How many open minds should be closed for repairs?

[Boojatta]

[The Magistrate]

1. Many, Sir

"The object in opening the mind, as in opening the mouth, is to close it again on something solid."

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

3. Repairs is not the same as closing

Everyone should have an open mind...
it's just that some need a little repair...
not that they need to be shut...
just repaired.

Closed minds don't need to be repaired, they need to be opened.

See the difference?

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. Well said, dude...

I like to give props where props are due, you earned it that time. :thumbsup:


Peace,

Ghost

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

6. Irony first thing on a Saturday morning

is a great way to start the weekend.

Many truthers are nearly pathological welded to a faith based ideology where no matter what evidence or lack thereof is no impediment to their CT beliefs

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. Yeah, it is ironic.. a sunday school teacher yammering about "faith based ideology" and

"no matter what evidence or lack thereof is no impediment to their (CT) beliefs" :rofl:

Good one, Lared!

Forgive me if I don't take you seriously, dude..


The difference here is that I'm willing to look at other ideas and give them consideration, where you absolutely refuse to. I can look at the evidence that forms the official story, and even consider some of it plausible, but when questions don't get answered, mainly because you won't even consider asking it, it gives me reason to doubt the whole scenario. The fact that some of you won't even consider some questions is very telling, to me anyways.

How could an indepth investigation not consider explosives, especially when the group you're investigating is known for blowing shit up? Even more so when that group has tried to blow up the same building before? Who's to say they didn't have a few people inside the towers with backpacks full of explosives to make sure the towers came down this time? They would never use suicide bombers, would they? oh, wait....

There are too many unanswered questions for me to take the government's word for anything. You, however, are free to believe anything you wish, dude... whatever gets you through the night...

[LARED]

8. There is a huge difference between the two

My Christian beliefs are acknowledged as faith based. I don't pretend there is any material evidence in support or not in support of what I believe in this matter.

On the other hand truthers (at least those with average or better cognitive skills) like to pretend either; there is no evidence in support of the so called official story, or the evidence has all been some how planted, or there is material evidence that supports a vast and irrational CT.

And you are dead wrong about me not considering "other ideas". I have and the vast majority of what consists of the truther inventory of evidence is merely speculation or outright irrational.

It has been nearly ten years and to date not a single person has managed to assemble a rational coherent theory about 9/11 being an inside job.

[BeFree]

9. Ahh, yes

Your birther "all or nothing" logic shows.

[LARED]

11. All or nothing?

You are the last (or close to last) that should speak about someones logic.

Seriously you're a no planer, or at least believe no planes crashed. Right?

The day you reject no-planes theories is the day you get to discuss the merits of other's logic without being snickered at.

[BeFree]

29. Gawd is that dumb

I believe in planes, always have. So if you can find one post that I claim there were NO planes, now would be a good time to find that post and maybe save us from thinking you ARE JUST THROWING SHIT.

And you might find time to QUIT FUCKING TELLING ME WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T DO!

.

[LARED]

30. But you do believe that the planes did not actually crash

Correct?

[BeFree]

31. What makes you think that?

GO FIND THE POST WHERE I WROTE ANYTHING LIKE ' NO PLANES CRASHED' on 9/11!

This is getting fucking ridiculous. You are talking out your ass!

[zappaman]

33. Stop trying to paint BeFree as some kind of crazy "no-planer"!!!

Apparently, he believes there were planes...
REMOTE CONTROLLED PLANES.

Still not sure whether he believes there were passengers.
I got your back, BeFree.

[BeFree]

38. Thanks

So, you agree, Lared is talking out his ass?

See, Lared, zappa made it so you don't have to search, she just showed you have been talking out your ass. Aren't you happy you can just fold up and float away?

[zappaman]

40. oops, I forgot to mention...

that remote controlled planes is just as fucking ridiculous as no planes.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

45. RC planes are quite real

The question though is do you believe the four commercial planes hijacked on 9/11 were in fact RC'ed?

If your mind is open to such a thing, do you have a reason for this belief other than it is a possibility?

[BeFree]

47. Lared

My mind is open to the possibility that many planes on 9/11 were remote controlled.

In another thread, I wrote extensively on that subject. This thread is not about RC planes.
If you really want to know what I think about RC planes, I suggest you have an open mind and find that thread.

[LARED]

43. To be clear

you do believe that four planes identified in the official story were hijacked then crashed into the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville?

If you tell me yes, then I will freely admit I misunderstood your position.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

49. NO

I do not believe the OCT story in whole. There are way too many holes in the OCT to believe the OCT.

Basically, before the OCT, those who now are trying to sell the OCT didn't believe that some of the things they say happened in the OCT couldn't be imagined. IOW, it was unbelievable then and unbelievable now. Just because some people now believe what was once unbelievable does make me want to believe what was once unbelievable. Do you believe in the OCT?

