Hello thanks for allowing me to be here

**Frownland** · 05-19-2015, 12:54 AM

And two of those were done under Northwoods, which was never actually carried out but were events theorized by a house committee.

DwnWthVwls · 05-19-2015, 12:57 AM

Ok. What's your point? If you're not interested in having a conversation just say so. These vague one sentence responses really don't add much.

Also, the first two ops I quoted are not related to Northwoods, and were carried out.

Quote:

Is it logical to assume that, even if other countries have carried out false flag operations (especially horrible regimes such as, say, the Nazis or Stalin), the U.S. has never done so? Well, as documented by the New York Times, Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay).

And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO carried out terror bombings in Italy with the help of the Pentagon and CIA and blamed communists in order to rally people's support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

**Frownland** · 05-19-2015, 01:06 AM

No attempts at finding context at least? I said a lot more than that.

How Frownland feels: false flag operations are possible. However, their likelihood is not high enough to blame every terrorist attack, school shooting, or plane crash on being a false flag op. When there is insurmountable evidence that doesn't quite clearly seem to serve a second party interest, I'll consider a false flag op. In the case of 9/11, the evidence that is put forward to propose ambiguity is agreed up on by actual physicists (which highly outweighs the number of "physicists" who signed up to architects for 9/11 truth) to be a hoax. A false flag is possible, but given the amount of evidence suggesting otherwise I highly doubt that it's the case.

DwnWthVwls · 05-19-2015, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

No attempts at finding context at least? I said a lot more than that.

How Frownland feels: false flag operations are possible. However, their likelihood is not high enough to blame every terrorist attack, school shooting, or plane crash on being a false flag op. When there is insurmountable evidence that doesn't quite clearly seem to serve a second party interest, I'll consider a false flag op. In the case of 9/11, the evidence that is put forward to propose ambiguity is agreed up on by actual physicists (which highly outweighs the number of "physicists" who signed up to architects for 9/11 truth) to be a hoax. A false flag is possible, but given the amount of evidence suggesting otherwise I highly doubt that it's the case.

Completely agree with the bolded. When I asked you about the underlined two posts ago your response was "nah", unless that was intended as a response for another part of my post. It wasn't very clear.

Thanks for the clarification.

roscoe_the_first · 05-19-2015, 01:27 AM

Look just ask him where is his justification for blowing the arms and legs off kids.

Where is the BOXCUTTER CONSPIRACY THEORIST'S (hereafter known as BCTs) evidence to support the Government story.

I suppose you all know how the Boxcutter THEORY came into being. Well it was from Barbara Olson, former Fox News Commentator. She allegedly phoned her Senator husband and said the plane had been hijacked by people with Boxcutters (you know, fly that plane into that building or I'll slash yah!)

ERM! Slight problem.

During a testiment by an FBI agent at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial the agent testified under oath that Olson's phone had indeed connected to the cell network;..................

FOR ZERO SECONDS

That's zero seconds. zilch Nada, F__k all

In other words it hadn't connected at all.

So the story then switched to oh she must have used the air phone (irrespective of the FACT that the cell listing had shown Olsons number.

But errr? Ooooops!!!

The air phone was never fitted to that aircraft. Source - American Airlines.

Oh dear!!!

So let me ask this very simple question again - where is your evidence that justified blowing the arms and legs off kids.

Surely you actually have some evidence beyond MUST-HAVE-DONES. Don't you?

Oh by the way I have a long list of anomalies like this that need addressing.

Still only 4 posts I see.

DeadChannel · 05-19-2015, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roscoe_the_first

Look just ask him where is his justification for blowing the arms and legs off kids.

Who? Me? What?
Get your **** together man. Also throw a falsifiable thesis at me.

Quote:

Where is the BOXCUTTER CONSPIRACY THEORIST'S (hereafter known as BCTs) evidence to support the Government story.

So, it seems like what you're referring to is a satirical piece that cleverly sets the official story w/r/t 9/11 against the idea that it in and of itself is a conspiracy theory.

Now, the problem with this line of reasoning works like this:
1)
I've yet to make a single positive claim. Personally, I have no major personal opinions with regards to who did 9/11. Now, as I have no preconceptions to cloud my judgement, and I intend to keep an open mind, so it should be pretty easy to convince me that what you're saying is true, provided that your argument has a leg to stand on. You seem pretty sure of yourself here, so it shouldn't be too hard to articulate a coherent, logical, un-fallacious argument. Oh, but first a falsifiable thesis would be nice, so that I know what we're talking about.

2)
Due to that fact that I have not made a single positive claim, and am a blank canvas to this issue, I have no burden of proof on me. I do not hold a positive belief in the "official story" (or boxcutter theory or whatever), becaue I have yet to do the research.

