911 A Proven Fraud

Post Reply New Topic

If I'm thinking of the right site in terms of which the OP might be referring - I'm very happy that he feels comfortable there - so you may realise it's often not easy to hold opinions which are out of sync to the majority - especially when they more often than not arouse instant derision *shrugs*

But if it is the same site, I can say this: it has SO many contrary opinions and there isn't actually any one overriding cohesive or standard viewpoint in which 'dissention' could even be facilitated. The only common thread I think is an open mind.

Whereas, in contrast it appears that the skeptics and debunkers DO seemingly have something far more approaching a standardised viewpoint.

Not only are those videos riddled with inaccuracies but so are the official version of events. For sure, there were planes - I absolutely agree.

That NORAD were running mock exercises on the day predicting the same scenario - as were the MOD running a mock exercise envisaging the same scenario on the same day as the London attacks - I find preposterous that people waive this 'in your face' beyond reasonable doubt series of (not really)coincidences as inconsequential -not to mention the absolute plethora of other things..

It sometimes feels like people are even being made fun of with this stuff.

Like the diverted bus to Tavistock square - god, there's so much - I don't know where to start anymore one can tell people sourceable facts for hours on end and still they just block it out. It's odd, like folk are hypnotised or something or somehow deeply afraid of the scope of the thing that would potentially start appearing - fear of ridicule, I think plays a part sometimes - I know it does.

And as ever it always reverts to this ad hominem tried and tested caveat that the researchers are all paranoid nutcases. truly bizarre.

Oh my God, this is the stupidest thing I have seen all day.

If 9/11 was faked, where the hell did the WTC go? Where did my aunt's ex-husband and everybody else that died go, Narnia?

...and here I was trying to reassure the OP we had taken the time to watch their video.

LOL facetiousness aside - is that what the OP is suggesting???That it was faked?? I didn't realise. wow. surely not though

There are absolutely holes in the official record, and many coincidences that support the conspirators to some degree. However, the conspirator's case is, I would say, even more plagued with inaccuracies and assumptions. The conspiracy crowd does not accept critique, and conducts itself in a collectivist manner that does not allow for individual thought.

Even more alarming is the strong component of white supremacy within the conspiracy crowd.

Are you racist? That does not describe the "conspiracy crowd" in the least bit.
The conspiracy crowd does accept critique and does allow for individual thoughts.

What would suggest to you that I am racist?

And I disagree with your portrayal of the conspiracy crowd. I have had plenty of interactions with them, and they're like hardliner Socialists, you try and have a discussion with them and they just recite Marx. Conspirators answer questions with questions, it's not about coming to a middle ground of agreement, it's about getting us to see their way.

They may accept a small amount of dissent, but only if it still abides by their general world-view. Such as "how it was faked", not "whether it was faked".

Fiat means decree or something along those lines (I've never studied Latin). The word's been borrowed into English as well, "fiat" meaning a royal decree or proclamation. I don't think I've used that many ad hominems, glancing back quickly I only see where I questioned your knowledge of economics, but that is more my tactless way of inviting to explain in more depth.


It's how I normally prefer to respond, since I like to go point-by-point and I try to avoid ambiguity in what I'm talking about. I've had several long discussions where both parties were using such a posting style, but if you prefer not to that's fine as well.


Oh, ok. Such doesn't always get across in text-only communication, and numerous people in the past have berated me for calling myself Orwell and yet not buying into any given paranoid delusion. (And I'm referring to some really outlandish stuff here)


I remember that circle one, but I don't remember where I scored on it other than in the "Aspie" range. As far as the other test you mentioned, 33 is fairly high (most males score 16-17 IIRC) and in the autistic ballpark. I think I score about 40 on it.


A legal construct that could be defined differently if we so chose. Corporations are a good way of generating capital investment, but the limited liability is open to abuse, as we have seen in recent years. Still, I think many corporations have benefited society through their operations.


We've got another anarcho-capitalist here named Awesomelyglorious. Might be best not to try to debate him on anything. The Austrian school has some good ideas, but to reject the mainstream economists seems a bit harsh. After all, they haven't exactly had complete control over the economy and even if they did, there's only so much policy can do to positively influence the economy. Unless, of course, you adopt the same stance as Strumilin, but that wouldn't seem tenable to me.


