Penn and Teller Do 9-11 Conspiracies (caution:Language)

[luckydevil]

I am pretty sure Penn is an anarcho-capitalist.

[fdarugar]

BS is the best show on TV...

[Baculus]

I'm sorry, but I do not think you are in any way willing to be convinced, and I'm tired of trying.

You have yet provided me with any valid information that provides "answers." Perhaps you haven't tried very hard or purveyed convincing information, Predicto.

Trust me, I am not closed minded to ideas.

[Predicto]

You have yet provided me with any valid information that provides "answers." Perhaps you haven't tried very hard or purveyed convincing information, Predicto.

Trust me, I am not closed minded to ideas.

No, you are not. If anything, you are way, way too open-minded to ideas, really. You are willing to accept almost anything as possible, without requiring proof or internal consistency.

As long as a theory cannot be affirmatively and absolutely disproved and there remain no nay-sayers at all in the entire world, then to you, the theory remains just as legitimate as any other. They are all "unproved." This is now you can believe in the Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster, and in 9/11 theories, and in all the other stuff you have discussed before.

Understand this: there is no theory, no matter how silly, that can be absolutely, utterly, completely, thoroughly disproved leaving no possibility of questions that may be asked. It is an impossible standard - you can't prove a negative.

You are a good guy and your posts are fun to read, but you are so sceptical of the common knowledge that you become complely non-sceptical toward any theory questioning the common knowledge. If that makes any sense.

[Baculus]

Understand this: there is no theory, no matter how silly, that can be absolutely, utterly, completely, thoroughly disproved leaving no possibility of questions that may be asked. It is an impossible standard - you can't prove a negative.

You are a good guy and your posts are fun to read, but you are so sceptical of the common knowledge that you become complely non-sceptical toward any theory questioning the common knowledge. If that makes any sense.

Well, I appreciate the kind remarks about my posts, Predicto, and I often feel the same about yours.

The issue is that what's been accepted as "common knowledge" isn't always so accurate. It's like debate on this board where we mentioned Flight 77, and where I was informed that the flight had 200 people on it. Of course, that's incorrect: It had 64 passengers on the flight. Now, that isn't a huge deal, except we are discussing accuracy and correct numbers. And time and time again, I would pose a series of questions, with receiving the usual response of "You are crazy to question the official story" as opposed to providing actual informative data.

Many of my posed questions never received a response, and it usually came down to folks always mentioning the Pentagon missile theory or the "pod" theory as proof of the craziness of any questions concerning 9-11 which are contrary to the official government story.

And that is the issue - I haven't had many responses to my questions, except to assume that small bits of information which passes as "common knowledge" is supposed to "explain it all." I haven't reached a threshold of information because that information hasn't been provided, and that is WHY we have questions! And I researched this subject more so then the average person, and I will know details that many will not surrounding the events of 9-11. Of course, there are others who are more expert than me in regards to this subject.

I can pose an entire series of pointed questions that "common knowlege" will not explain, such as the name of the military exercise on the morning of 9-11 that had simulated terrorist attacks using aircraft. Few folks know this exercise's name, simply because it is not common knowledge, and few know this event even happened.

By the way, Nessie and Big Foot are fun to discuss, but I only take my interest so far with this subject. I am a child of "In Search Of," after all. :-)

[Mad Mike]

Or the latest about Bush wanting the painting planes with UN colors, trying to bait Saddam into shooting them down, so we could turn around and claim he shot down UN planes.

If you believe that BS you will believe anything. Bush, unlike you apparently would know that the U2s that were said to have been considered or any other jet for that mater would not be seen to have any paint job cecause they fly so high they cannot be seen, RADAR is what is used to track aircraft. Bush would know this because he has flown jets. :doh:

That doesn't even take into account that the UN would know they did not lose an aircraft or the fact that Saddam's Iraq shot at all allied aircraft all of the time so no such deception would not be needed.

Bottom line is it's another moronic conspiricy theory cooked up by an idiot who CLAIMS to have an inside source and anyone who believes it is... well... in the effort to be civil, lets just say gullible. :laugh:

And your credibility just went out the window.

