|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| JMO wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
Did the ex-pres submit any evidence for his assertion? That seems a reasonable first question.
Personally I don't think a simple appeal to authority is a very good argument. |
i agree.
i haven't read a follow up.
this doesn't get ANY attention from the MSM just like everything else.
ex president of ITALY calls 9-11 an inside job and dubs it a well known fact in the intelligence agencies around the world and no one even bats an eye.
isnt this strangee????? |
what are you implying? If you are implying that the MSM(mainstream media i assume) are ignoring stories that go against the consensus opinion on this, you would like wise need to provide evidence. Why would the media ignore a story that is corroborated with evidence? If it could be proven that the CIA planned 911, it would probably be the biggest story ever. It is extremely improbable that the story wouldn't come out or that the media would ignore it. |
| Quote: |
| It is extremely improbable that the story wouldn't come out or that the media would ignore it. |
always?...or just this for this situation? |
always extremely improbable. A story of this magnitude is gold dust. To suggest that the mainstream media is being intimidated/bought off is just giving more power to the conspirators(an unlikely amount of power). Really you are telling me that President Clinton cannot keep head in the oval office a secret but that this admin can keep the whole of the mainstream media in line. that is plainly ridiculous. The problem with conspiracies such as this is that as they become more grand, more and more power has to be attributed to the conspiracy, whilst we are simutaneously expected to believe that they are stupid enough to leave all these 'clues' and 'evidence'. There is a definite contradiction at the heart of any grand conspiracy. |
so what you are saying is that the media would never keep such a big story a secret from the public?
and this isn't just for 9-11, it is for anything of such magnitude? |
I suppose it would depend on the context. In today's massive media age i suspect it would be nigh on impossible. Have you got an example you would like to share with us? |
what about a story like this....
FBI or CIA employee knows some important dirt relating to 9-11.
The employee is gag-ordered and released.
Now the former employee wants to go public with the information he or she has.
MSM will not touch her.
how about that situation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
enns
Joined: 02 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
your argument is meaningless until you attack CDT arguments instead of their characters.
don't you see the fallacy in your argument?
i will take you seriously when you make a charge against their theories, not their positions in society.
until then you are simply percieved as being ignorant, lazy, or uneducated. |
Joo has already schooled you in these "theories", another voice of reason is not needed.
Let's not pretend that you and I can have a serious debate on issues of structural engineering or physics anyway. We are not the experts. And yes, in a conspiracy debate the credentials and credibility of the messenger is as important as what he is purporting to be true.
These "truthers" tend to try and win arguments through attrition rather than reason. Throwing up articles published in obscure magazines from third rate scientists to try and prove their case, all the while ignoring what the plethora of experts are saying. "Truthers" will never gain credibility, no matter how many talk shows they storm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enns wrote: |
| Quote: |
your argument is meaningless until you attack CDT arguments instead of their characters.
don't you see the fallacy in your argument?
i will take you seriously when you make a charge against their theories, not their positions in society.
until then you are simply percieved as being ignorant, lazy, or uneducated. |
Joo has already schooled you in these "theories", another voice of reason is not needed.
Let's not pretend that you and I can have a serious debate on issues of structural engineering or physics anyway. We are not the experts. And yes, in a conspiracy debate the credentials and credibility of the messenger is as important as what he is purporting to be true.
These "truthers" tend to try and win arguments through attrition rather than reason. Throwing up articles published in obscure magazines from third rate scientists to try and prove their case, all the while ignoring what the plethora of experts are saying. "Truthers" will never gain credibility, no matter how many talk shows they storm. |
make a charge.
lets talk facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
Some time back, the so called "truthers" were asked to present direct evidence. You know, the type of evidence a self-respecting judge would accept in their courtroom. But alas, they couldn't. All we saw were some photos of arrows and explosions. Then they come up with the names of some obscure engineers and architects who haven't got any connection to the WTC or 9/11. The only thing they've got in common is their hatred for Bush.
Click here to see what the world really thinks of the 'truther' brigade.