However, lacking evidence that something is untrue, or that a mutually exclusive alternative to that thing is true (as is the case here) is not evidence for that something. You're still going to need to provide irrefutable evidence, and a coherent argument that meets the previously stated criteria, to convince me. Oh, and a falsifiable thesis would sure be great so I know what we're actually talking about.

EDIT:

Quote:

Still only 4 posts I see.

Yeah, posts inside the introductions section and the lounge don't count towards total post count.

Guybrush · 05-19-2015, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roscoe_the_first

Sort of. But leave it because it's too long and complicated for you.

Depends what you mean by US Government. Let's discuss it, you'll end up running away. They usually do when I hit them with stuff they can't handle and ruffle up their fluffy pink bunny rabbit world. Warning - I've being blowing away smart arse arguments for 13 years. So show me watcha got if you feel up to it? It's one of my hobbies watching smart arses get progressively cut down and their only escape has been to yellow belly out of the argument. My best advice is not to go there in the first place. it will only make you unhappy and me feeling smug - AGAIN.
continuing:-

No. They're made by hideous entities called Art Students

No. Actually Dunno ,Wasn't there. Don't care

No. Not usually.

No. Having said this Darwin says we all descended from Reptiles. Tee Hee

Betcha thought you were being a smart arse. You'll be sorry if you take it any further.

It may result in me being banned when you realise I'm not such a pushover and your comfort zone has been violated. Been there done it many times. and my reaction has always been
Oh Dear - How sad - Never mind - Move on.

I also believe I've made a damn sight more than four posts

The reason I asked you about whether or not you thought there was any truth to those conspiracy theories was I thought such a question might make you show your true colours. If you were a conspiracy nut, that would probably become apparent. Same if you weren't.

Now that you have cemented your position as a nut, I don't really see why I should bother arguing with you at all. To me, you've already lost most of your credibility. Whatever you believe in, I don't care enough to probe around in it.

roscoe_the_first · 05-19-2015, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Who? Me? What?
Get your **** together man. Also throw a falsifiable thesis at me.

So you are not concerned about your compliance with your Government simply due to your failure to question everything they do?

Quote:

So, it seems like what you're referring to is a satirical piece that cleverly sets the official story w/r/t 9/11 against the idea that it in and of itself is a conspiracy theory.

What are you waffling about? You have no evidence it's a theory.

Quote:

]Now, the problem with this line of reasoning works like this:
1)
I've yet to make a single positive claim. Personally, I have no major personal opinions with regards to who did 9/11. Now, as I have no preconceptions to cloud my judgement, and I intend to keep an open mind, so it should be pretty easy to convince me that what you're saying is true, provided that your argument has a leg to stand on. You seem pretty sure of yourself here, so it shouldn't be too hard to articulate a coherent, logical, un-fallacious argument. Oh, but first a falsifiable thesis would be nice, so that I know what we're talking about.

So You'll join us all in calling for a new inquiry then. Or are you accepting the Government's story without question?

Yes come and join us. That's you, me and the Chairman of the 911 Commission Tom Kean

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadChannel

Due to that fact that I have not made a single positive claim, and am a blank canvas to this issue, I have no burden of proof on me. I do not hold a positive belief in the "official story" (or boxcutter theory or whatever), becaue I have yet to do the research.

But you are questioning me Chum instead of the people you should be questioning. This is compliance by remaining silent. So how do you justify blowing the arms and legs off kids. Show me your evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadChannel

However, lacking evidence that something is untrue, or that a mutually exclusive alternative to that thing is true (as is the case here) is not evidence for that something. You're still going to need to provide irrefutable evidence, and a coherent argument that meets the previously stated criteria, to convince me. Oh, and a falsifiable thesis would sure be great so I know what we're actually talking about.

So tell me the FACT that two of the aircraft were flying (one over Pittsburgh) 25 minutes AFTER they had supposedly crashed. Explain that one to me please? pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadChannel

EDIT:

Yeah, posts inside the introductions section and the lounge don't count towards total post count.

Don't care anymore. Not long for this forum anyway.

PS
Hope your day is being made.

DeadChannel · 05-19-2015, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roscoe_the_first

So you are not concerned about your compliance with your Government simply due to your failure to question everything they do?

I'm willing to question all claims made by anyone if they smell fishy. However, you still have not defined what you're proposing as the alternative to the government story. Unless you're simply saying that the evidence for the government story is insufficient, and further research needs to be done. That's fine, but now you're stepping into positive claim territory (xyz is false vs I have no positive belief in xyz, although it may or may not be true), which means that the burden of proof still lies on you. Of course, you could also say "I don't know", which is where your argument stands until you provide (reliably sourced) evidence and a falsifiable thesis.