[zoony]

If you believe that BS you will believe anything. Bush, unlike you apparently would know that U2s that were said to have been considered or any other jet for that mater would not be seen to have any paint job, RADAR is what is used to track aircraft. Bush would know this because he has flown jets. :doh:

That doesn't even take into account that the UN would know they did not lose an aircraft or the fact that Saddam's Iraq shot at all allied aircraft all of the time so such deception would not be needed.

Bottom line is it's another moronic conspiricy theory cooked up by an idiot who CLAIMS to have an inside source and anyone who believes it is... well... in the effort to be civil, lets just say gullible. :laugh:

And your credibility just went out the window.

Not to mention... who are they gonna get to pilot these planes? :doh:

"Tell you what Bob... if you would, disregard everything we've taught you about avoiding threats and air defenses. We want you to fly right into their air defenses in this bright white plane we painted with UN colors. If they start shooting at you, steer into the bullets, mkay? If you could do that for us, that'd be great."

___________________________________

Honestly I wonder about people sometimes. They will believe anything. And I find it highly ironic that they call us sheep...

You can't talk sense into them though... so don't even try. And if you're just now figuring out that they have no credibility on these subjects... where you been?

[Predicto]

The issue is that what's been accepted as "common knowledge" isn't always so accurate. It's like debate on this board where we mentioned Flight 77, and where I was informed that the flight had 200 people on it. Of course, that's incorrect: It had 64 passengers on the flight. Now, that isn't a huge deal, except we are discussing accuracy and correct numbers. And time and time again, I would pose a series of questions, with receiving the usual response of "You are crazy to question the official story" as opposed to providing actual informative data.

For the record, the person who said the "200" people on that flight was me. It was a brainfart. But it does not change a thing. "64 people don't just disappear in America" is the exact same logical point as "200 people don't just disppear in America."

And that is the issue - I haven't had many responses to my questions, except to assume that small bits of information which passes as "common knowledge" is supposed to "explain it all." I haven't reached a threshold of information because that information hasn't been provided, and that is WHY we have questions! And I researched this subject more so then the average person, and I will know details that many will not surrounding the events of 9-11. Of course, there are others who are more expert than me in regards to this subject.

There are people who claim to be more expert than you, and they will tell you anything. But resumes can be inflated, and even when they aren't, the owners of the resumes can still be full of baloney, or completely deluded. Many self-entitled experts have claimed that Evolution is invalid, but their arguments utterly fail the scientific sniff test.

I can pose an entire series of pointed questions that "common knowlege" will not explain, such as the name of the military exercise on the morning of 9-11 that had simulated terrorist attacks using aircraft. Few folks know this exercise's name, simply because it is not common knowledge, and few know this event even happened.

This is exactly what I am talking about. The name of this military exercise is not significant, if it had a name. It was a minor drill by the National Reconnisaince Office about how to evacuate the building if a planne crashed into it. The NRO is in Chantilly, near Dulles airport. This is what is known as a coincidence, and coincidences happen all the time. The country runs drills all the time. There is absolutely nothing there to make one call into question the basic facts of 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001

Your obsessive focus on the trees has made you lose the Forest around you.

[rincewind]

Not to mention... who are they gonna get to pilot these planes? :doh:

"Tell you what Bob... if you would, disregard everything we've taught you about avoiding threats and air defenses. We want you to fly right into their air defenses in this bright white plane we painted with UN colors. If they start shooting at you, steer into the bullets, mkay? If you could do that for us, that'd be great."

___________________________________

Honestly I wonder about people sometimes. They will believe anything. And I find it highly ironic that they call us sheep...

You can't talk sense into them though... so don't even try. And if you're just now figuring out that they have no credibility on these subjects... where you been?

[NoCalMike]

If you believe that BS you will believe anything. Bush, unlike you apparently would know that the U2s that were said to have been considered or any other jet for that mater would not be seen to have any paint job cecause they fly so high they cannot be seen, RADAR is what is used to track aircraft. Bush would know this because he has flown jets. :doh:

That doesn't even take into account that the UN would know they did not lose an aircraft or the fact that Saddam's Iraq shot at all allied aircraft all of the time so no such deception would not be needed.

Bottom line is it's another moronic conspiricy theory cooked up by an idiot who CLAIMS to have an inside source and anyone who believes it is... well... in the effort to be civil, lets just say gullible. :laugh:

And your credibility just went out the window.

I think the downing street memo is more credible then anyone on this board.

[chomerics]

They're Libertarian, donchaknow?