Screw Loose Change puts all of there arguments to rest, too. |
direct evidence for what?
|
This nonsense.
| Quote: |
| the science stands up for controlled demolition theory. |
| Quote: |
I assume he wanted direct evidence that a certain person or persons did it. that does not exist.
|
Of course, there's not.
| Quote: |
| however there is PLENTY of evidence showing that a crime occurred. |
Invoices, release documents, signatures... paper trails?
| Quote: |
investigations go like this.
what happened? how did it happen? who did it? |
There were two giant commercial airliners that crashed into the WTC. Enough KE and PE to take out more than entire square block. That's good enough for me.
| Quote: |
| not the other way around. |
Exactly, so I would suggest you stop using the reverse scientific method. Your case is built on anomalies and your rebuttals are based on anomalies.
| Quote: |
| you posting screw loose change only demonstrates the very little knowledge you have on this subject. |
Okay fine, you can read Popular Mechanics too. In fact, I would urge everyone to read PM. It's a legnthy read, but it puts all of this 'truther' nonsense to rest.
| Quote: |
in fact such demonstrates that you belong in the sheep pen with the majority of Americans at the moment.
until then get back to your hay. |
Whatever  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
Some time back, the so called "truthers" were asked to present direct evidence. You know, the type of evidence a self-respecting judge would accept in their courtroom. But alas, they couldn't. All we saw were some photos of arrows and explosions. Then they come up with the names of some obscure engineers and architects who haven't got any connection to the WTC or 9/11. The only thing they've got in common is their hatred for Bush.
Click here to see what the world really thinks of the 'truther' brigade.
Screw Loose Change puts all of there arguments to rest, too. |
direct evidence for what?
|
This nonsense.
| Quote: |
| the science stands up for controlled demolition theory. |
| Quote: |
I assume he wanted direct evidence that a certain person or persons did it. that does not exist.
|
Of course, there's not.
| Quote: |
| however there is PLENTY of evidence showing that a crime occurred. |
Invoices, release documents, signatures... paper trails?
| Quote: |
investigations go like this.
what happened? how did it happen? who did it? |
There were two giant commercial airliners that crashed into the WTC. Enough KE and PE to take out more than entire square block. That's good enough for me.
| Quote: |
| not the other way around. |
Exactly, so I would suggest you stop using the reverse scientific method. Your case is built on anomalies and your rebuttals are based on anomalies.
| Quote: |
| you posting screw loose change only demonstrates the very little knowledge you have on this subject. |
Okay fine, you can read Popular Mechanics too. In fact, I would urge everyone to read PM. It's a legnthy read, but it puts all of this 'truther' nonsense to rest.
| Quote: |
in fact such demonstrates that you belong in the sheep pen with the majority of Americans at the moment.
until then get back to your hay. |
Whatever |
lets cut to the chase.
if i could show that a certain characteristic is impossible under the official story yet possible only under controlled demolition alone, would you consider that direct evidence for controlled demolition?
not evidence that a certain person did it, just that demolition was present.
does that sound reasonable under what we understand as science? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
what about a story like this....
FBI or CIA employee knows some important dirt relating to 9-11.
The employee is gag-ordered and released.
Now the former employee wants to go public with the information he or she has.
MSM will not touch her.
how about that situation? |
Do you know of such a situation? In the current climate it would improbable that all the msn would not touch her. Why wouldn't they? Obviously in a specific situation we would hav to know the ins and outs. Is she a reliable witness, does she have evidence, how much, etc.
If someone could pin 911 on the FBI/CIA it is extremely improbable that they would not be reported in the msm. If this is the kind of evidence you mean in this case, she would be on the front page of every paper 3 days later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
what about a story like this....
FBI or CIA employee knows some important dirt relating to 9-11.
The employee is gag-ordered and released.
Now the former employee wants to go public with the information he or she has.
MSM will not touch her.
how about that situation? |
Do you know of such a situation? In the current climate it would improbable that all the msn would not touch her. Why wouldn't they? Obviously in a specific situation we would hav to know the ins and outs. Is she a reliable witness, does she have evidence, how much, etc.
If someone could pin 911 on the FBI/CIA it is extremely improbable that they would not be reported in the msm. If this is the kind of evidence you mean in this case, she would be on the front page of every paper 3 days later. |
you'd think so. but......
peep this:
| Quote: |
| Sibel Deniz Edmonds (born 1970 in Iran) is a Turkish-American[1][2][3] former FBI translator and founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). Edmonds was fired from her position as a language specialist at the FBI's Washington Field Office in March, 2002, after she accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving foreign nationals, alleging serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence which, she contended, presented a danger to the United States' security. Since that time, court proceedings on her whistleblower claims have been blocked by the assertion of State Secrets Privilege. |
(wiki)
| Quote: |
| In fact, as the ACLU first described her, she's "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America". |
http://agonist.org/tina/20071029/sibel_edmonds_readt_to_tell_all
she is now ready to talk to any MSM network.
current story here:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2498
Nobody will touch her.
She announced she would speak and face being charged, however.....
