"PHD"
gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c41387c-48d1-4deb-9242-9e32c95b5453@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 18, 9:33 am, "Sean" now.com.au> wrote:> "PHD"
gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:84967a61-a0a3-4266-ab46-3f21177fd17a@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 8, 2:45 pm, "Sean" now.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> "Sean"
now.com.au> wrote in message>
>
>>>
gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:5121b546-9c19-4cdb-8578-82921e211fbf@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Sep 8, 12:03 am, "Sean" now.com.au> wrote:>>>>
gmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>>>
gmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>> Hi mate,
>
>>>> yes saw what u referred to, and sure lot's of confirmations.
>
>>>> My only point regarding 99.9%% of the theories, is that they are all
>>>> bent
>>>> out
>>>> of shape about things that didn;t even happen based simply on
>>>> "stories"
>>>> about things not being there, and it snowballs into xyz based on
>>>> mis-information or missing info and bravado by people who have no
>>>> clue
>>>> at
>>>> all. an example .... some claim it wan't even planes that hit the
>>>> towers.
>>>> I
>>>> would beg to differ. So it's mushed up bs. Doesn't mean everything
>>>> adds
>>>> up,
>>>> people have been known to do anything and everything. I have my
>>>> suspicions,
>>>> but really it doesn't matter. cheers :-)
>
>>> An interesting four corners is on tomorrow about the very subject.
>
>>> Im sure it will be upto their very exacting standards.
>
>>> Knowing how people 'shape' interpretations to suit their state of
>>> consciousness (no more entrenched stories than those of the religious
>>> nature), I still find it fascinating from a detached pov, to see what
>>> actually happens.
>
>>> I didnt quite follow your point regarding building three when you
>>> mentioned money moving mountains. I didnt know it actually happened
>>> until I watched Zeitgeist.
>
>>> BOfL
>
>>> -----------------------------
>
>>> Building 7 .... tsk, watching 4 corners now, and i thought gee, what a
>>> co-incidence hehehehe
>
>>> catch ya later :-)
>
>>> sean
>
>> So did the doco on 9/11 conspiracies & building 7 in particular - boy
>> what
>> synchronicity there? A whole damn doco on that very building. Are you in
>> the
>> zone or what?
>
>> All i meant about silverstien was that he was worth billions ---- the
>> day
>> was pretty big deal for him personally, as you see he'd only just bought
>> the
>> whole shebang. So, before 9am the shite hit the fan ....... given the
>> $$$
>> I
>> had no problem with him having the power if anyone did to get the thing
>> blown up that day. That given that I had no idea how possible it was or
>> wasn't. ON the day .. OK.
>
>> I have no problem that it collapsed due to fire, same thing with the
>> towers.
>> Like i said earlier, just because something was "designed" to do xyz
>> doesn;t
>> mean the actual building of it was. Devils in the details isn't.
>
>> Note the aggressiveness from "belief" by the 9/11 doco maker when asked
>> about Richard Clarke. Fact is the day Bush took over they switched off
>> the
>> Al Queda priority that was #1 when Clinton left office .... the neocons
>> had
>> other ideas and everything was put back into a review type status.
>> Richard
>> Clarke couldn't even get to meet with the National security advisor
>> Condi
>> Rice -- just wasn't their concern, and Bush needed lot's of holidays
>> too.
>
>> It's not so much conspiracy but incompetence -- just that some people
>> believe that the USA's "talents", be it buildings or intelligence, is a
>> lot
>> better than it really is.
>
>> Have you noticed that there's been 3 major collapses of Cranes in the
>> USA
>> this year. You think that's a conspiracy, or just a co-incidence. A
>> third
>> of
>> all the worlds cranes are in Dubai now, how many have collapsed there in
>> the
>> last 5 years?
>
>> I'll tell you, none.
>
>> That's pretty much sums up my opinion in a nutshell. Occam's razor iow.
>
>> Doesn't mean I trust the totality of the 9/11 commission opinions, or
>> the
>> CIA, or their system. Surely Iraq has more than proven this? The USA did
>> play a major role for many years that killed the elected President
>> Allende,
>> and put Pinochet into power. That still is unresolved or healed in
>> Chile.
>> and the beat goes on ....................
>
>> I'd be interested to hear what you got out of the doco brian,
>> so cheers mate.- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>It's not so much conspiracy but incompetence<
>
> Yeah,cool, but maybe thats your answer - that the conspiracy was the
> incompetance - the incompetance of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is
> inherent in poltics as in business. Histories of th eworld - if you
> dont like the word conspiracy then try "plottings or plotters"
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Sean:
> I'm happy to use whatever word you want to use. Do you not like my word
> "incompetence" and political plausible deniability, or spin?