Well, the circular test would be the rdos test. It's pretty detailed. The other one (the wired one) was developed by a professor at Cambridge. A 33 would probably be more in line with Asperger's or similar than what is traditionally thought of as classic autism. I can't say what autistic people are like because we are not all the same. Some are smart, some are dumb, some are nice, some are complete dicks, and so on. Much like other people, to be honest. In this subforum, if you post something that is factually incorrect, you WILL get called on it, and quickly. You also will have to support most claims you make or risk getting driven out with torches and pitchforks. But that's more the atmosphere of this particular subforum than an attribute of autistics in general, though we can be sticklers for factual accuracy. A lot of people on here are very blunt, and miscommunications are somewhat common.

You've got a new one named vibratetogether

My politics come in level of reality and principle. The most principled is worldwide humanist revolution, destruction of the monetary system, etc. However, the slightly more realistic but still heavily principled view I take is anarcho-capitalism. If we're going to have money, it needs to have value. If we're going to have markets, they should be absolutely free. The less government intervention the better.

Again with tired caveat - this time transformed into 'hardliner socialists' lol hmm, I hang out at a place with what you might term 'hardcore conspiracy theorists' - I can tell you straight most of them fear socialism a great deal - Marxism even more ! ! lol I don't know if you're being absolutely straight when you claim to have 'a great deal' of experience of 'them'- and if you have if only goes to prove 'they' are not a homogeneous block with one set of opinions - ergo negating your claim anyhow..see what I mean?

Perhaps if every post you have made in this thread wasn't just a description of 'conspiracy theorists are like this, they do this, this is how they are' etc etc etc then you might even get the open space for proper discussion.

It very difficult to debate so many skeptics - often they have such stolid preconceived ideas and one cannot get past the 'conspiracy theorists are like etc' 'I know I've spoken to them' - seems an odd claim to make when I'm here repeatedly trying to tell you it isn't so each time. lol

I suggest then you strip away all the stuff that you find flaky and just ponder for a moment the aspects which you agree would support the theory that there was some form of conspiracy surrounding 911 and/or 7/7 - what do we do with them now - disgard them because they don't align with the idea of the 14 young men who all failed to learn to fly a sessna properly and yet then successfully perpetrated such a grisy act?

you mention middle ground - where is that middle ground for you, vb? Tbh it's a breath of fresh air that someone actually concedes that some aspects do point to towards the conspiracists' general conjecture.

Oh dang, three of you? We just set a world record for population density of anarchists.

OK, let's go over the PPR roster again. We've got some anarchists, a 9/11 skeptic (for lack of a better term, sorry if you don't like it Concenik), a Marxist, a monarchist, a big guns-rights advocate, a few outspoken atheists, a mystic or two, and even a couple legitimate agnostics. We don't have any YECs anymore, they all left. We still have a couple Christians, just not as outspoken about it as the older ones. Some liberals... I don't think we have any legit Republican party-line conservatives. At least, not posting regularly any more. We've got one pro-nuclear war guy. After that, some assorted odds and ends, as well as occasional characters who don't always fit such an easy label. Does anyone know if the technocrat/Aspie-supremacist is still around, or has he moved on by now?

A better mix and jumble than we've had for a few months here, but there are still some places where our little community-within-a-community could fill out a bit better. In particular the loss of the Religious Right is a major chunk of the dynamic that's missing. After that, PPR would be nearly complete. I mean, there'd still be some unrepresented groups, but nothing too major.

EDIT: Oh, and a belated "Welcome to WP!" to Concenik and vibratetogether. Also, welcome to PPR. It's always nice to see new avatars.

are the Pro Nuclear war guy and the Genocide to all Muslims guy one and the same or are they separate identities.

We could really do with a few more YECS, I think we do have one, but we need a few more

What we really need is our Nihilist back (he whose name must never be Uttered)

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 29 Mar 2009, 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yep, same guy. The nuclear war would be the mechanism of the genocide on all Muslims, I think. He actually can be quite reasonable at times, depending on the topic.


At one point, we had probably three or four YECs. There was a time when we had about a half dozen simultaneous evolution-vs-creation threads, at which point we were all sick of it.