Nobody will touch her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I googled her name and found a Washington post article and a vanity fair article on her wikipedia page. I'm sure if the story was bigger(related directly to a 911 conspiracy as we were talking about) it would be even bigger. Even so, two mainstream outlets covered it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| I googled her name and found a Washington post article and a vanity fair article on her wikipedia page. I'm sure if the story was bigger(related directly to a 911 conspiracy as we were talking about) it would be even bigger. Even so, two mainstream outlets covered it. |
they covered her when she wasn't willing to talk.
she is willing now.
no one knows what info she has because no MSM network will take her on.
she says she has evidence but no MSM network will interview her now.
to further my point. she has been called the "most gagged" person in history by the MSM.
However, they won't interview her to find out exactly what information she has.
She is NOW willing to speak.
If she is the most gagged person in history, don't you think she has something of importance to say? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In this day and age of blogs, if she really had anything relevant to say, she'd put it on a blog and the whole wired universe would know it in 10 seconds. What she has is about legitimate government secrets that the media doesn't see a reason to challenge the government on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| In this day and age of blogs, if she really had anything relevant to say, she'd put it on a blog and the whole wired universe would know it in 10 seconds. What she has is about legitimate government secrets that the media doesn't see a reason to challenge the government on. |
you are right.
she is waiting for the MSM.
she doesn't want it to become internet gossip and discredit her story.
but...
she will probably have to do that soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| I googled her name and found a Washington post article and a vanity fair article on her wikipedia page. I'm sure if the story was bigger(related directly to a 911 conspiracy as we were talking about) it would be even bigger. Even so, two mainstream outlets covered it. |
they covered her when she wasn't willing to talk.
she is willing now.
no one knows what info she has because no MSM network will take her on.
she says she has evidence but no MSM network will interview her now.
to further my point. she has been called the "most gagged" person in history by the MSM.
However, they won't interview her to find out exactly what information she has.
She is NOW willing to speak.
If she is the most gagged person in history, don't you think she has something of importance to say? |
maybe..if they would write about it before, they would after. Maybe its just not that interesting. It seems odd that she wouldn't just put it online.
After she puts it out there, and she has strong evidence behind her claims, I am certain that major outlets would pick it up. Maybe she doesn't.
This tells us nothing on whether a MSM would print a story about a 911 conspiracy. In fact it shows us that all a person(with evidence) needs to do is start a blog. in the end you are assuming the reason that no-one has picked up her story(after she said she would talk) is because of the gag, when there could be other reasons. We don't even know if she has any interesting info or whether it is newsworthy. You seem to take the strongest interpretation and run with it.
As in the case of the guy looking for Osama, why not wait and see. If her info is as newsworthy as you say, it will appear in a major outlet.
*actually that vanity fair article seems to contain most of her accusations and that blog is from march last year(i think thats the date) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| I googled her name and found a Washington post article and a vanity fair article on her wikipedia page. I'm sure if the story was bigger(related directly to a 911 conspiracy as we were talking about) it would be even bigger. Even so, two mainstream outlets covered it. |
they covered her when she wasn't willing to talk.
she is willing now.
no one knows what info she has because no MSM network will take her on.
she says she has evidence but no MSM network will interview her now.
to further my point. she has been called the "most gagged" person in history by the MSM.
However, they won't interview her to find out exactly what information she has.
She is NOW willing to speak.
If she is the most gagged person in history, don't you think she has something of importance to say? |
maybe..if they would write about it before, they would after. Maybe its just not that interesting. It seems odd that she wouldn't just put it online.
After she puts it out there, and she has strong evidence behind her claims, I am certain that major outlets would pick it up. Maybe she doesn't.
This tells us nothing on whether a MSM would print a story about a 911 conspiracy. In fact it shows us that all a person(with evidence) needs to do is start a blog. in the end you are assuming the reason that no-one has picked up her story(after she said she would talk) is because of the gag, when there could be other reasons. We don't even know if she has any interesting info or whether it is newsworthy. You seem to take the strongest interpretation and run with it.
As in the case of the guy looking for Osama, why not wait and see. If her info is as newsworthy as you say, it will appear in a major outlet.
*actually that vanity fair article seems to contain most of her accusations and that blog is from march last year(i think thats the date) |
my point is that she is the most gagged in history, and is willing to talk to MSM.
Why hasn't anyone taken her up on her offer considering her gag order status...seems juicy to me.
But yeah, she needs to get past this hurdle and do something else.
Blog it...or share info with certain government officials.
You are right though, it will develop if indeed it is so gaggable (?sp??).
So far not by the mainstream media though. That was after all my point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| she didn't even join the govt until after 9-11 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| she didn't even join the govt until after 9-11 |
right about the same time investigations were occurring......thanks for that tidbit joo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
