OzChess - Australia's Chess Forum - View Single Post

**Hayek** · 05-22-2010, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Axiom

You queried my post on the NIST commissioners , i give unequivocal statements from their own mouths , but now you say they are out of context twisted to suit my meaning !!??
Is there not enough there to support my claim that nist comissioners had serious doubts about their own findings ??

There is real evidence against your claims. You have no valid evidence- I will respond to your quotation as an example:

Originally Posted by Axiom

What do you think Cleland was talking about here : “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”. ?

And how exactly does this quotation tell you that he/she is saying the conspiracy is true? All they are saying is that the White House might be covering some things up. That does NOT mean it was an inside job.

Originally Posted by Axiom

The "cave directed boxcutters" explanation is so full of holes as to be ludicrous.
Why has osama bin laden never been on the fbi's wanted list for 9/11 ?
answer: because they admit there is no evidence linking him to the crime !
How did the cave director get norad to stand down and scramble the jets over the atlantic ?

Why don't you give some actual proof instead of just speculating. Anyone can do what you are doing. And do you really think we are not trying to find Bin Laden?

Originally Posted by Axiom

Study the oklahoma bombing case . You will see that criminal elements within the halls of power have a history of false flag attacks .
Tim Mcveigh himself says it was to discredit the rise of the constitutionalist patriot movement at the time .

And you are now using Mcveigh as a credible source? Would most similar criminals not say the same to make themselves look better?

Originally Posted by Axiom

Remember that people can be convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence alone .
A good detective does not buy the first story he hears ( ubl "guilty" within hours) , he looks at all inconsistencies and "coincidences" he considers context/ history (back-story) , who benefits and he follows the money .
Think of "all war is a racket"-S.Butler and the "threat of the military industrial complex" - D.Eisenhower and consider the wealth ,power and motive for such acts .

A detective also considers everything and while you may have one or two small inconsistencies that fall in line with your grand conspiracy, that does not mean the whole thing is true. When told so many times, any story is bound to have inconsistencies. It is the one that has the least and seems most logical (and has hard scientific evidence- which in this case is there) that is usually the accepted one.

Originally Posted by Axiom

My position on 9/11 is that the official story is so full of holes ,inconsistencies and absurdities , that any clear thinking person once availed of a more full spectrum of the information would conclude that the true real story of 9/11 is significantly different to that of the official fairytale.

on your "academic community taking no notice of" us , you obviously are not aware of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Not only does that site allow anyone to be considered a scholar as it says in the "about" section, but even if there are a couple of educated people on there, that does not mean they are right. Do you really want to play that game? Do you really want me to start naming professors, experts, etc. that DO believe in the official story or atleast something close to it? There is no doubt my numbers will outweigh yours- even you have to admit that.

Originally Posted by Axiom

Why also did you gloss over the list of credible high ranking people who question the official 9/11 story i posted earlier ? Are These 9/11 Whistleblowers Credible?

I followed the first link and was done because it is just more of the same sort of quotation you posted above. Nowhere does the ex-Reagan cabinet member say anything about it being an inside job. Furthermore, if you are going to argue this on ethos alone, then I clearly have the edge as stated in my previous argument. If you want to point out one particular person that you feel is great "proof" of your little story, then go ahead and post it and I will respond. Until now I have not seen anything credible whatsoever. Using your logic, one can make the argument that almost anything in this world is real- and if people believed it, it would tear apart the fabric of all scientific and societal progress over the last 6000 years. Thank God most people think more logically than you do.

05-22-2010, 11:06 AM	#388 (permalink)
Hayek Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 93	Originally Posted by Axiom You queried my post on the NIST commissioners , i give unequivocal statements from their own mouths , but now you say they are out of context twisted to suit my meaning !!?? Is there not enough there to support my claim that nist comissioners had serious doubts about their own findings ?? There is real evidence against your claims. You have no valid evidence- I will respond to your quotation as an example: Originally Posted by Axiom What do you think Cleland was talking about here : “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”. ? And how exactly does this quotation tell you that he/she is saying the conspiracy is true? All they are saying is that the White House might be covering some things up. That does NOT mean it was an inside job. Originally Posted by Axiom The "cave directed boxcutters" explanation is so full of holes as to be ludicrous. Why has osama bin laden never been on the fbi's wanted list for 9/11 ? answer: because they admit there is no evidence linking him to the crime ! How did the cave director get norad to stand down and scramble the jets over the atlantic ? Why don't you give some actual proof instead of just speculating. Anyone can do what you are doing. And do you really think we are not trying to find Bin Laden? Originally Posted by Axiom Study the oklahoma bombing case . You will see that criminal elements within the halls of power have a history of false flag attacks . Tim Mcveigh himself says it was to discredit the rise of the constitutionalist patriot movement at the time . And you are now using Mcveigh as a credible source? Would most similar criminals not say the same to make themselves look better? Originally Posted by Axiom Remember that people can be convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence alone . A good detective does not buy the first story he hears ( ubl "guilty" within hours) , he looks at all inconsistencies and "coincidences" he considers context/ history (back-story) , who benefits and he follows the money . Think of "all war is a racket"-S.Butler and the "threat of the military industrial complex" - D.Eisenhower and consider the wealth ,power and motive for such acts . A detective also considers everything and while you may have one or two small inconsistencies that fall in line with your grand conspiracy, that does not mean the whole thing is true. When told so many times, any story is bound to have inconsistencies. It is the one that has the least and seems most logical (and has hard scientific evidence- which in this case is there) that is usually the accepted one. Originally Posted by Axiom My position on 9/11 is that the official story is so full of holes ,inconsistencies and absurdities , that any clear thinking person once availed of a more full spectrum of the information would conclude that the true real story of 9/11 is significantly different to that of the official fairytale. on your "academic community taking no notice of" us , you obviously are not aware of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice Not only does that site allow anyone to be considered a scholar as it says in the "about" section, but even if there are a couple of educated people on there, that does not mean they are right. Do you really want to play that game? Do you really want me to start naming professors, experts, etc. that DO believe in the official story or atleast something close to it? There is no doubt my numbers will outweigh yours- even you have to admit that. Originally Posted by Axiom Why also did you gloss over the list of credible high ranking people who question the official 9/11 story i posted earlier ? Are These 9/11 Whistleblowers Credible? I followed the first link and was done because it is just more of the same sort of quotation you posted above. Nowhere does the ex-Reagan cabinet member say anything about it being an inside job. Furthermore, if you are going to argue this on ethos alone, then I clearly have the edge as stated in my previous argument. If you want to point out one particular person that you feel is great "proof" of your little story, then go ahead and post it and I will respond. Until now I have not seen anything credible whatsoever. Using your logic, one can make the argument that almost anything in this world is real- and if people believed it, it would tear apart the fabric of all scientific and societal progress over the last 6000 years. Thank God most people think more logically than you do.