coencidence most christians believe terrorists started 9/11?
Offline Have you noticed the huge rise of christian fundamentalism after the september 11th disaster.
some would think this is a coincedence , but I'm starting to think the opposite.
First of all I think that the government or even the major banks of the world plotted and carried out the 9/11 attacks. there is much more evidence pointing to that explanation than the one given by the 9/11 commission. and if you don't believe me on that , please do a little research, but be forwarned , YOU WILL MOST LIKELY BE PUT ON SOME KIND OF GOVERNMENT LIST!
Then using peoples anger and outrage as the momentum, the christian right began there assault on common sense. (we should really change that word to uncommon sense because at times it seems that no one has any)
we all know that christian fundamentalism didn't start with 9/11, I am talking about the increased magnitude of its presence after 9/11. and I hate to say it, but most (not all) of the soldiers that fight these wars, are christians. I wonder how many of them have been indoctrinated by these turn of events.
Religion has always been used as a political tool, and for empires to expand their power.
Does anyone see the correlation here, or am I just really paranoid?
I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.
- Login to post comments
Paranoid and nuts. We've had 9/11 conspiricy theorists on here before; their arguments don't hold up and frankly I'm tired of the nonsense. You just lost a lot of credibility on this site. btw there was no one on the grassy knoll eather.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
No, I don't see it possible that 9/11 was a staged event by the U.S just so that they could go after the Taliban or Bin Laden. They could have staged something much less elaborate and devastating to rile up the emotions of people.
And no, I don't think you're paranoid. I think you're a poe.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I think you're really just paranoid.
Having read the 9/11 report some time ago, I recall there is plenty of evidence in there to demonstrate the sequence of events that took place on that morning. This evidence comes from voice recordings, video footage, analysis of bank accounts, witness statements and records of written communications etc. I know this in itself isn't proof that the people who did it weren't on the payroll of governments or banks, but in all the investigations of the event, no evidence of this collusion was found.
You will need to lay out the evidence that this is possible (or likely) - I'm not aware of it. Without this evidence, I will believe that events took place in accordance with the sequence of events as outlined in the investigative report.
As for the rise in christian fundamentalism, I don't doubt it. Religion has caused as many problems as it claims to have solved, if not more. (Just look at events today in Ireland and Mumbai.) But even if we assume that there is a correlation between fundamentalist terror attacks and a resurgence of conservative christianity, it is a massive leap of logic to imply that the christian right were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
Well, the whole internet has been having this discussion for nearly ten years now. Thus far, nobody has ever come up with anything. That and the actual evidence of AlQuaida being responsible is enough to make me think that you are, indeed being paranoid.
Also, I am not really worried about being put on some government list. I am already on quite a few of them.
Really, if the powers that be wanted to start a war, there are simpler ways to go about that. Think about Libya as an example. At some point, we are going to have no choice but to put boots on the ground over there. Really, that is the way that wars work.
=
The cyber police will backtrack me and the consequences will never be the same.
has long been used as a political tool but yeah, you're probably paranoid. I never seen any convincing proof of a 9/11 conspiracy tho' that business with the bin laden's dashing off with blessing in the wake of the event is some weird shit. Prob just explained by simple human business associations with leading politicos. Given the number of times I've used the words bomb, prime minister and allah in a sentence, I'm sure if there's some bullshit machine out there processing scary phrases some bored shitless agent passed me off as a harmless atheist whack job long ago.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
to everyone that thinks I'm paranoid:
Wow, I am really shocked. Its incredible to me that as Atheists who have the cognitive abilities to see through one myth, that you cannot see through another. well..... I take that back...it doesn't take a fucking genius to figure out that religions are full of shit.
Just wondering where you all get your news from.
OK you asked for it. I'm going to attempt to prove to you that you are being deceived.... its simply an attempt.
by the way I find it interesting, that know one has asked me why I think that 9/11 was planned by either the government or banks. You all immediately slammed me. sound familiar? you know...... when your debating a theist on the religion subject, do you often find that they do the same thing. Its called "double think". ITS REALLY AMAZING HOW ROLES CAN BE REVERSED SO QUICKLY, its quite sad.
another sad thing that I have noticed is how often 9/11 conspiracy believers are religious. maybe this is why it turns you off so much. but I sorry if the truth is surrounded by shit, it is still the truth.
here goes.
Inside Traders Knew About Attacks Before They Happened
Right before the September 11th attacks some fishy business happened within the stock market and insurance firms. An “extraordinary” amount of put options were placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks, the same airlines that were hijacked during the attacks. Many speculate that traders were tipped off about the attacks, and profited from the tragedy. The Securities and Exchange Commission launched an insider trading investigation in which Osama Bin Laden was a suspect after receiving information from at least one Wall Street Firm.
Air Defense Was Told To “Stand Down”
In the event that a airplane were to be hijacked, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), is prepared to send out fighter jets which can debilitate or shoot down an airplane. On 9/11/01, NORAD generals said they learned of the hijackings in time to scramble fighter jets. Some skeptics believe NORAD commanded defense systems to “Stand-down”, because of their lack of presence during the attacks.