Wait... we have at least one moral nihilist. Or are you referring to the funniest troll ever to visit PPR? The amount of trouble we've gotten into for protesting his banning... good times. Yeah, we need him back. Problem is, he's too stubborn to come back- the mods would reactivate his account if he just asked to be unbanned.

Really. We need to send a diplomatic mission to persuade him. I really miss his ability to find a picture or movie still to express his feelings. Is anyone in contact with him?

BTW once again you catch me out editing

It's been so long since we've gotten one of his facepalm pictures. Imagine this thread! He's actually on AIM right now.

All is understood. from now on I shall take care only to present an opinion - if 'conspiracy related' should it be fully sourced and verifiable to all for each and every to be able to discern whether they consider it factual or not. As far as the ad homs go - I wasn't suggesting there were any direct slanders but if you did read through all your posts on this thread so far I believe it's possible to find a few instances of a dismissive inflection to your script - don't forget how you 'usually' treat 'conspiracy theorists' - I contend you very well probably started any interaction with me in exactly the same vein - why would it not have not been so? There's no logical reason..but you can claim otherwise - I'm not so concerned about it.

Yes, it is a complete pain in the rear to faff around editing and placing so many quote boxes each and every post - for me anyhow. Feel free please to continue in whichever format you wish - I'll probably just keep in a helluva lot more stripped down and concise which may appear curt - it isn't but that's why I'm making attempts be relatively prosaic - to establish civility.

Thanks for the info's. I'm a bit surprised that I got 33 *shrugs* - I don't mind just a relatively surreal way to arrive at such a conclusion.
Pitchforks and Torches - a belief in witches?? lol Well, as it goes I sort of figured that the area can be prone to transforming into Salem should ever an unfortunate spell of groupthink befall a suitable prey. I haven't witnessed any pitchforks so far - I guess we'll see how it goes

What is really outlandish stuff that constitutes paranoid delusions? out of interest..simply..

Yes, text only communication can lose a lot of nuance in the transferral - but personally, I like it .

Indeed there have been gross abuses by business and who actually suffers..?(rhetorical) I don't really know so much about limited liability other than the basic precept - there must be some contemporaneous model of flexibility which is currently champignioned that rests at neither extreme of strict limited liability where the public evidently always end up functioning as guarantors (?) and the unattractive counter where someone risks their entire capital on top of investment - I've only looked at the birth of fiat and the mechanism of fractional reserve lending to governments with any real interest tbh - I can't say it's a topic which engrosses me whatsoever - I find money a relative anathema or at least how it is represent in the world I found myself in ie this one. Not the wisest point of view for sure - but it's just the way I am. poor me j/k *shrug*

I'll bear in mind what you say about Awesomelyglorious but I'm certainly not going to avoid someone because they might take offence to my very being or opinions - I'm not interested in such a world..it's fake. I'll be sure not to hope for any insights from then as to why they subscribe to an anarcho capitalist economic model if they are generally unapproachable with my emphasis on generally. I'm just trying to surmise what you may have meant -

Well, I certainly don't want to now suddenly declare myself as 'an asi'(?) that would seem really unsound - thanks for verifying a nit though. 3 people have said 33 is relatively high now - once again,bit of a shock -I guess I should check that out further at some point so get a clearer picture one way or the other. ah well.

One thing my research has led to me think and maintain is that ISI were involved in 911 at least in some stage of the planning - I think you're potentially looking at a multinational effort - not that many nations were all in on it but I think it was more or less a very well financed private venture which utilised a variety of intelligence services operatives - on a private contract basis if you will.

I would go as far as to say the that there was at least a general foreknowledge within parts of the higher eschelons (sp) of the US administration at that time. Yes, it starts to pan out like a clancey novel or something - I assume, having never cared to read one - but that's not my problem, if all the evidence pointed to it resembling a CS Lewis novel I'm not going to say it isn't so just because it's too much for many to be swallow. *shrugs*

In terms of the 'possibility' of the building being rigged beforehand - there's a lot to go into, but initially it's worth scrutinising the first bomb attack on the WTC in 1991..or 2 -3 - I don't have the date to hand..the first one..