You have a knack for overstating the obvious. Are you having trouble discerning between the two again?



You seem to lack the necessary skills to interpret its meaning.



As are you. I predicted your response and got it right. You missed the bus on that one. I'm well aware of stock 'twoofer' responses and yours merely parrot the same dogma I've heard for the last eleven years. Don't flatter yourself by thinking that I started debating 9/11 with you. Nothin' to see here, Kids.

Charlie knows it was a plane.

They have the Stills and CCTV footage of Atta and the other terrorists passing the ticket gates and boarding the planes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-iE-hrdgZg&feature=share&list=UUdNkRyt3S0oTQQdzlKJtXyg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhP_QzxpO-o&feature=share&list=UUdNkRyt3S0oTQQdzlKJtXyg

http://youtu.be/JKBztC4szGQ

Every 'twoofer' should see these.

"They (Twoofers) failed to prove 9/11 was an inside job. They failed to get a majority of support. They failed to get a new investigation. They failed to impeach George W. Bush. They Failed to get one of their candidates elected President.

Twoofer Movement = Epic Fail!

Amelia and Major Kong piloted that one!

An old favourite that debunks the junk. of course, the parrots disagree with it, but they don't have much to support that stance, not that they ever really did.

http://youtu.be/vZbMfTtHkYM

Imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:



BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Don, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers al-Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Don. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs, and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of nowhere somewhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, okay.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do, and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork, and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world, and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington DC fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI-5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ****, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!


The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement
Why the "9/11 Truth" movement makes the Left Behind series read like Shakespeare.

http://www.alternet.org/story/42181?page=3

Hi Conrad. I've been informed by a completely unreliable source that reposting that satire is worse than plagiarism.

Yeh right...

That has already been debunked.

You predicted nothing.

A + B = C

when all some people see is fiction, there cannot be any truth... and JB was telling me about an open mind...

Well, it is the so-called 'deductive' process. A conclusion is formed (i.e. there are unexplained characteristics of the event, therefore, the 'gubbermint dood it') and then anomalies and information are moulded to fit the conclusion. Just poor investigative practice and reasoning skills. Normal investigation develops a hypothesis from the evidence-not the other way round.

If the official story is the truth, then there should be no problem with the government revealing the evidence. Instead, they decided to "classify" everything.

Some of the official story 'may' be the truth. Most of it is creatively rewritten. None of it would actually stand up in court.

But there will never be a court. There will only be theories, stories, speculation, lies, and propaganda for the sake of keeping myth alive and for protecting negligence, dishonesty, and corruption.

Did you know that billions of dollars worth of gold and silver went missing from the vaults under the World Trade Center?

Only a mere few million dollars worth of gold and silver were recovered. A petty tribute to what was supposed to have been there.

Either it was there, and was stolen, or it was not there, and there was another lie being sold to people holding gold and silver contracts from Monex.

If this is true, it could open many new theories and force the classified documents to be opened. Gold as you know is very heavy and would require a lot to be moved. Maybe under ground tunnels were used before the drone hit the building. Monex could be part of the conspiracy.

That is very possible. New York is ripe with underground tunnels.

Nothing can "force" the classified documents open. What world do you live in?

Either way, there was billions of dollars of gold that "disappeared." When that actually happened is anyone's guess.

Note the reasoning process:




Posited as fact.



Again, quoted as fact.


Now, there are several possibilities. Note the lack of reliable links to support and check the claims.

Moving along:



This is not entirely accurate, but presented as fact and again, no supporting evidence supplied.




Note the poor reasoning: If some of the OS may be true, and some of it may be creatively written, it stands to reason that some, or more, may be accurate. This is an unknown and unspecified quantity, and yet none of it would stand up in court. This is obviously a logical fallacy, because an unknown quantity of fact would stand up in court owing to its accuracy. Again, this is merely unsubstantiated opinion and not to be given much credence.



Well, there would be a new enquiry if there was a convincing body of evidence to justify said enquiry, however, this 'evidence' has never been presented in a coherent and irrefutable manner.



An accurate description of the 'Twoofer' movement.

So, the conclusion has been reached and the anomolies are manipulated to fit the hypothesis-not a hypothesis developed from the anomolies.

Oops. Double post