Planes Didn’t Make Twin Towers Collapse, Bombs Did
The World Trade Center collapse appeared similar to a controlled demolition. Many speculate that the towers were in fact blown down with explosives placed in selected locations. Some witnesses accounted hearing explosions inside the building as they attempted to escape. Many architects and scientists even maintain that a planes fuel cannot produce enough heat to melt the steel frame of the two buildings that collapsed.
The Pentagon Attack Scientifically Doesn’t Hold Up
The Pentagon crash may be the most puzzling event of the day. Theorists maintain that the impact holes in the pentagon were much smaller then a commercial American Airlines plane. They also question why the plane was not shot down prior to impact, as well as why the plane impacted into a section of the Pentagon that was vacant due to renovations.
How Did the hijackers Passport's Survive the Explosion?
After the September 11th attacks, the “Loose Change” documentary stated that all of the hijackers were in fact alive in other countries. Rather presumptuous since it is possible for two different people to have identical names. But they did raise a good point; how did the passports of the terrorists survive the explosion? In the aftermath of the attacks, passports and identification were found as evidence. Many skeptics question how identification made out of paper survived an explosion, which destroyed buildings.
Cell Phone Calls Made From Plane Were Faked
In flight calls were made from cell phones in hi-jacked airplanes. Scientists and skeptics maintain that cell phones could not receive reception from the altitude the planes typically fly. Other skeptics questioned a phone call from a son to his mother, in which he referred to himself by his own first and last name.
and I wonder if any of you geniuses have seen the footage of building 7 of the world trade center collapsing, that should be enough proof right there.
And this is not the first time something like this has happened, you may want to research how Hitler was able to invade Poland, through the use of false flag operations.
Does anyone know what a false flag operation is? Spanish American war, Hitler in ww2, Vietnam and the gulf of ton kin. I'm sure there's more.
there are so many more facts that point to conspiracy, than the given popular view. that I'm fucking tired of typing.
If i have really lost my credibility to this website then maybe I shouldn't go here anymore. i am so surprised, that you are so gullible.
I can almost guarantee that those of you that think I'm paranoid, have not even researched any of this information or very little. and will probably type some idiotic comment, stating that I'm wrong. but will you back up your argument with facts and figures? that remains to be seen.
ask yourself one question people. why wouldn't the government or banks (i really can't tell the difference between the two anymore) take advantage of your anger, sadness and fear, just like religions do.
they are opportunistic, look at all the facts, and add them up, don't you find anything missing, can't you see the inaccuracies?
i think i'm going to become a hermit, since its becoming quite clear that everyone in the united states verges on semi retardation. even the so-called smart ones.
I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.
Why would we believe you? We've said the evidence we've seen is unconvincing and all you're doing up to this point is assuring us what you say is true. Your naked assertions don't cut it. Feel free to bring on the evidence.
The idea 9/11 was a complicated scheme dreamed up by CIA or whoever is all a bit Roswell for me. At present I think muslim nutters did it and so far all the evidence I have read suggests this is so, right down to Osama basking in the pleasure of it.
But like I say, if you have some powerful new explanations that are properly supported by the data, then let's hear about it.
And the 'roles' aren't even faintly reversed. We are simply continuing to be skeptical of claims that sound like the usual concoction of conspiracy theorists. As for slamming you, 5-Senses, that hasn't happened...yet.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Stop arguing from emotion and give us our testable explanation.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
So you don't see any inaccuracies or gaps in the given popular account of 911?
i give up.
you are unwittingly, a pawn in their game.
why have so many experts spoken out against the scientific inaccuracies? thousands. I guess there all nuts and paranoid too, right?
first consider your source of information. the American public university? that link that i was directed too. its amazing how many times i see the word "may" in there. "may" is not and will never be "is", and therefore it is not proof. is this your testable explanation?
take an inside look at your source:
www.ripoffreport.com/colleges-and-universities/american-public-univ/american-public-university-ame-469ef.htm
the official site of American Public University System. APUS is regionally accredited and consists of two universities, American Military University, and the American public university.
wow.... i wonder why they are so interested in debunking 911 conspiracies.
and if your going to use popular mechanics for your next resource, consider its sources too.
and most of the major news networks. and the 911 commission which was formed by the bush administration.
how impartial are your sources?
I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
[email protected]
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse...
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
And the evidence that proves that it's not the other way around is??.......
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
so the only thing your looking at is the actual collapse of the WTC? what about everything else? am I the only one that sees the "coincidences" and motives involved here.
I'm willing to concede that there is very good evidence for planes causing the WTC to collapse. I will concede this point to you because I don't care about losing face. but seriously ...that is only one piece of the puzzle.
were you in the military, or have any family or friends in the military? special forces, navy seals, just wondering, because I do. If you really knew what they do on a daily basis, you would be shocked. Its so easy for you to go on the Internet, and type up a bunch of references, but do you have any first hand accounts? do you know what really goes on behind the scenes, or do you just eat the shit that your fed by the main stream media, and scientific organizations that clearly have an ulterior motive in the matter. Ever wonder where they get there funding from?but i ask you this: what about all that stood to gain from this disaster, and the sequences of events that followed. THE FREEDOMS AND PRIVACY WE HAVE LOST. the genocide and tragedy on both sides that we allow to happen on a daily basis. they either did it themselves or allowed it to happen, which is basically the same thing.
the American military complex is very intelligent, (massive think tanks) do you really think that they made such grave errors in intelligence by accident.
oops, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
oops, we can't seem to find Bin laden.