[SDuderstadt]

10. "Who's to say they didn't have a few people inside the towers with backpacks full of explosives..."

Ghost, could you please show us your math that demonstrates how that's remotely possible?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Ghost...

wouldn't it be simply easier to admit that your "speculation" is preposterous?

[Ghost in the Machine]

16. No, actually it could be quite plausible, dude

If I had already tried, and failed, to blow up the towers, it might behoove me to pack a little more punch on my next attempt.

Actually, if I would have planned it, I would have had a couple of guys outside with machine guns, gunning people down as they fled the towers and gunning down cops and other emergency personnel as they arrived on scene.

[SDuderstadt]

17. If it's "quite plausible" then...

you shouldn't have any problem producing the math, Ghost.

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. Your question is fucking stupid, duder...

Math... to prove extra people in the towers?

Again, back away from the bong, dude...

[SDuderstadt]

20. No, Ghost...

the math to show how a few backpack of explosives would have brought down or even aided substantially.

I have not insulted you one time. I would appreciate if you'd return the favor.

[Ghost in the Machine]

22. You need math to show you explosives could have helped take out,

or at least weaken, the core columns? You're still asking for proof for a speculation. You might as well be asking for proof of a negative, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

26. No, Ghost...

Your "speculation" was that a few people with backpack full of explosives could have had enough power to help bring down the towers. Even if you could provide the math to demonstrate such an absurd theory, you'd have to explain how the "suicide bombers" could even have gotten into the buildings.

Not that that matters in the minds of conspiracists.

[Ghost in the Machine]

28. For all your talk, you don't think too deeply, do you?

"Your "speculation" was that a few people with backpack full of explosives could have had enough power to help bring down the towers."

Very good! It appears you're finally catching on!

"Even if you could provide the math to demonstrate such an absurd theory"

You have failed to show what is absurd about it

"you'd have to explain how the "suicide bombers" could even have gotten into the buildings"

What kind of security checks were in place for employees, or even tourists, before 9-11?

"Not that that matters in the minds of conspiracists."

Not that it matters in the minds of OTC True Believers, either...

[BeFree]

32. Interesting avenue, Ghost

We know truck bombs were tried once. Why not again?

After the planes hit, trucks could have been driven into the buildings and in a matter of minutes placed and exploded.

Or: trucks with federal or building owner clearances (maybe faked clearances?) could have been in the building already.

[zappaman]

34. LOL

"We know truck bombs were tried once. Why not again?"
Oh, I dunno....maybe because it DIDN'T FUCKING WORK?

I can't even bring myself to address the other two sentences that are just as stupid.

Honestly, you really don't think things thru much, do you?

[SDuderstadt]

35. "Truther Logic"

Fact: Both towers collapsed from the impact zone down.

Conclusion: The "perps" used truck bombs.

[quickesst]

50. I work constuction....

....a lot with upgrading. I have stood on employees desks to do some of that work. Not one has ever asked, or implied that I may be up to some nefarious, evil intentions, though I could have had a bomb in my toolbox. Get over the oct's simple-minded assumption that evil people can pass as "innocents". That's the one thing that irks the shit out of me. I'm a construction worker, and I can pretty much go where I want, and carry with me anything I want, without question. Grow the fuck up, with all due respect. Thanks.
quickesst

[SDuderstadt]

51. Do you understand how the bombs...

would have to have been placed to help bring down the towers? NO ONE would question you ripping out sheetrock to expose core columns, preparing them (which includes drilling, by the way) and, if the event the building was brought down, NO ONE would later remember you having done so? Really?

Too funny.

[BeFree]

37. The OCT states:

Planes flew into the buildings (as we all saw).

Then, for the first time ever, steel framed buildings collapsed and steel beams were thrown clear of the building many, many feet. Projected outward one might say as if propelled, again, for the first time ever in a fire induced collapse. And lets not forget the 'squib' explosions many floors beyond the impact zone. All part of the facts and some even covered by the OCT.

Now, consider if the fires did go out and the buildings stood. Even some reports from the firemen on the impact floors radioed the fires were minimal. So, if the fires go out, the plane wreckage could be examined, black boxes found, recordings of the hijacks released. Would have made it so there would never have been any questions from us, eh?

But for the first time ever, it didn't work out that way, did it? The way it worked out; no investigation could ever be complete. So, they didn't even have to try. They thought. But, after almost a year, and after much congressional prodding, the NIST was tasked to come up with something.

In theory, bombs in the basement (and elsewhere) taking the buildings down, became the best cover ever.

[BeFree]

39. And

Your speculation of backpack bombers having climbed to the upper floors and placing explosives near the impact zone, could lead some to think that the collapse started at just the impact zone.