So is Michael Moore

[chomerics]

Bottom line is it's another moronic conspiricy theory cooked up by an idiot who CLAIMS to have an inside source and anyone who believes it is... well... in the effort to be civil, lets just say gullible. :laugh:

Says the man with a sig of Saddam and 9-11 :rotflmao: You can see the irony dripping off the screen :laugh:

BTW, didn't another poster on ES already dupe the picture a photoshop job? Look at the way two shadows disappear in front of the Saddam picture, or how the lines on the picture aren't parallel.

[Ghost of]

So is Michael Moore

:laugh: As Penn and Teller would say, "B_____!"

Because someone CLAIMS (just as liberal is a stolen word) to be libertarian does not make them so.

[chomerics]

:laugh: As Penn and Teller would say, "B_____!"

Because someone CLAIMS (just as liberal is a stolen word) to be libertarian does not make them so.

:laugh:

Actually, I believe he is quite libertarian. Just because you disagree with Bush and Iraq does not make you liberal, but his stances on guns and big business make him a strange sort of libertarian.

BTW, saw the episode a while ago, great one is the latest on statistics and politicians. It is on on demand for those of you with cable and on demand.

[luckydevil]

Chom

Dude, Moore is a socialist.

Because someone CLAIMS (just as liberal is a stolen word) to be libertarian does not make them so.

Sometimes, I have the same feelings about you

[Ghost of]

:laugh:

Actually, I believe he is quite libertarian. Just because you disagree with Bush and Iraq does not make you liberal, but his stances on guns and big business make him a strange sort of libertarian.

You misunderstand me. He is just not a libertarian. Noam Chomsky claims to be a libertarian socialist but he fools no one.

Moore is anti-gun, by the way. He did once propose a bunch of people join the NRA so that its lobbying stance would be changed (an advocacy that many of my type view as somewhat 'soft' in comparison to GOA.) Even if he is not as fanatical as some, he has none of the classic basic views of capitalism or personal freedom that a libertarian would have.

No dice.

[Mad Mike]

This message is hidden because chomerics is on your ignore list.

I'm sorry, did you say something? :laugh:

[CurseReversed]

Great video!

Here we are pulling off mega-conspiracies on our own people, and Osama gets all the credit, man bush has got to be jealous. I wonder if those audio tapes he puts out referring to the 9/11 attacks are all part of the ongoing conspiracy as well. Or maybe he is just opportunistic and taking credit because he is who bush chose to blame. Or better yet those tapes are probably being manufactured in the pentagon and only imitate osama. Damn Osama is probably living under the Pentagon right now drinking tea with bush and cheney. Its amazing how our govt can perform such elaborate conspiracies involving so many people including Al-Qaeda without leaving a shred of evidence.

I love this game:)

Imagination is fun but without practicality and reality it should never become belief

[unsonny]

great show..............

[Thiebear]

I think the downing street memo is more credible then anyone on this board.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2369298&postcount=104

http://radongas.blogspot.com/2006/02/un-colors.html

Being somewhat of an aviation buff, I have to question the accuracy of these supposed memos (not to mention the intelligence of said "professor") on the basis of the stupidity of the claim of Bush wanting to paint a U2 in "UN Colors" just to goad the world to attack Iraq. Several things to consider:

1) Though the U-2 has become less useful in this age of satellites and cell phones, to suggest that a US president would sacrifice one (not to mention its pilot) is simply stupid. As of 2005 there were only 29 active Air Force aircraft and 5 two-seaters. The two civilian ER-2's are based at the Dryden Flight Research Center. (See photo.)

2) Any "UN" patrol aircraft over the Iraq no-fly zone carry the markings of the nation from which they come (US or UK). Thus American planes enforcing the no-fly zone had... American markings not some "neutral" UN markings, yet they were still designated UN flights.

3) The U-2 is an American-made plane and there are no U2 aircraft in operation for other nations. Every media outlet and reader of Tom Clancy knows this, no "UN colors" would fool anyone.

2) Iraq was already locking-onto and shooting surface to air missles at UN patrols (US and British aircraft.) Iraq was in constant violation of UN resolutions since the end of the first Gulf War. Far from a "rush to war", Iraq's non-compliance and constant defiance of UN resolutions and international law was renowned. There was no need to create a situation.