OOOPs , i guess he was in Pakistan right next to a military base.
there is a lot of words and references that you've typed up there, but really a whole lot of nothing.
there is a bigger picture that I think your failing to see.
I've lived in the middle east, particularly Saudi Arabia for 3 years, during the first gulf war. My father was a structural engineer. I've talked and entertained soldiers that fought in it. I've read the history of Afghanistan and how for thousands of years it has been constantly invaded because of its strategic location as a sort of key stone of the middle east. I've learned how false flag operations are used to Cox entire populations into backing a war. i know that we funded Bin ladin to fight the Russians who were invading Afghanistan. Not to mention the Oil, oh yes, the oil. You might as well be putting your sons and daughters blood in your cars as you drive to your corporate office job every morning. (not you personally)
and then there's England's own version of 9/11, the London train bombings. notice how England has CCTV everywhere now and there own version of the patriot act?
9/11 conspiracy aside , please, please please answer this question for me. not just yes or no, but elaborate.
do you deny the existence of false flag operations in world history, or that they are used to gain support, profit, and power for empires and nations?
if you don't answer this question, i cannot take you seriously anymore.
please just look at some of the past events and then tell me that there is nothing fishy about this one?
at least we could then come to some agreement.
I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.
with an ignorant (quick to jump to conclusions) (not backing your view with any real substance) (labeling someone for having a different idea than you) comment like that, do I really care if i seem credible to you?
is that why your here? to gain credibility?
If this is a pissing contest,
I piss in your face.
I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.
Government always tries to take away freedom and privacy. It is basically its function. Every law passed takes away someones freedom to some extent. They passed laws before 9/11 and did after. So what. You apparently have a really difficult time understanding what constitutes evidence and what constitutes random speculation.
ROFL
this statement is pretty strong evidence that you have never been in the military or you are delusional.
Like your random speculation and naked assertions with no evidence?
No, they have been used historically. So what? Just because a tactic has been used in history has no relevance on whether or not it has happened in recent cases.
You are obsessed with coincidences and gaps in our knowledge and drawing random conclusions to fill in the gaps. First of all, everything is a coincidence. I am sitting on my front porch drinking coffee right now and a bird just landed and stared at me.... coincidence? or is the government using birds to spy on me? Of course there are gaps in our knowledge on 9/11, no single person was present at all the events that occurred that day. We have to rely on witness accounts in an extremely stressful situation. When shit is blowing up around you, your mind isn't operating at its highest capacity to remember details.
So far, everything you have brought up can be explained away if someone has enough energy to address each one like AE did for the bomb damage vs. airplane damage. Personally, I don't see a point to doing so because you will simply launch into another dozen naked assertions. Unless you have actual evidence and not just hysterical pointing at gaps in our knowledge and conflicting witness accounts there is no reason to take you seriously.
But, everyone around here knows how much I love the government, so I am probably part of the conspiracy too. Just want to let you know, you are on the list and we are watching you. Are you sure you want to wear that shirt with those pants?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
have been rife throughout history but there's also been speculation many events were false flags when such could not be adequately proved.
I think 9/11 was not such an operation - unless Bin Laden worked for the CIA and thousands of people have managed to remain silent in a manner never seen before.
My old man was a fighter pilot, his father a colonel, both in WW2. Personally, I think Dad thought the military was a huge brainless monster in which no part comprehended what the other parts were doing. His diary from Guadalcanal suggests he liked the ice cream, fresh orange juice and sunbathing on the beach.
I can't deny many weird and sinister things have taken place in the history of the world. In this case, I just need some actual evidence.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I still think you're paranoid; indeed I think you're wrong. I hope I'm not about to type some idiotic comment, though.
I have just re-read a couple of sections of the 9/11 report. I'm not going to assert that the report is definitely true in every respect, nor am I going to suggest that there aren't alternative explanations out there for many of the 'inconsistencies' that you identify.
What I'm going to look at is the balance of probabilities. Given that the report runs to 585-odd pages, I haven't gone through it all again, but browsing through it I settled on chapter 7, where the report investigates the history of the 19 alleged terrorists who boarded the 4 planes, allegedly stormed the cockpits and allegedly crashed them.
This chapter documents the travels of 19 young men who came from generally similar backgrounds in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the UAE. Investigators working backwards from the details of the people who died in the attacks identified a number of coincidences. Many of the people alleged to be hijackers had conducted flight training in the USA in the year or so leading up to the attack. Many had email accounts with emails to people in the middle east with known links to al qaida. Alleged hijackers lived together, ate together, were observed at mosques together. A number were seen to associate with known fundamentalist clerics in Californian mosques. All were in the USA, purportedly to study English, but few attended school. Interviews conducted with the alleged hijackers' friends revealed how their behaviour changed at the same time the tickets were bought for the September 11 flights. Several alleged hijackers made farewell phone calls on 9 and 10 September; one alleged hijacker sent his long-term girlfriend an email saying goodbye. Phone records and travel records show previous travel undertaken by members in the group, associating the smaller groups together. Financial records show funds from islamic fundamentalists in the middle east being transferred to the alleged hijackers in the USA.