But it seems clear that the buildings ultimate collapse was from below which truck bombs could have induced. Those bombers would have learned a great deal from the previous try which failed, ensuring greater success the 2nd try.

[deconstruct911]

41. The 1st try failed ONLY because they knowingly planted

the bomb AWAY from support columns....

Why would that be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih8yPzPgWEA

"Despite being on a US terrorist watch list for three years, radical Muslim leader Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman enters the US on a “much-disputed” tourist visa issued by an undercover CIA agent."
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_alleged_al_qaeda_linked_attacks=firstwtcbombing

And just to rub it all in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1vwjFhF4dA

Not "unthinkable" they paved the way indeed.

[BeFree]

46. Not unthinkable to birthers, but...

It's just plain common sense.

Many elements saw the towers as symbols that could be used for various nefarious means.

[SDuderstadt]

36. If you can't see what's absurd about...

your speculation, I doubt I can add anything that would help you understand.

[LARED]

21. I'm pretty sure the math was to explain the

amount of explosives brought in on backpacks required to blow up the towers

[zappaman]

25. That's what I thought

but instead of saying "___ lbs of ___ carried by ___ men could have produced the result", GHOST instead accuses SDUDE of being high.
GHOST, do you have evidence of SDUDE's inoxication?
Or is that just speculation like your men in backpacks?

[zappaman]

12. Amazing post that needs to be addressed

1. "The difference here is that I'm willing to look at other ideas and give them consideration, where you absolutely refuse to."

That's a mighty big assumption you are making. Who says Lared or anyone else hasn't given them consideration? Speaking for myself, I read Griffin's books, seen LOOSE CHANGE as well as some other films and I considered the ideas. Then I rejected them.

2. "I can look at the evidence that forms the official story, and even consider some of it plausible, but when questions don't get answered, mainly because you won't even consider asking it, it gives me reason to doubt the whole scenario."

I see quite a bit more unanswered questions on the "truther" side. Depending on what your particular belief is(thermate, no planes, thermite, CD, remote controlled planes, green-screened planes, radio waves, EMPs), "truthers" cry foul when they are confronted with a question or apply some weird form of pretzel logic to support their erroneous conclusion.

3. "The fact that some of you won't even consider some questions is very telling, to me anyways."

See #1

4. "How could an indepth investigation not consider explosives, especially when the group you're investigating is known for blowing shit up? Even more so when that group has tried to blow up the same building before? Who's to say they didn't have a few people inside the towers with backpacks full of explosives to make sure the towers came down this time? They would never use suicide bombers, would they? oh, wait...."

Using that logic, I can say "who's to say trained monkeys with explosive-laden bananas were smuggled in to the WTC by aliens who use our moon as a base of operations?" Why not? I have just as much evidence as you have, right?

5. "There are too many unanswered questions for me to take the government's word for anything. You, however, are free to believe anything you wish, dude... whatever gets you through the night...

Again with the "you guys believe anything the government tells you" argument. That is an assumption. People in every country should always question their government. However, blaming them for every ill is not logical without evidence to back it up.

Yeah, Bush was the worst thing to happen to this country and the world since Reagan. (I was going to say ever, but that fucker's 100th birthday bullshit made me remember how much of a dick he was...) But that doesn't mean his administration had any part in bringing down those towers.
But if it gets you through the night...whatever.

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. I was with you up to here...

"Using that logic, I can say "who's to say trained monkeys with explosive-laden bananas were smuggled in to the WTC by aliens who use our moon as a base of operations?" Why not? I have just as much evidence as you have, right?"

Do you have precedent? Has there been a previous attempt on the Towers by a group of trained monkeys with explosive-laden bananas, that were smuggled in to the WTC by aliens who use our moon as a base of operations? See, we have precedent of al quaida operatives trying to blow up the towers before..

For a bonus, what do you mean by "our" moon? Does it belong to us? It was there long before we were here, did we buy it? :-)

[LARED]

19. I own the rights to the moon base

I have a hundred year lease agreement with our alien overlords.


I got a great deal.

[Ghost in the Machine]

24. Well.. as long as you got a great deal on it, how could you pass it up?

Do you have developers rights? You should invest in refueling stations... and selling moon rocks :-)

[zappaman]

23. yes, they tried to blow up the WTC once before

and they failed.
So, they changed the plan and it worked.
Are we in agreement that terrorist took down the WTC, but differ as to the means?

And the moon isn't actually there. As you well know, it's a hologram and I was referring to the Bildenberg group who created it and to whom I am a member of when I said "our".

[Ghost in the Machine]

27. "Are we in agreement that terrorist took down the WTC, but differ as to the means?"

Pretty much... and I'm sure we might differ on "who" the terrorists were, too. I have yet to be convinced that they weren't working for elements within our government...

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.