Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
So...what's the consensus?
A covering and manipulation of available personal accounts, hard evidence, as well as not all that could be made available to the public has been made available.
Quote:
So, the reason there's no good evidence is that they destroyed the evidence. Ah yes, the perfect government conspiracy never fails to cover all its tracks because they are so perfectly competent at everything...:rolleyes:
har :p
Quote:
I don't really care much for congressional representatives, and their opinions aren't really the authority to go to when investigating this kind of crime. Go ask some firemen or architectural engineers what happened to those buildings.
I don't blame you there. However, it is just one of the many examples of a place where one could turn, that is as best as doing their own investigation as they can muster. Call the Airlines involved that day. Call any of the major cell network carriers in that region, ask them about that day. While you're at it, call smaller local airports that had people behind the wheel monitoring their own traffic what it is they recall about that day. Call the fire houses that responded that day. Maybe even find out for yourself standardized industry practices, such as...what sort of flight data recording device would be present on a United Airlines Boieng 757-222.
Quote:
Patriot? Who's a patriot? Me? I'm a vehement anti-nationalist..
What sort of antinationalist are you? Moderate? Vehomently opposed to everything federalized?
Quote:
Sure, a healthy attitude of skepticism is a good thing. But you have to be careful to apply it equally to both sides.
Indeedlydoo. There are, on both sides of this discussion, those that are easily swayed to agreeing with what others have determined...and merely echo the arguments of those that establish them. This is why I encourage people to mount there own fact finding investigation.
Don't just agree with others for sake of 'oh yeah! that does make it all clear!' type moments that people have. Get better learned on the things that went outside the norm by better learning the norm.
Quote:
Yeah, Bush is a moron with a crazy ideology. That doesn't mean he orchestrated 9/11.
Okay...I could LMAO at the notion of GW orchestrating anything other than the time he spends believing himself a tool of the almighty. I do though believe he may have...agreed with how to achieve a particular terror driven adgenda.
Quote:
And if he started debating all kinds of stupid details about what he did that day, it wouldn't convince the conspiracy theorists. It would only give them more data to find anomalies in, and more importantly, would give them more credibility than they deserve. Continuing to debate with the conspiracy theorists only fosters the idea that there's something to the conspiracy claims. It would be like Bush providing evidence that he isn't a reptilian alien in order to disprove the
nutcase who claims he is.
If one were to nevermind his office, and read him the way you would any other person...the man is never consistent along a story-line. He stutters and trips...can not keep the lie consistent...then practices avoidance with empty rhetoric, addressing nothing at all. The man's inability to deal with apprehension is writen all over his face, posture, body language. Watch his eyes if you're the sort that watches eyes for subtle indicators.
Quote:
Glaring inconsistencies? I take it you've been reading the anomaly hunters. What are these inconsistencies?
I have watched various docustyle movies that are available to download. With arguments from either side of the 'what really happened that day?' debate. I have done the 'Hunt the Boeing' site. The sinking point for me though are my own recollections of what was going on with me that day that conflicts with those official releases weighed further with things I'm skilled with trade-wise regarding material specifications.
[attachment=o79144]
There is something entirely wrong with that picture.
I can go on and on about one inconsistency or another with you 1Iron, I won't though...you seem to me well rounded about having been in the discussion and reading of published materials from either side. So, you've either seen or read, and drew what you drew. Possibly missed something, and or just are ignorant or lacking exposure to some particular bit of info that would compell you to personally pursue it to its origins.
Quote:
Yeah, there are some people out there trying to debunk this stuff. But the conspiracy theorists have been churning it out by the assload. And what exactly is it that makes their explanations "flimsy"?
The debunkers have debunkers ffs in this matter eh. It's worked its way into a veritable 'This is why we are right and they are wrong.' styled back and forth between the degreed professionals, industry professionals, accredited, qualified analysts and wagon jumpers in and around the debate of what occured that day that is known by an individual...vs what they don't know about what occured that day and what they should be concluding through other's interpretations.
Quote:
You've just proven my point. All the conspiracy theorists offer is negative evidence, or a lack of evidence as evidence of a conspiracy. There is a massive lack of physical evidence that the government was in on this.
meh...I proved nada...this is the place where I encourage others to conduct their own digging for information, facts, truthes and things they otherwise were not aware of. I myself am abundantly open to evidence that would settle the matter and show me conclusively that a unspecified domestic group of individuals did not tamper with the things after the fact.
Quote:
I think we can both agree that Flight 93 was no normal plane crash. This was a major act of international terrorism, where issues of national security are the government's top priority. You don't seriously expect them to make all the evidence public, do you?
I do expect it. Especially if it is a crucial or insightful thing.
Quote:
Nevertheless, you still haven't proven anything, or shown me any of these "glaring inconsistencies" you speak of. All you're basically saying is "their behavior looks a bit fishy, and there are some anomalies I can't readily explain, therefore they probably did it".
Yep...but then...I've no want to prove anything. All I do is state my case here and there and encourage people to keep looking. I'm not much for thinking for others...just me ownself.