So what does all of this prove? Absolutely nothing for certain. But what is the likelihood that the 19 men whose backgrounds show so much circumstantial evidence indicating that they were both complicit in and / or responsible for the terrorist attacks just happened to be passengers in discrete groups on the 4 planes that were hijacked? What is the likelihood that the 4 men who had successfully completed their training in multi-engine aircraft just happened to be on the 4 different planes, each with either 3 or 4 colleagues with similar histories, associates and backgrounds in the USA? The odds of it being a coincidence are so miniscule that the balance of probabilities dictates that I prefer the official account of the tragedy.
But what about your contention that 'governments' or 'the banks' were behind it all? Granted, a powerful government like the USA could possibly plant 19 men overseas as boys, run them for years to develop their history of extremism, their early lives in rural Saudi Arabia and Yemen in the centre of wahhabi islam, all without being outed by the boys' parents, friends or families. An all-powerful US government could possibly have granted these men and their colleagues easy access to the country (they didn't), ready access to cars and accommodation (they didn't) and integrated them into their local communities (they didn't). 'The banks' could have ensured that they had access to plenty of cash, so they didn't have to rely on transferring money from overseas and leaving a record of the money movements (they didn't). It is all possible. But again, the balance of probabilities suggests that it is so unlikely to have occurred that I tend to believe the official report.
I'm deliberately trying not to build a straw man, just to tear it down. I'm trying to identify the facts that are identified in the report, and look for a way in which these facts could occur as reported, but your government- or bank-conspiracy could be true. About the only way I can see that remains is that the report itself is false. This is a report that was overseen by the highest levels of government (ok, assuming government involved, not difficult to sidestep), and was composed by 10 members of the 9/11 commission, and their 81 staff members assisting. These staff members assisting were investigators, legal practitioners and professional researchers. For your assertion to be true AND the final report to make sense, a large proportion of these experienced professionals would have had to either contribute material that was patently wrong, or the true data would have to be covered up or destroyed. Again, looking at the balance of probabilities, I'm going to go with the experience, expertise and dedication of these people who worked hard at an extremely difficult job to produce a thorough report, based on evidence.
The balance of probabilities suggests that the 9/11 attacks occurred as described, or very closely to the events described, in the 9/11 commission report. Until some evidence is presented that starts to weigh against the balance of probabilities, I'm going to believe what's written in the report.
Once again, BS, we agree. I was a Marine Corps wife for 11 years. My oldest is in the Air Force. My middle son used to be in the Army. No Seals or Special Forces, but I will state with complete confidence that the military is run by human beings and has the same problems any other organization - corporations, government, non-profits, for profits - run by human beings has.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Thank you for a very informative post.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Welcome to the forum.
No, "doublethink," from George Orwell, is defined as simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs. We're just dismissing you because we've had these discussions before.
Well, no. I'm turned off because it seems like a much more unlikely explanation than the terrorist attack, and I have not seen sufficient evidence.
I need evidence for these assertions. The same goes for everything else you wrote......uuuhh, pasted.
Yes.
That's.....a "bit" of a generalization, no?
Lol.......haha...ho ho....haha.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
How depressing.....honestly, I really have no hope for human kind anymore. not even one person, agrees with me?
I give up, but if you think I'm obsessed, take a look at yourselves. are you all not obsessed with your view point as well? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I don't spend every waking hour researching conspiracy. I wonder if this is what early Atheists felt like hundreds of years ago, when it seemed the world was against them.
I guess I should have originally asked , "why do most atheists believe that 9/11 was caused by terrorists"?
I do know that governments and people in power, have used tragedies like this for there own ends. and when you look at who gained from the world trade center attacks, and how the world has changed since that. when you see governments take advantage of peoples so called common sense like this. when you consider the sources of your information, and how they tie in to the disinformation. then you really start to wonder, "why wouldn't they have done this"?
You people are great, your not idiots, your actually quite intelligent, in fact... I've learned a lot by being here. and your not as much of the problem as I am.
I could spend all day, taking apart your arguments, and showing you why I think this way, with plenty of cold hard evidence. But I neither have the time or the energy to do so. So I am the biggest problem in this by far. because of people like me, people will go on thinking what they think. and I am powerless to help.
So If there really is a government death squad out there, please kill me now. I really don't want to live in this world anymore.
today I am wearing a Jimi Hendrix T- shirt, with green shorts, that should be easy to spot.
I'm closing my account with this website today. I've realized that imposing ones views on others, is its whole point. and that the impatience and inability for you all to realize that eventually everyone will be Atheist is the real issue here. You all want it in your lifetime though..... how selfish of you all. how egotistical and naive.
and if your thinking of replying to this comment, ask yourself, why?
I'm not going to read it, I'm closing the acct remember? all you will be doing is proving how cool you are to your fellow atheists. Well I guess that's why your all here anyway right?
I haven't seen many theists in here at all, where's the debate?
I'm an Atheist and i will not change my view until better evidence comes along.
but I have now realized that Atheists for the most part are very close minded people. even more close minded than religious people. Your afraid (consciously or subconsciously) that believing or even questioning 9/11 will somehow take away from your atheist debate. How narrow minded can you be?
