The 9/11 Forum

What the...

Oystein wrote:What the...

Indeed.

And I'm not going to apologize for being utterly disgusted with "VicSims".

Like birther claims, one could theoretically spend an infinite amount of time chasing down every absurd claim, every conjecture, every seemingly exciting unexplained discrepancy, which all on closer inspection turn out to be trivial and overblown, while expending vast amounts of time and resources, which could have been spent on essential matters instead.

But it's worse than that.

'VicSims' isn't just a waste of time, it's a deliberately crafted, monumental insult to the deceased, and as such an excellent wedge-driving tool that causes me to question not the ludicrous claims made but their inventors.

Far be it from me to suggest this is motivated by more than intricately and meticulously designed delusions, caused by the very pitfalls I warned against, on the basis of just a hunch instead of direct evidence, but at the very least I have to conclude that these efforts amount to nothing more than insane trolling.

Trolling is a vampiric phenomenon, sucking the life blood out of genuine citizen inquiry. In the past, trolling tended to be confined to Usenet and IRC, but as time passed and the internet became an all-pervasive, global phenomenon, it eventually found its way into the 9/11 Truth Movement as well.

And how.

And the above, is only the most charitable explanation I can muster, the motivation for Jayhan and his ilk being obsessive compulsive contrarianism, descending into pathological monothematic delusion.

i have absolutely no idea what you pair are talking about, flaunting your feigned outrage about some spelling error i cannot even locate, still lets get down to exactly how firmly you believe the passport survived the deft landing by atta thru window 33c.

if i offered you as bookmaker evens 2k that no evidence, of evidence planting would be categorically proven in the next 10 years, would you take it.

or

are you so absolutely convinced there is zero possibility of the passport being a plant, you would offer me a million, to a 1 dollar bet.


ofcourrse you wouldnt do either, if i asked for just 10 dollars at 10,ooo/1, would you accept, again i doubt it.


put it another way, will you give me 100/1 on 100 dollars, if not you are conceeding that you really do not believe your own advertising, and you are not at all sure that everything may not be as it appears at face value, the 100 bucks is waiting, pm to fine tune the details, and who you will deposit the promissory note for 10k with.

i only want 100/1

manxman wrote:i have absolutely no idea what you pair are talking about, flaunting your feigned outrage about some spelling error i cannot even locate,

Nowhere in my 'feigned' outrage did I mention that it was due to a 'spelling error'.

manxman wrote:still lets get down to exactly how firmly you believe the passport survived the deft landing by atta thru window 33c.

Covered extensively here, here, here and here.

The onus is on you to prove planting, not the other way around.

manxman wrote:if i offered you as bookmaker evens 2k that no evidence, of evidence planting would be categorically proven in the next 10 years, would you take it.

or

are you so absolutely convinced there is zero possibility of the passport being a plant, you would offer me a million, to a 1 dollar bet.


ofcourrse you wouldnt do either, if i asked for just 10 dollars at 10,ooo/1, would you accept, again i doubt it.


put it another way, will you give me 100/1 on 100 dollars, if not you are conceeding that you really do not believe your own advertising, and you are not at all sure that everything may not be as it appears at face value, the 100 bucks is waiting, pm to fine tune the details, and who you will deposit the promissory note for 10k with.

i only want 100/1

I don't do these bets. (And taunting me with them will get you reported) This is between you and Oystein.

This is fundamentally a question of you making your case, and you haven't outside yet outside of classic falsification-speculation. Falsification-speculation isn't evidence, rather it's a fundamental, fatal reasoning error.

The onus is on someone to prove the evidence is bogus? Why is that? It seems to this observer that there is reasonable doubt that the evidence is real and not planted.

But more than that... who cares? If you want to establish the that some one was on the plane that flew into the towers... first prove what plane it was... then prove that it was board by the passenger in question. There should be lots of evidence which can establish this without a found or planted passport.

Let's see it.

SnowCrash wrote:

manxman wrote:i have absolutely no idea what you pair are talking about, flaunting your feigned outrage about some spelling error i cannot even locate,

Nowhere in my 'feigned' outrage did I mention that it was due to a 'spelling error'.

manxman wrote:still lets get down to exactly how firmly you believe the passport survived the deft landing by atta thru window 33c.

Covered extensively here, here, here and here.

