Loose Change????

**AetheLove** · 01-28-13, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

lol. Quit trolling dgod.

More than a couple people here are calling this thread out as a troll tactic.

Maybe they're right. I'm confident that some of the truthers in any truther movement are hard-core trolls who don't give a damn one way or the other about truth and (like the Joker) just like to feed a fire and watch the world burn.

I'm equally confident that in any truther movement, at lease one head-truther does know the truth and is engaged in a misdirection tactic designed to ensnare billions. As long as their estate is safe, they don't care if the burn-state of the rest of the world is 1 or 0.

In both cases, some of us get duped into suiting up as soldiers in the troll army.

But in a completely backwards and twisted way, I think that there are encouraging signs. Some people really do want the truth. A small part of them is uncomfortable being a believer, and they're trying to see through media machinations and the polished-turd press releases of those in authority.

Any person - genius or moron - who tries to step out of the world of belief steps into a world that is difficult and uncertain. They try to sift out the facts as best they can, and rationally examine the things that are known. Starting with the assertion that someone is trying to trick them, they look for inconsistencies in The Facts.

That's encouraging to me. Some people are trying to use good tools. They're no longer saying; "Duh, it's turtles ALL the way down." They're saying; "Your conclusion is inconsistent with the facts at hand."

It's possible to be wrong in either case. Facts and Logic are good tools, but don't by themselves guarantee revelation.

I think that the world is big enough and complicated enough that the picture can be fuzzy even if there is no evil genius whispering lies. In a world with that much uncertainty, what you accept as true often comes down to where you start:

If your null hypothesis is that terrorists flew planes into the towers and the fire caused the collapse, then there might not be enough evidence to reject the null.

If your null hypothesis is that the WTC was a planned demolition with fiendishly clever cover story, then there might not be enough evidence for you to reject the null.

All of that can be true even if we don't have a government that is overly-secret, paranoid, and incompetent.

kANG: I disagree with your conclusions, and I think your evidence is weak. But you're bringing the right tools to the job, and your default position is to not implicitly trust authority.

That's encouraging.

Cheers,

AetheLove

**SpecOpsScott** · 01-28-13, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

kANG: I disagree with your conclusions, and I think your evidence is weak. But you're bringing the right tools to the job, and your default position is to not implicitly trust authority.

That's encouraging.

Cheers,

AetheLove

But at what point does it go from questioning authority to completely discounting the official reports?

There are inconsistencies yes, and there are questions yes, but most can be answered with speculation at best, as we the people do not have, nor ever will have ALL of the facts. To present alternative possibilities as the only correct answer based on a mere plausibility is dishonest, and rather insulting.

Case in point: Sandy Hook false flag videos. Disgusting, but there are people buying into it hook line and sinker. Strangely enough, they are the same people that discount any official accounts of 9.11 as well.

**kANG** · 01-28-13, 11:37 AM

Whats so complicated about doing another investigation of the events? Are they afraid of something? To limit the investigation to one company baffles me....especially when that company leaves out important information and doesnt even bother to test for explosives....thats right people they did no testing for explosives.....so how would you or me know if there were any?

**DJ Ms. White** · 01-28-13, 11:53 AM

You mean: "What's so complicated about doing an international investigation on a 11 year old crime?"

**kANG** · 01-28-13, 12:03 PM

Older crimes are still being solved today with newer technology....why would 911 be any different?

**DJ Ms. White** · 01-28-13, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by kANG

Older crimes are still being solved today with newer technology....why would 911 be any different?

It's like there were multiple huge crime scenes all of which are no longer in existence along with thousands upon thousands of witnesses.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

**Warflagon** · 01-28-13, 12:07 PM

This thread makes baby Cthulhu cry.

**SpecOpsScott** · 01-28-13, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by kANG

Whats so complicated about doing another investigation of the events? Are they afraid of something? To limit the investigation to one company baffles me....especially when that company leaves out important information and doesnt even bother to test for explosives....thats right people they did no testing for explosives.....so how would you or me know if there were any?

I'll take a wild guess.

Possibly because there could be various "shortcomings" uncovered and spotlighted in such a way that the US Govt would have no choice but to accept responsibility for them, eroding confidence even further than it is.

Possibly because the waters have become so muddy now, getting accurate information is less likely than it was during the chaos at the scenes.

And as for the testing of explosives..... there was no evidence exposed at that time, to indicate the use of explosives. Evidence that would have to include, but not be limited to, viable eye witness, or photographic evidence of explosives being set in the years or months prior to 9.11. I might be wrong, but i dont believe there is one shred of credible evidence in this department. One does not simply run into a building and set precise charges in the quantities needed to bring down those buildings in a short period of time. It would have had to been done well in advance, by qualified engineers and explosives handlers.

The evidence that i do see in abundance are quotes from various people on the scene mentioning "Bombs", "Bombsite" or "Explosions", all which can very easily be seen as misspoken thoughts. These people were under incredible amounts of stress, and getting hit constantly from all sides with questions, from subordinates to reporters. Have you ever said one thing while thinking another, while in a very stressful situation? Of course you have.

I see pictures of WTC 7 from two angles at most. The opposite side of the building, which was engulfed in smoke from the fires raging on the lower floors is conveniently left out of every truther documentary out there.... why is that? Video evidence of an estimated 50 ton chunk of the the towers (WTC 2) steel shell piercing the roof of WTC 7 seems lacking too.... oh, and it pierced the roof very close to where the collapse started as well. Is it not possible that this massive blade of falling steel sheared several support columns on its way in? I think it could have.

Anyway.... im out. Don't bother to respond, or tell me i have no idea what im talking about or that im ignoring the "facts". This thread has taken far more of my time and energy than it deserves.

**DJ Ms. White** · 01-28-13, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by kANG

Older crimes are still being solved today with newer technology....why would 911 be any different?

This ain't NCIS.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

**AetheLove** · 01-28-13, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by kANG

Whats so complicated about doing another investigation of the events?

Really? You can't think of any complicating factors that might be involved with an investigation more than ten years after the event and the cleanup? In the middle of what must be one of the largest and most complicated construction sites in the world?

Also, though I wouldn't call it complicated, money is certainly a factor. There is always at least one reason to not do something which is expensive: it's expensive.

... or did you mean another examination of the existing evidence?

Originally Posted by kANG

Are they afraid of something?

Sure: another investigation might find that that someone was wrong.

... or incompetent.

... or even just the discovery that they didn't spend a lot of time making sure they got the low bid for the cleanup.

... or that someone will find a way to shift some of the massive expense from one party to another.

There are all kinds of very real reasons. This also means that anyone engaged in a coverup will have lots of excellent reasons for there to not be another investigation.

Originally Posted by kANG

.....so how would you or me know if there were any?

We wouldn't.

Cheers,

AetheLove