It was nice meeting you all, I don't hate anyone, I'm just very disappointed.
Goodbye.
I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.
See ya.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I spent an hour or so reading up on the topic again, and stating WHY I think your opinion is wrong, not just stating that it IS wrong. I managed to find the time and energy. Rather than asserting that you 'could spend all day taking apart my argument', why don't you just have a go? At one person's argument?
Why don't you use the same standards to critique your view on 9/11? You imply that you are willing to change your mind about atheism / theism in light of new evidence being presented, but you are presented with 'evidence' from the 9/11 commission report, and you decide to run away? Is this open-minded?
The evidence for the terrorist attack far far outweigh evidence for a government/bank conspiracy, it's simple as that, the so called evidence that you brought up has no solid evidence or basis for it. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Bring evidence not just hearsay or speculation. Many here have backed up their claims, yours is more conspiracy without the actual evidence.
A very confused person, it seems, presenting all kinds of inconsistent ideas about many things...
I doubt anyone could have made much impression on his core ideas, especially about the 9/11 thing, no matter how long we had continued the discussion.
Reminds me a bit of one of the members of our local Atheist meetup group, who I got into discussion with a few weeks ago. Atheism, fine. Then we touched Climate Change...
He is a 'skeptic', which is ok, (just).
But he seemed totally unable/unwilling to engage in a calm discussion on what he saw as the problems with the science involved. Things got a bit heated, and I was starkly reminded of an earlier experience attempting to argue with Fundie, and not being able to get more than a few words out before being interrupted again with a demand to justify my position, or simply a brief dismissive remark.
So even professed atheists can get caught up in other ideas held with a faith-like religious confidence, and project back on others their own stubborn unwillingness to reconsider their position when confronted with counter-arguments.
A pity...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Aww, you poor thing, the last open-minded human in the universe.
Bye.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
your sense of humour is so cool, Butter. The best thing about this thread so far...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I'm back.
the last open minded human in the universe, at your service.
If this was a test, so far you have all failed. But it wasn't, and I assumed something and let my guard down. Your absolutist minds are far more religiously influenced than you could even know. You all trust your government because your freedoms are not taken away all at once, but whittled away gradually over generations. Good old Woodrow Wilson (the first of many puppets to come) is probably laughing at you when you buy milk at nearly 4 dollars a gallon. And you all probably watched with fairy tale ignorance as the British Royals went to meet with the Rothschild's after there ceremony, and you sat there eating your hot dogs and hamburgers on 4th of July celebrating your so called independence. Eugenics is working guys, but I guess Eugenics seems ridiculous to the test subjects right?
Maybe its not your fault, maybe you were so concerned with eradicating religion from the world, that other obvious things eluded you. Or maybe your to afraid of destroying your atheist credibility with something so unpopular. Maybe you just clicked on the first thing Google gave you regarding the 9/11 disaster, or maybe you know I'm right, and just to scared to admit it. Because credibility on this particular site is sooooo important to you. I don't blame you one bit.
Its interesting how many people commented on my last post, its really mob mentality in action. "Hey lets jump on the bandwagon so I can prove how amazingly atheist I am." I noticed on this site how you even have medals and there is a scoring system. I guess being right is just not enough for you, you have to be righter than right. I noticed how certain people will still argue with you, even when your agreeing with them. Or if you suddenly change your mind about something your considered weak minded. I noticed that some of you will include an insult (or 10) in your debates, as if your emotionally charged by it. Well...I was never raped by a priest, or indoctrinated by Christianity, so I don't find it a very emotional topic. Its hilarious when you type up a very well worded essay on why your right, and then call me an idiot.
I predict the future of atheism......
when all religion is eradicated from the world, the few remaining atheists will kill each other, in a fight to see who is the better atheist. This site is a template for that future, as you have turned away theists with your arrogance, you then turn on each other to fight with.
I decided to come back here for a good laugh and to watch the show. I might be an atheist, meaning ....I doubt the existence of god. But when people turn to religion for answers because Atheists wallowed in there own arrogance and self righteousness, you have only yourselves to blame. I bet you all wish you controlled the world, huh? I am glad you don't, it would be a terrible world. Mind police might be at every doorstep, absolutism and materialism would be the norm.
You are all so content will your labels aren't you? democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, atheist, theist. Its all so simple to you, and can be explained with a science. What if that science is based on incorrect information? what then? back to the drawing board? oh wait I forgot, your entire career is based on that incorrect information, you can't go back now. YOUR INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY IS AT STAKE.
matter cannot exist in 2 places at the same time according to your science. But dimensions within a vast tesseract, seem never to intersect. Your are all slaves to your senses. Your neurons have connected themselves with much practice,that Its all most impossible for you to conceive the immaterial. The sun goes up, and down, and you live and die, the universe does not. Your are jealous of the universe.
But when our consciousness eventually transcends this material world with the aid of subatomic nano bots, and gravitational time dilation, you'll understand what I mean. (I really hope you do anyway) Your material world will seem meaningless and empty in comparison, and you'll understand WHERE you really are, and WHO you really are, and that they are the same thing. and finally ... that "WHEN" never really was much of an issue to begin with.
