Nick Rockefeller knew about the plans for a 9/11 "event".

[NAOS]

There are so many problems with any notion that this was not carried out by the people we currently believe carried it out. The burden of proof is large and squarely on the shoulders of anyone proposing a conspiracy.

How would you respond to the following claim:

The investigation was so piecemeal that any assertion about the the truth of the events is effectively a conspiracy. In other words: they are all conspiracy theories.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

For me that would be a hard question to answer. So much of it is covered up and classified that I can understand why people have their conspiracy theories. I am for a smalelr more transparent government in most areas so I would say that I would default to "no" but that does not equate me thinking it was perpetrated by the US government.

I don't think anyone will ever really KNOW what happened.
Because even 50 years from now, all evidence will still be classified.
And anyone else that might come up with a plausible theory of what might've happened other than the governments fictional story, will immediately be labeled a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

It's bascially the same as the so-called JFK "conspiracies theories", that are told to this day.

 

[Scorpjazz]

Too funny how some on the left seem to think it is totally within reason to express belief in a cover up in regards to 911, but......
You are a total wacko to not believe in Obama's birth certificate, which has been far less explored.

I honestly do not claim to know the absolute truth in either scenario, but it is strange how both sides can wear the 'tinfoil' hat when it suits their need.

 

[Stoked]

How would you respond to the following claim:

The investigation was so piecemeal that any assertion about the the truth of the events is effectively a conspiracy. In other words: they are all conspiracy theories.

perhaps clissified is better than piecemeal. It may have been very complete. We simply don't know.

 

[NAOS]

perhaps clissified is better than piecemeal. It may have been very complete. We simply don't know.

Nope. I think it is fair to say the investigation wasn't thorough. You just can't sweep that argument under the rug of "State secrecy". Look into for 10 minutes and I think you'll find it hard to disagree.

 

[Stoked]

Nope. I think it is fair to say the investigation wasn't thorough. You just can't sweep that argument under the rug of "State secrecy". Look into for 10 minutes and I think you'll find it hard to disagree.

My point is that you do not know it was piecemeal. It very well may have been. The problem is that sense so much info on 9/11 is classified you cannot really tell.

 

[NAOS]

My point is that you do not know it was piecemeal. It very well may have been. The problem is that sense so much info on 9/11 is classified you cannot really tell.

I have a feeling you are going to make the same kind of hedging argument to every strong claim made about 911. By contrast, I think it is 100% defensible to say it was piecemeal. No blushing or apologizing.

 

[Stoked]

I have a feeling you are going to make the same kind of hedging argument to every strong claim made about 911. By contrast, I think it is 100% defensible to say it was piecemeal. No blushing or apologizing.

You call it a "hedging arguement" and I call it reality. The reality is that the majority of information regarding 9/11 is classified. If you want to rush to a judgement without that information than by all means keep storming that castle.

For me I do not believe that straight story we were sold. however I do not think it was some giant coverup of the US government attacking its own people. I will remain skeptical of all of it until I see the facts.

 

[Gameface]

But we have video of 18 (18, right? I'm having a hard time remembering and google is all the way on the other side of my browser) people getting on planes and those people have a connection to al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden took responsibility for the attacks. The aircraft that were hijacked and all the people on them didn't make it to their destinations. Some people called from the hijacked planes and said what was happening. So, yeah, there's a lot to go on there. Any denial of those facts needs a little backing up, imo.

 

[NAOS]

You call it a "hedging arguement" and I call it reality. The reality is that the majority of information regarding 9/11 is classified. If you want to rush to a judgement without that information than by all means keep storming that castle.

For me I do not believe that straight story we were sold. however I do not think it was some giant coverup of the US government attacking its own people. I will remain skeptical of all of it until I see the facts.

But we know exactly how the wreckage at ground zero was treated by "investigators".
We know exactly how the pentagon looked after an airplane supposedly hit it.
We saw the lack of wreckage in the Penn crash.
We know a lot was explained away as incineration due to jet fuel (which is faulty, to say the least).

But we have video of 18 (18, right? I'm having a hard time remembering and google is all the way on the other side of my browser) people getting on planes and those people have a connection to al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden took responsibility for the attacks. The aircraft that were hijacked and all the people on them didn't make it to their destinations. Some people called from the hijacked planes and said what was happening. So, yeah, there's a lot to go on there. Any denial of those facts needs a little backing up, imo.

al-Qaeda is/was a very loose conglomerate of rebels (that's why it has been hard to root out). Osama had something to gain by accepting responsibility. <-- or so it can be said.

If people were so successful at using their cellphones from hijacked planes, then why are airlines investing millions in cellular capabilities?

(I'm just playing the angles here, FYI).

 

[Stoked]

But we know exactly how the wreckage at ground zero was treated by "investigators".
We know exactly how the pentagon looked after an airplane supposedly hit it.
We saw the lack of wreckage in the Penn crash.
We know a lot was explained away as incineration due to jet fuel (which is faulty, to say the least).



al-Qaeda is/was a very loose conglomerate of rebels (that's why it has been hard to root out). Osama had something to gain by accepting responsibility. <-- or so it can be said.

If people were so successful at using their cellphones from hijacked planes, then why are airlines investing millions in cellular capabilities?

(I'm just playing the angles here, FYI).

But you do not know their findings or the leads that were produced. You do not know what was or was not done with those leads.

You want to rush to judgement with out the whole story I do not. Your original assertion that since we do not know the whole story anything is a conspiracy theory is interesting though.

 

[NAOS]

You want to rush to judgement with out the whole story I do not.

this is precisely what I'm NOT doing. I'm saying we rushed to conclusions. I'm saying that we must have rushed because of what was done to the wreckage -- which, by extension, taints whatever "findings" or "leads" were produced. What's hard to understand about this position? How would you (or anyone) push someone off this position?

 

[Stoked]

this is precisely what I'm NOT doing. I'm saying we rushed to conclusions. I'm saying that we must have rushed because of what was done to the wreckage -- which, by extension, taints whatever "findings" or "leads" were produced. What's hard to understand about this position? How would you (or anyone) push someone off this position?

I wouldn't but you did a poor job presenting that as your opinion after your first post.

I'm out. Have fun trolling the troll PearlWatson.

 

[NAOS]

I wouldn't but you did a poor job presenting that as your opinion after your first post.

I'm out. Have fun trolling the troll PearlWatson.

I'm not trying to troll you.
But, seriously, if you can't convince somebody that the investigation was thorough enough to avoid major miscalculations, then what can you add to a discussion of 911 besides cautious warnings and bids to bow to State secrecy?