4) The U-2's operational flight level is 70k ft. Nothing in the Iraqi arsenal, except for other aircraft, can hit something at this flight level. Note also the claim made by the Guardian paper is that the U2 would have fighter escort... at 70,00 ft no fighter could obtain operational flight level to maintain escort.

5) Finally... what are "UN colors"? Since aircraft flying for the UN still maintain their country of origin's markings as well as a UN monogram on the tail. One wonders then how a U-2 spy plane carring US as well as UN markings spur a war with Iraq any more than the constant attacks already occuring

[Destino]

I'm sorry, did you say something? :laugh:

"lalalalala I can't hear you!!" :doh:

[chomerics]

You misunderstand me. He is just not a libertarian. Noam Chomsky claims to be a libertarian socialist but he fools no one.

Moore is anti-gun, by the way. He did once propose a bunch of people join the NRA so that its lobbying stance would be changed (an advocacy that many of my type view as somewhat 'soft' in comparison to GOA.) Even if he is not as fanatical as some, he has none of the classic basic views of capitalism or personal freedom that a libertarian would have.

No dice.

I disagree on the personal freedom views, he is very much in favor of personal freedoms, and that is why I consider him "partially" a libertarian, he has been a fervent opponent of the Patriot Act. It is also why my post was sort of tongue in cheek.

If you really want to delve into his personal views. . . www.michaelmoore.com

But I do agree that he is more along the libertarian socialist as Chomsky.

[chomerics]

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2369298&postcount=104

Bear, what in the world does that post have to do with the Downing Street memos??? The memos were about plans to attack Iraq in August of 02' and this poster references something which is not even contained in the memos. He is using one line from what a professor said as a means to obfuscate the facts for people like yourself. Notice how he doesn;t refer to the memo itself and instead attacks an article?

Read the memo here:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/docs/memotext.pdf

And please show me where you post from a nutjob blog and U2 planes has ANYTHING to do with it.

[Prosperity]

the difference between someone such as Chomsky and more typical libertarians is how they define freedom. Negative liberty (such as no restrictions ie the lack of drug laws and some restrictions on business) vs positive liberty (like empowerment ie, welfare, public education, minimum wage)

[Baculus]

Predicto, I just had a chance to respond to your post and wanted to address a few thoughts:

Many of us are hypocrites and contradictory when it comes to conspiracies and conspiracy theories. Why? Because many of us believe in them in one way or another, and whether we realize it or not. And many of us find ourselves on the believing end of one theory, while quickly professing disbelief of the “other side’s” theories. All the while, never realizing that, indeed, our own pet theories may be incorrect.

First, I wanted to address the idea of "conspiracies," which exist and happen frequently in the Real World. Any time you have some type of plot with more than one person and with a particular objective, it is a conspiracy – this is the root of many crimes. For example, with the conventional explanation of events, we have Bin Laden conspiring to attack via aircraft on 9-11, Iraq conspiring to hide or continue its WMD programs, and in more recent terms, Iran conspiring to build a nuclear weapon. Such conspiracies are often at the root of much of the world's events, whether most people realize it or are willing to admit to this truth.

It is the investigation of such theories where we may indeed find the truth, find ourselves heading down dead end streets or lurching dangerously close into fantasy. And sometimes, when investigating such conspiracies, it requires assembling seemingly unrelated events, persons, or information into a viable explanation. This is typical of crime investigations, where the gathering of details that may not be related, but often add up to creating a theory and motive for such a crime and aids the investigator in the formation of a reasonable hypothesis. If we reject certain information simply because it does not appear to relate to any particular event central to the conspiracy, then our task would be much more difficult since evidence of such activity typically does not have an obvious facade, but more often resembles a spider web of relationships and intrigue.

The U.S. government itself deals with conspiracies, such as the Iraqi invasion partially being justified by the reasoning that Saddam was conspiring to ignore U.N. sanctions and attempting to develop, further, or continue his WMD program. To those who support the Iraqi invasion, they purvey and point to sometimes seemingly unrelated events and investigations as being evidence of the overall Iraqi conspiracy. Also included in the “Saddam” conspiracies is the theory that Saddam was working closely with Al-Qaida, a theory that is rejected by many, but those supporters of the Iraq invasion will maintain that this indeed is the reality of the situation and are willing to provide information to why such theories are justified.