So come on everyone, and feed me with your logic, but don't forget to marinate it in anger and self righteousness first.
that stuff is soooooo tasty,
yum.
I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.
People are commenting because you are coming across as a twat. There's no such things as 'a better atheist'. We just want empirical proof of things. It's very simple.
You in the meantime, have named yourself '5-senses-does-not-reality-make'. I'm not sure if this means you'd like a sixth sense or you think there are things that can be known that are outside of the 5 senses.
You also suggest your consciousness will transcend the material world. Way cool.
No thinking person will refuse to be aware of the weakness of an empirical knowledge position. I think Karl Popper made the point that knowledge is like a house built on a swamp.
We only drive our piles in deep enough to hold the structure, he said. A truth belief, then, is always open to question. None of us will deny this.
The issue is the way in which we believe we can know things. Our position is more fluid than yours is. When challenged you seem to fall back on assertions and ad hominem. We will change our minds in the face of evidence.
If you could just point us to peer review proof of your position we will change our views in the face of this new evidence.
As an aside, it is impossible for a human mind to conceive the immaterial. Sure, we can conceive an alternative material reality with properties with which we have experience with but we always refer to properties we know or can detect.
What is this immaterial anyway? How could we sense it, measure it?
Your tagline suggests to me that you think an open mind can only be possessed by a person who agrees with you. That's interesting.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I can't prove to you that 9/11 was a conspiracy. There are so many facts and counter facts, and positions that have ulterior motives, on both sides of the argument as you can see. I guess I just don't trust governments enough to believe that they wouldn't do something like this. I hope they didn't do that, I really do. its just that to me, it seems there is little or no historical evidence that tells me that human nature is any different in powerful positions 200 years ago 2000 years ago or even 10 years ago. Its been done in the past, and this particular scenario mimics it on so many levels. So I'm going to just drop the subject, because it is pointless for me to argue a point that I am not willing to back up, for lack of energy and time.
I probably came across pretty harsh to others, and probably came across as a twat.
You don't even know the half of it. I'm a serious asshole, I've been practicing my whole life. LOL!
I named myself 5 senses does not reality make, because.
the definition of the word reality:
1.the state or quality of being real. 2.resemblance to what is real. 3.a real thing or fact. or the definition of the word real: 1.true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act. 2.existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life. 3.being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up. is purely relative to what you can sense, and the magnitude of that sense. just as time is relative to the speed you are traveling or your concept of time is relative to how fast your neurons send electrical impulses. I'm not trying to suggest that my consciousness will transcend the material world, in a spiritual sense.I think it is scientifically possible, or one day will be. If our consciousness can be thought of as merely 1's and 0's, then it would one day be possible to upload your consciousness into a computer. or many computers. you could share thoughts with others and vice verse, a collective... if you will? eventually with the exponential growth of nano technology, we could have nanobots in our bodies, we could have back up bodies, we could convert the universe into consciousness, turning even a rock, into a thinking being. Don't forget that we have evolved these minds to survive. If survival is negated by immortality then who knows what direction the human race is headed for. It seems a little far fetched I know, but its a real possibility that you can't deny. However, Your positions are NOT more fluid than mine are. your explanation of your positions are. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm sure that there are plenty of places on the Internet, where your positions on this subject would be ripped apart, mainly because you are not conspiracy theorists either. Except maybe on the subject of religion. Do religious organizations not conspire in some way shape or form. and to point out those conspiracies is definitely very close to being a conspiracy theorist, is it not? My tag line is really in jest. i can handle when people disagree with me, but when they are insulting, and think that I care about credibility here, as if to suggest that this site is where I come to seek refuge as a persecuted atheist, I can't handle as much, without showing my more ignorant asshole side. you are not close minded and weren't insulting to me, you backed your ideas with logical explanations, as for some people. eg. "I don't think your paranoid, i just think your a poe". or the other guy that said, I'm so tired of conspiracy theorists. well he wasn't to tired to comment on there posts was he, I would think that if you were really tired of conspiracy theorists you wouldn't comment on there posts, or better yet you would move off the planet away from conspiring human beings? because I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if you live with or around people your going to have conspiracies. So if we can all agree to disagree on the whole 9/11 subject. I apologize for being an ass. You people are all right in my book. not that you give a shit, or that you should. I mean if you all hated me, you probably would have just ignored me right?I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.
sorry by the way, my last comment wouldn't seperate into paragraphs.
don't know why, it was in several paragraphs, and when i post it, it seems to bunch it all together.
I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.
maybe go to edit then cut and paste it to notebook and back so as to strip out the code that's lurking somewhere making a block of it. Or save it to text, then cut and repaste it.
Happens to me sometimes, too. I got through it all, anyway.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Good to see you back.
Does that mean that you no longer stand by the assertions in post #7 - "I'm going to attempt to prove to you that you are being deceived.... its simply an attempt."? Have you changed your mind? Because the remainder of the paragraph leaves me a little confused:
Is it solely energy and time that is preventing you from backing up the original assertions, or indeed is it that "I can't prove to you that 9/11 was a conspiracy."? Can you prove it to anybody? Or can you just not prove it to those who ask questions and demand evidence?