The onus is on you to prove planting, not the other way around.

manxman wrote:if i offered you as bookmaker evens 2k that no evidence, of evidence planting would be categorically proven in the next 10 years, would you take it.

or

are you so absolutely convinced there is zero possibility of the passport being a plant, you would offer me a million, to a 1 dollar bet.


ofcourrse you wouldnt do either, if i asked for just 10 dollars at 10,ooo/1, would you accept, again i doubt it.


put it another way, will you give me 100/1 on 100 dollars, if not you are conceeding that you really do not believe your own advertising, and you are not at all sure that everything may not be as it appears at face value, the 100 bucks is waiting, pm to fine tune the details, and who you will deposit the promissory note for 10k with.

i only want 100/1

I don't do these bets. (And taunting me with them will get you reported) This is between you and Oystein.

This is fundamentally a question of you making your case, and you haven't outside yet outside of classic falsification-speculation. Falsification-speculation isn't evidence, rather it's a fundamental, fatal reasoning error.

all that to a post aimed at oysten, and i am still in the dark as to the disgracefully disrespectful spelling of victims, that prompted such an out-burst of moral outrage, what exactly are the pair of you on about.


and oysten was the one making offers of cash bets,, i am just fully willing to look at his terms and conditions via pm, ofcourse he didnt realise who he was dealing with.

heres just one example



Careful. During the last year I have offered CTers several bets for money, my bid typically ranging in the 200-2000 Euros range (is that 300-3000 US$? Would have to check current exchange rate). Sometimes I would even accept if my opponent offered only 10% of my bid if he loses. The funny thing is, not a single of the conspiracy theorists ever accepted the offer to bet. Which tells me they all knew they'd end up losing money.



his terms and conditions will reveal the strengh of his belief, i have also done a thread search for vicsims, and only you and oysten have typed the word, and so i am still in the dark as too the several posts about it.

SanderO wrote:The onus is on someone to prove the evidence is bogus? Why is that? It seems to this observer that there is reasonable doubt that the evidence is real and not planted.

But more than that... who cares? If you want to establish the that some one was on the plane that flew into the towers... first prove what plane it was... then prove that it was board by the passenger in question. There should be lots of evidence which can establish this without a found or planted passport.

Let's see it.

First, I suggest you read through this, too.

Of course, the flight manifest is the primary evidence Suqami was on the plane. Myths about the flight manifests addressed here.

We have calls from flight attendants Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney, a radio transmission from Mohammed Atta, and DNA identification of two hijackers aboard flight 11:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/01/nyreg ... h-dna.html

As for what kind of planes they were, at least the second plane can be readily identified as a United Airlines 767:





DNA identification of hijackers is difficult; their family members simply do not want to provide DNA samples, out of shame. Supplying DNA evidence would be, in their view, tantamount to assisting in destroying their own reputation and the reputation of their son/brother etc.

Little known fact: UA 175 had to change course to avoid AA 11:


His last moments alive, pilot Victor Saracini visually identified AA 11 to Air Traffic Control:



Notice this interesting photo from 911myths:



About the photo, Mike Williams asserts:

This photo had an interesting caption: "The original caption reads "On Albany Street, two blocks south of WTC 2, Two men examine a seat cushion from AA Flight 11. 8:52 a.m." Another flammable object that's made it out of the towers in a recognisable state. What's more, you can see how the debris stands out. The green object in front of the men looks the approximate size of a passport, for instance, and you can easily imagine it catching the eye of a passer-by.

Of course, Suqami's family has never seen him alive again, because he's as dead as a doorknob.

Taken together, a hijacking with Suqami on board is quite credible. He is, of course, featured in Al Qaeda propaganda material.

Typically, to prevent having to cope with all of this evidence, the fakery is expanded to include all evidence contradicting the initial fakery claim.

I'm not categorically against rational doubts about the passport's provenance. Even if Suqami was on the plane and hijacking it, it could still have been planted to grease the evidentiary cogwheels.

But please use positive, direct evidence for planting instead of relying on falsification-speculation.

manxman wrote:if i offered you as bookmaker evens 2k that no evidence, of evidence planting would be categorically proven in the next 10 years, would you take it.

or

are you so absolutely convinced there is zero possibility of the passport being a plant, you would offer me a million, to a 1 dollar bet.


ofcourrse you wouldnt do either, if i asked for just 10 dollars at 10,ooo/1, would you accept, again i doubt it.


put it another way, will you give me 100/1 on 100 dollars, if not you are conceeding that you really do not believe your own advertising, and you are not at all sure that everything may not be as it appears at face value, the 100 bucks is waiting, pm to fine tune the details, and who you will deposit the promissory note for 10k with.

i only want 100/1

manxman,

this is already on public record:

Oystein wrote:Your idea, to check 30 years down the road, has the nice advantage for you that we won't actually check it out 30 years down the road to settle the bet, so you can maintain the illusion that you'd win. However, I'd have no problem to bet 200 on this and would accept if you bet only 20. Odds are certainly much more in my favour than that. Yep, my claim is as cheap as yours, the difference being I am committing real money here and now.