How many of us, who may support one theory or another, would reject the above “official” theories, while also supporting the idea that other “conspiracies” are at the heart of the matter? Even official investigators get caught up in such theories, and these theories in turn may end up on the President’s desk.

It ain’t so easy, or we’d have an agreed-upon series of recent events that would be unquestionably explained for all to see and agree as being “the Truth.”

The opposing theories are that the Bush administration conspired to use events, such as 9-11, to bring forth an aggressive policy in the Middle East. Or we have theories that involve organizations such as PNAC, with the claims that this organization planned the Iraqi invasion years in advance and the latest series of events allowed the PNAC conspirators to execute their longtime goal of deposing Saddam. This is just the tip of the iceberg for such theories, but only provides an example in relationship to this discussion.

Of course, there are those who argue that those explanations are not conspiracy theories, but are in fact conspiracy fact and evidence.

Conspiracy theories are the investigation of many of these events, in particular with government conspiracies, and the proposed reasoning or events that are behind these conspiracies. And such conspiracy theories sometimes become conspiracy fact: Case in point, Iran-Contra and Contra Cocaine. When I first read about these events, they were called conspiracy theories, when, in fact, they were real events that were investigated (and white washed to a degree) by Congress.

How many of your own conspiracy theories to which you profess belief, Predicto?

For the record, the person who said the "200" people on that flight was me. It was a brainfart. But it does not change a thing. "64 people don't just disappear in America" is the exact same logical point as "200 people don't just disappear in America."

I knew you had mentioned the "200" number, but I didn't want to put you on the spot. I never said that even the 64 passengers disappeared, nor did I ever say that they weren't on Flight 77. And I hear folks make statements such as "Why would these passengers go along with a government plot?" which isn't even what anyone has insinuated. But the question of "what happened to the passengers" has always been posed whenever the question of the Pentagon attack is discussed.

There are people who claim to be more expert than you, and they will tell you anything. But resumes can be inflated, and even when they aren't, the owners of the resumes can still be full of baloney, or completely deluded. Many self-entitled experts have claimed that Evolution is invalid, but their arguments utterly fail the scientific sniff test.

I often research folks before deciding if I truly believe their information. Occasionally I’ll Google, find a website that has an article that relates to a discussing, then realize that the site itself is rather dubious though it reposted a well-written article. But I don’t believe just any bit of information I read, or I would probably have complete belief in the official explanation of all events leading up to and since 9-11 and the Iraqi invasion.

This goes both ways and applies to detractors of the 9-11 Truth Movement as well. For example, some will champion the “Popular Mechanics” article as debunking certain 9-11 conspiracy, when in turn this article has been debunked by those who provide more in depth information.

This is exactly what I am talking about. The name of this military exercise is not significant, if it had a name. It was a minor drill by the National Reconnaissance Office about how to evacuate the building if a plane crashed into it. The NRO is in Chantilly, near Dulles airport. This is what is known as a coincidence, and coincidences happen all the time. The country runs drills all the time. There is absolutely nothing there to make one call into question the basic facts of 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_ga...tember_11,_2001

Your obsessive focus on the trees has made you lose the Forest around you

Actually, the name does matter, since naming certain events helps to identify the specific event or leads to further investigation of such an event. For example, if I said “Operation Barbarossa,” many of us would know to which specific event I am referring. In this case, I am referring to “Vigilant Guardian,” which is the better know name of the particular exercise. This exercise actually had several components to it and was functioning in conjunction with other war games such as Global Guardian. Part of the issue is that the 9-11 commission claimed that this exercise was to involve a response to Russian bombers, when in fact it was indeed an exercise that was taking place on the Eastern seaboard. I am unsure why the 9-11 Commission didn’t seem to be able to correctly explain the nature of this particular exercise.

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1a012802.html

This page covers the various exercises that were occurring on 9-11:

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1a012802.html

The purpose of discussing these exercises is to demonstrate the reason why a military response may have been confused or paralyzed, either by sheer coincidence of these exercises happening on 9-11, or, as theorized, that such exercises were planned to affect the military responses in the mid-Atlantic to the hijackings.

I am a researcher by nature, and sometimes, quite focused. But obsessed? Perhaps just enough to dig until I feel I have found the heart of the matter to my satisfaction. I will say, though, that I have biases and pet theories as much as anyone else, but I try to use some rationale to my investigations.