I'm sure you're not alone in your distrust of governments. Most of the time I'm sure they work in the interests of the common good, but like you, I'm rarely surprised when embarrassing leaks reveal just how much some people try to get away with. I see a difference between 'trusting' governments not to do this, and governments 'actually' doing this. Even if a government wanted to declare war on terror (or whatever motive you label the government with), there are thousands of more effective, less difficult and cheaper ways of going about it.
I agree that the nature of humans in powerful positions may be the same now as it was many years ago, but I suggest that the application of that power is significantly different, in Western democracies, at least. And again, even if someone was powerful and applied that power with the ruthlessness of a despotic ruler from 2000 years ago, it still doesn't change the balance of probabilities as I see it.
Unless you change your mind.
Or present some more evidence for your version of events 
Again, good to have you back.
Don't apologize for being an ass. It is generally accepted that we are all asses around here at one point or another. One thing about this forum is that people are very blunt, even among those who have been here talking to each other for a long time. There certainly isn't any personal hate behind it, but neither are people going to particularly worry about hurting your feelings. And when you take an unpopular view, you are going to get swamped.
If you make an assertion, you should be ready to back it up with evidence because I guarantee someone (or many people) will call you out on it. That's why I like it here, because I have had some of my views challenged pretty strongly and in my attempts to defend and explain them, I have learned.
The badges are simply an indication of those who donate money on a monthly basis to keep the site up. You can sign up for your very own badge by clicking on "my account" and choosing subscription.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
My problem with conspiracy theories. All those people - acting in concert - keeping a secret - sometimes for years - it is just not possible. Someone will blab. Someone will blow the whistle. Someone. Like, hell will freeze over before a secret could be kept that long.
The only reason Bernie Madoff managed to keep going so long is he was the only one in on the scheme. Even his own family didn't know. It was his heir who blew the whistle when Bernie finally told him the details of his investment "formula". Madoff was expecting to have one of the auditors catch it every time he was audited and was amazed when they didn't. So just one extra person in on the "secret" and it was no longer secret.
(From my understanding, Madoff kept his pyramid investments separate from the rest of the firm which was legit. His heir was very involved in the legit part, was totally unaware of the pyramid scheme part.)
Any other conspiracy I've ever had someone try to explain to me has involved the concerted actions of hundreds (sometimes thousands) of people to keep the secret and work in concert to fool millions more. Even the military has difficulty keeping new hardware secret for long. My skepticism is my total belief in the ease with which people share "secrets" with anyone who will listen.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
My dismissive reaction to claims of 9/11 conspiracy is based on having exhaustively thrashed it out years ago on another forum with another proponent of CT.
After chasing up references and many different reports, collections of photographs, etc, etc, I found so many explicit refutations of what were confident and repeated claims of the CT people, that whatever remaining 'mysteries' there were, these guys were not doing serious, rigorous investigation.
Arguments from motives - "Why would A do/not do B?" - are marginal at best, in investigating such things. We have so many naive and simplistic models of human behavior and motivation.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Truth to be told, I have seen that Atheist vs. Atheist debates can sometimes be a whole lot tougher in matters of politics, science, global warming and such on this forum, than the Atheist vs. Theist debates. Yet, while a large majority of Atheists on here disagree with each other on these issues, we generally tend to get along with one another. And there are theists on this site that post pretty regularly.
Labels are really not that important to me. There are Atheists that I like and some I have met in real life that I did not like. There have even been Theists that I like.
I personally may disagree with a claim and even dismiss the claim that a person may make. But that is the claim and not the person.
Plenty of people on here are in total disagreement with my libertarian like views (and I really don't consider myself a full blown libertarian) but that is ok. People don't always have to agree.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
Well, for whatever value you put on this, I only posted once before and that was to ask for some actual evidence of the CT. So after nearly ten years and thousands of internet detectives working on this, what is there to show for the effort?
The most that I have seen are people who post odd bits of information that don't add up to the great CT that this is supposed to be.
Now don't get me wrong, if you can find the evidence, I will look at it and tell you what I think. However, your evidence is going to have to be something that makes much more of a case than simply saying “Isn't it odd that...?”
Let me look over one of your posts where you did try to make a case and see where it needs work.
Insider trading:
OK, please go to google finance and make a custom chart for either airline. You can do that for any publicly traded company. Too bad that neither airline is publicly traded.
Air defense was told to stand down:
Well, one point is that the Canadian air force was having an exercise that morning. So it is possible that our fighters had been told to give them some breathing room. That would not be the same as a stand down order though. Um, are you just repeating what you have heard or do you have actual proof of the order having been issued?
Also, the thing about shooting passenger jets out of the skies is not really realistic. Allow me to cite 18 U.S.C. S 1385 which is a federal law specifically making that illegal. In fact, if the troops were ordered to violate it by a sitting commander in chief, that would create a huge problem as POTUS would be subject to mandatory impeachment and the officers who refused would be subject to mandatory court marshal.
Controlled demolition brought the towers down:
Umm, dude? Hello? The event was broadcast live all over the damn planet. We all saw it and you can bring it up on youtube if you are unclear on the sequence of events.
The sections above the fire floors started to fall to one side for a couple of seconds before the damage was too great. Then the top 30 or so floors fall straight down like a hammer hitting a nail.