Oystein wrote:I'd rather agree upon a convertible currency that stands a chance of having had continuous real value 30 years down the road :p
Maybe we could agree on betting a certain amount of gold that is now worth 200 Euros or whatever a near and round amount in manx pound notes you may suggest.

I was basically waiting for you to accept my terms, and meet my offer with one from you. I have put 200 Euros in gold on the table. I have said I'd be ok if you offered only 20 Euros (one for ten). Of course, with such an offer, you would document for all to see how little faith you have in your conviction, so maybe you want to man up and equal my 200, or show your confidence by meeting my 200 with 2000 of yours, and then you'll see where I go with this.

But please do not pretend like I haven't already expressed my confidence on this matter!

By the way: The object was this:

manxman wrote:look at it this way what odds would you give me on a 10 dollar bet, i say within 30 years the passport will be proven to be a plant, motive is irrelevant,what odds would you furnish me with acting as my turf accountant.

Naturally, I would have no problem if you change these 30 years to 10 years.


For all who are nor manxman but read this: Yeah, I know. Ridiculous. It's just a tedious way of saying "I, for one, am really 95% or more confident that the passport find was genuine", and that I'd back that up with money if that was what it took to convince someone. Placing bets on events 10 or 30 years in the future is of course as good as not betting at all, but it wasn't my ida, it was manxman's.

What SnowCrash wrote: Of course there is a probability slightly larger than zero that the passport was planted (or the report of its finding invented), even if all the rest of the hijacker's story is correct. That's why no one in his right mind would wage a million. I wouldn't accept if manxman offered a million on his position, for the same reason.

The only mind that will be changed is the mind of an "open-minded" person, a disinterested person, a curious person.

A person acting out of good faith and a strong belief system will not change his mind.

I changed my mind in about 2005, having believed the official story (with questions) for years.

A person who believes in the beneficence of government and believes it is not corrupt at all levels will never change his mind. Human nature and psychological defense mechanisms are in play.

Heretic76, I have a method I use to determine truth and factuality and it's not specifically motivated by either trust or distrust in government but rather principles of science, journalism, epistemology, historiography, philosophical skepticism and logic.

I don't know about Oystein, but earlier I already condemned the nature of the current US government. I'd gladly complain about my own government or the EU, too.

There is no question in my mind there was a 9/11 cover up.

I lean towards (elements of) the USG allowing 9/11 to happen, too.

Heretic76 wrote:...
A person who believes in the beneficence of government and believes it is not corrupt at all levels will never change his mind. Human nature and psychological defense mechanisms are in play.

I think you are a bit vague here, or you are making assumptions, but I don't want to guess. So would you please elucidate: Were you talking about me there? If so, could you please make explicit the assumptions you have about me? Thanks.

We know that there was a cover up because parts of the NIST explanation is factually wrong... and their conclusion(s) would therefore be wrong. Same is true for AE911T.

SanderO wrote:We know that there was a cover up because parts of the NIST explanation is factually wrong... and their conclusion(s) would therefore be wrong. Same is true for AE911T.

You are wrong.

What are you covering up?!?



i.o.w.: Non Sequitur

Excuse me? You think that the entire NIST report is error free?

I suppose you don't recall their early pancake collapse nonsense... and their final explanation that the trusses sagged from heat weakening the steel, but still had sufficient strength to pull the facade box columns inward? You don't believe that nonsense is factual do you? And this pulling was uniform through the floor so that the facade lost support on all four sides at the same time so that it more or less came straight down ... except off set to by pass all the columns below? So what was the NIST explanation for the collapse?

Do you believe that the girder and the beams and the shear studs welded to them at column 79 caused the total collapse of bldg 7 when they stretched from heating and the one girder walked off the beam seat at column 79? You think that is a good explanation for the building collapse?

Get real dude... NIST covered up the design *decisions* which ultimately allowed all three towers to collapse. And they were not the only ones to avoid the implications of the design decisions.