And, "this is not a theory" is about as positive claimy as it gets.

But, to simplify things for you:
Who is blowing the arms off of kids? Why?

Quote:

What are you waffling about?

The boxcutter theory is the standard government theory, is it not?

Quote:

So You'll join us all in calling for a new inquiry then. Or are you accepting the Government's story without question?

That depends. Will you provide a falsifiable thesis, so that we can get on with looking at evidence for the lack of evidence w/r/t the official story, as well as (if applicable), defining an alternative to said story? We can have a look at the evidence once you tell me what you're trying to prove.

Quote:

But you are questioning me Chum instead of the people you should be questioning. This is compliance by remaining silent. So how do you justify blowing the arms and legs off kids. Show me your evidence?

I'm questioning you because you're the one I'm talking to right now, and you're asking for some pretty big leaps of faith. I have no problem with questioning the other side of the argument, provided that you provide a reason for me. Also, can you please stop avoiding my questions? This is a clear dodge, and you know it.

Quote:

So tell me the FACT that two of the aircraft were flying (one over Pittsburgh) 25 minutes AFTER they had supposedly crashed. Explain that one to me please?

Citation needed.

Edit: you edited your post with a citation, sure, but the 911 pilots for truth is no more a reliable source than something like answers in genesis. For all I know, you made that website just to have something to link to when someone asked for a citation. Otherwise, it's just another person on the internet making claims that also need citations.

Quote:

Don't care anymore. Not long for this forum anyway.

Got turned off by people asking you to justify things before they believe you?

Oh, and what does any of this have to do with the Beatles?

roscoe_the_first · 05-19-2015, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadChannel

That depends. Will you provide a falsifiable thesis, so that we can get on with looking at evidence for the lack of evidence w/r/t the official story, as well as (if applicable), defining an alternative to said story? We can have a look at the evidence once you tell me what you're trying to prove.

How can I provide falsifiable thesis when we haven't had an inquiry? Stop putting the cart before the horse.

Now you provide a justification for all the Government stuff we've seen since 911 and which you feel the need not to question. You'd rather have a go at me instead. Show me the evidence that makes you comfortable with known proven liars.

Quote:

Oh, and what does any of this have to do with the Beatles?

Ask the person who threw the old you're a conspiracy theorist chestnut at me.

Anyway as they say in Russia - Moscow.

Here have this.

youtube.com/watch?v=nUTXb-ga1fo

05-19-2015, 12:54 AM	#81 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	And two of those were done under Northwoods, which was never actually carried out but were events theorized by a house committee. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

05-19-2015, 01:06 AM	#83 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	No attempts at finding context at least? I said a lot more than that. How Frownland feels: false flag operations are possible. However, their likelihood is not high enough to blame every terrorist attack, school shooting, or plane crash on being a false flag op. When there is insurmountable evidence that doesn't quite clearly seem to serve a second party interest, I'll consider a false flag op. In the case of 9/11, the evidence that is put forward to propose ambiguity is agreed up on by actual physicists (which highly outweighs the number of "physicists" who signed up to architects for 9/11 truth) to be a hoax. A false flag is possible, but given the amount of evidence suggesting otherwise I highly doubt that it's the case. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

05-19-2015, 01:27 AM	#85 (permalink)
roscoe_the_first Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 76	Look just ask him where is his justification for blowing the arms and legs off kids. Where is the BOXCUTTER CONSPIRACY THEORIST'S (hereafter known as BCTs) evidence to support the Government story. I suppose you all know how the Boxcutter THEORY came into being. Well it was from Barbara Olson, former Fox News Commentator. She allegedly phoned her Senator husband and said the plane had been hijacked by people with Boxcutters (you know, fly that plane into that building or I'll slash yah!) ERM! Slight problem. During a testiment by an FBI agent at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial the agent testified under oath that Olson's phone had indeed connected to the cell network;.................. FOR ZERO SECONDS That's zero seconds. zilch Nada, F__k all In other words it hadn't connected at all. So the story then switched to oh she must have used the air phone (irrespective of the FACT that the cell listing had shown Olsons number. But errr? Ooooops!!! The air phone was never fitted to that aircraft. Source - American Airlines. Oh dear!!! So let me ask this very simple question again - where is your evidence that justified blowing the arms and legs off kids. Surely you actually have some evidence beyond MUST-HAVE-DONES. Don't you? Oh by the way I have a long list of anomalies like this that need addressing. Still only 4 posts I see. __________________ Roscoe Last edited by roscoe_the_first; 05-19-2015 at 01:56 AM.