The buildings were designed to hold up to a 747 impact (the largest jet in the sky at the time) but there were much larger jets. Eve then, the actual physical impact was not a structural failure event. Having the top hit the bottom in hammer/nail fashion was simply one thing that nobody had considered when they designed the buildings.
If you want, I can write up the rest of the nearly nothing that you bring to the table. I have done so many times on many different forums over the years. If anything is clear, it is that you will bring something new to the case only by bringing something new to the case.
Evidence would be good. If not that, I will accept solid logical reasons for what you think to be the case. What I will not accept is you going into “five year old in the school yard” mode and insisting IS NOT!!!
=
Umm, yeah they are. Currently United is listed as UAL on the NYSE
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:UAL
It merged in 2010, so if you want to see back in 2001 you need to look up its old ticker. It was UAUA on NASDAQ after their bankruptcy but I'm not sure what it was before. But I am certain it was publicly traded at the time.
American Airlines is owned by AMR Corp
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:AMR
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I'll just comment on one particular post.
But let's get to more pressing issues, like why haven't we arrested Lady Gaga for causing that earthquake?
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Oh, you're back. Hi.
If we actually hated you, we would have posted a lot more. Why would we ignore you?
This is not a popularity contest. I lean towards what makes the most sense and is supported by the most evidence. Every truther I've communicated with was liberal and less religious anyways, and based on beliefs, that is what you should expect, not conservative Christians. I'm not sure how you got that impression. Conservatives were much more trusting of the federal government when Bush was president than extreme liberals. And conservatives are much less likely to question the official motives for invading Afghanistan in particular and the Middle East in general.
You made your claim that we've all seen before, didn't show that you were knowledgeable about the topic or had good evidence, and declared us all to be closed-minded when we strongly disagreed with you. That is essentially all there is to it.Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
That would be a whoops on my end then. I looked for the actual names of the airlines and those are listed as private.
In any case, both of them represent a large family of related airlines and anyone who knows enough about the airline industry and has the cash to make those bets would also know that they were about to totally rock the whole industry. So then the question arises of why sink so much cash into just those two and not spread it around a bit more.
Now that I have the right tickers, I find that I cannot produce a graph that shows any unusual action for AMR in the relevant time frame. In fact, the price had been trending generally down from mid August of that year. There was a nice spike from December 22 to January 5 only to see the activity drop to it's previous level the week. Without more research, I would have to guess why an airline would see that kind of activity that particular week. However, I think the obvious first guess on that would probably be the correct one.
I can't do the same thing for United though. UAUA gives me the data for UAL. There is probably a way to get past that but it really is not worth the trouble in light of the fact that AMR already makes the case that that investment activity never happened in the first place.
=
you know what? I just might be a little jaded or biased when it comes to the government and powerful people in general. And I fully realize this, I hope you all realize that because of this fact, I'm willing to accept the possibility that I'm wrong.
and that is why I'm not a 9/11 truth activist, I'm not out there everyday trying to dig up dirt on the government on this issue.
But I do distrust the government (all governments) (people in positions of power) very much. I'd like to think that's a healthy mental attribute, given their track records in world history and knowing full well what happens when people put all their faith into an entity.
If this is paranoia, than I guess I'm paranoid, but whats the alternative?
But it really makes me laugh when people think that there vote actually matters, and who they think is really in power. Its kind of like we're all children, and we have been given paper money to play with while we pretend that we actually have a say in what happens in the world.
I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.
It's not so much that I trust the government, or have any illusions that my particular vote will make a difference. It's more that I understand that governments are composed of fallible individuals just like you and me. Some are better then others, and in the end it is just an organization of people. You treat the government more as a deity then an entity. In that you assume certain attributes that are not reasonable, namely omnipotence and omnipresence. I will conceded that it was remotely possible for things to have happened as you are describe it. But if that were the case, the BS would have surfaced immediately after. It has been almost ten years since and no such major conspiracy has come up. I will continue to move forward with an open mind and rationally ignore any conspiracy theorists until conclusive evidence is provided that my point of view is incorrect. Upon such evidence I will consider changing my opinion, until then...
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
i am not treating the government like a deity, how could you draw that conclusion?
If anything I'm thinking of the government as a puppet, now ask yourself who could be the puppeteer?
I think you need to do a little research on president Woodrow Wilson, the circumstances surrounding his election, the history of central banking in the united states, and the federal reserve history.
also do a little research on False flag operations, and their usage by the united states government, and other governments dating back to even pre-roman times.
when you put this all into perspective, we need conspiracy theorists, because a conspiracy theorist that is correct, is renamed as a whistle blower. the labels negate the consequence at hand.
I'm no longer challenging anyone on the existence of a 9/11 conspiracy, as afore mentioned I could be wrong, I could be jaded or biased, I don't have the time or energy. but TO "RATIONALLY IGNORE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS" when conspiracy is not only a part of human nature as it would seem, but goes on everyday, and always has, IS MUCH MORE IRRATIONAL ....wouldn't you say?
sounds like the ostrich effect to me.
I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.
Hey!
next 4th of July before we all celebrate our "independence" read this article.
news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1095269452.php
I don't know which I doubt more.
the existence of god, or an open minded atheist.