>
> I'm not afraid of the truth either. and I'm not afraid to suggest my own
> opinion that much of the "9/11 Truthers" present as self-evident evidence
> is
> nothong more than unsubstanciated conjecture, gross errors of fact, and at
> times conscious mis-representation.
>
> After seeing a life time of mis-representation by Politicians, the Media,
> and marketers, I don't find it that hard to pick anymore, no matter who is
> the one utilising such methods.
>
> If the 9/11 Truthers are genuinely seeking the truth, and I don't doubt
> that
> the majority are well intentioned, they would be of a greater service to
> the
> world if they were as accurate as they demand from those they claim to be
> responsible for 9/11. See?
>
> Innuendo, unanswered questions that some annonymous dude on Youtube
> raises,
> is simply not what I call "evidence".
>
> If all they are asking for is another full and frank enquiry, then I ask
> who
> will any of them believe to be credible enough to carry out such an
> enquiry,
> and what process will be engaged to 'test the veracity' of all the
> witnesses
> and the technical data?
>
> 2 million bits of data in the 9/11 Commission! Who will you trust to
> analyse
> that and tell you what the "truth" of it is, or means?
>
> Stuff happened in WW2 that the world still doesn't know about, and the
> stuff
> we do, people still disagree on it. These realities, these "truths" need
> to
> be considered as well.
>
> But the Madrid building, or the comment about no steel buildings have ever
> ..... is totally irrelevant, and indiciates nothing of real value, or
> truth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>But the Madrid building, or the comment about no steel
buildings have ever ..... is totally irrelevant, and indiciates
nothing of real value, or truth<
As the twin towers was a unique event, and, the short period of time
that the buildings were burning before they came down clearly in their
own foot print one could say there was no comparison to evalute the
exact cause of fall. However given basic similarities with other
buildings such as the Madrid building one can draw interesting
conclusions as to the veracity of the official report - if one blindly
agrees that 19 ragheads brought down 3 stones with two "birds" then
one is quite blind.
The Madrid fire is a good and reasonable evidencing of typical
structures and whilst there is controversy over the actual state of
the twin towers prior to the plane hits, it seems on the basis of
reason that two "birds" did not bring down 3 stones.What is relevant
about the Madrid fire is that it provides evidence in support - if you
disagree thats no problem - but it evokes serious doubt in me that the
towers came down such by an isolated quickly spent fire - there is
just too much visual evidence to conclude the official report which
has been shot to pieces by educated and competant individuals with the
experience to asses beyond a reasonable doubt that one should accept
said report.
Many people have a problem with truth as DB has pointed out and whilst
you sit comfortably in the middle , it rathere tells a lot. Have a
nice day
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN:
Well there's no valid reason for you or DB to be personally offended or find
afront, just because I disagree about the "value" of the Madrid fire, and
other matters.
Both of you asked reasonable questions, and I gave reasonable, polite and
yet direct and well reasoned replies, based upon what I have seen, and what
I know about. Including the notion of "truth", and the concept of marketing
spin, and behind the scenes the truth of the tools of [logical] fallacies in
debate, and how people present their views when under challenge by
alternative views to their own.
I'll state quite clearly, that I gave no full supporting evidence for my
views and how they were formed. But, neither have yourself. So on that point
we are equal.
Where we are not equal, is first, that I understand where you are coming
from, and why you believe what you do, and why you place so much omportance
upon what I consider the irrelevant.
Secondly, rather than hearing or seeing what it is I am actually saying
here, you are embellishing my statements and putting words into my mouth
that were never spoken, or thought. In other words, you are projecting your
own beliefs about the world and this issue onto me, where they do not
belong. These are your issues, not mine, and I reject them.
As an aside, I went "alternative country" in the early 90's. I reduced my
carbon footprint long before anyone even knew it was a problem, let alone
possible and a healthier way in which to live. I was living with solar
power, mini hydro, rainwater and pure spring water, and reclaiming native
rainforests from weeds and land clearing 17 years ago. What were you doing?
I know how to create and maintain a self-sufficent lifestyle where whatever
Bush and Co or the Financial system choose to do is irrelevant. How are you
doing? Are you being affected mentally, emotionally or physically by all
this crappola? I'm not, I'm happy, and at peace with myself and the world.
In regards to you final comment : "....whilst you sit comfortably in the
middle , it rather tells a lot."
I totally agree with you 100%%. It does rather say a lot. You'd be wise to
work out the truth of why that is so, for yourself. Because I can assure you
both, your current assumptions and conjecture are way off base and
inaccurate. You don't know the truth as yet, but keep seeking it.
THX for the discussion. Sean
