of these customers could have been individuals trying to start a new life just like witnesses protection progrrams (one of the supposed flight victims was a man facing a trial in the Philippines, according to Jim Fetzer's radio show). Also these plane flights could have giving the government the opportunity to cover up a murder they had commited. Another theory is that some could have been facing terminal illness and the government gave them the opportunity to go out as a "hero".

Notice the uncanny resemblance between Fox's Barbara Olson and Ted's new wife Lady Booth, I know, just another coincidence of thousands of others.

http://letsrollforums.com/barbara-olson-9-11-t20525.html

Speaking of which...you are going to be blown away by this dude:

http://www.kilty.com/l_and_k.htm

Did you know that Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln, and Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy? Woah! C'mon, that can't be just coincidence. And all the rest? It has uncanny written all over it.