NOT going to Disneyland.........

[dlongo]

Should Thomas Jefferson and George Washington have left America because they did not like the British Rule?

Does this "love it or leave it rule" apply to everyone or just Americans?

I suppose you think Martin Luther King Jr. was unpartriotic since he often criticized U.S. Foreign Policy.

hmmm. Somehow it's hard to imagine that were any of these great men alive today, they would be spending a lot of time trolling on an automotive related internet discussion board.

 

[Number9]

These posts have reached the point where an old fortune (from the unix program by that name) might be applicable:
"Never argue with a fool - others might not be able to tell the difference..."

In less PC terms, the modern restatement is as follows: "Arguing on the internet is like participating in the Special Olympics - even if you win, you're still a retard..." (apologies to those who know or otherwise work with the developmentally disabled).

Let's just put the relevant people in our respective .ignore lists and let this thread go gentle into that good night. At least that's what I've done.

 

[Sig]

BTW, I just want to say something here:

I didn't register for NSX Prime so I can discuss the 9/11 Attacks or if the Iraq war was necessary. I registered so I can discuss my new car.

LOL!

 

[Eric5273]

I can't. I sit in an intelligence vault, and I've seen overwhelming evidence to indicate all of this. I'm (of course) not allowed to post it, so I'm going to have to live with the fact that I'll not convince you of this. No big deal to me, but you don't know what you don't know and I'll leave it at that. My internet is a lot bigger than your is, hint hint.

I just wanted to take this in another direction to completely wipe out any credibility of the government's story with one article.

Read this article:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayjarrah.html

The article of course gives links to all its sources, and as you can see, they are all major news sorces: Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, CNN, Chicago Tribune, BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, Miami Herald, CBC, and even the FBI themselves.

I'll quote that main part that applies:

On September 27, 2001, after all of these stories came out in the media, FBI Director Robert Mueller still could only state, "We are fairly certain of a number of them." [Sun Sentinel, 9/28/01] But since then the list of hijackers has not changed. On November 2, 2001, Mueller stated, "We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible,'' and claimed that they were sticking with the names and photos released in late September. [AP, 11/03/02] Yet in a number of cases, such as Ahmed Alnami and Waleed Alshehri, all the released pictures are clearly wrong!

It is clear that many - and perhaps all - of the hijackers were using stolen identities. This is not so surprising. "The primer that Osama bin Laden's organization gave to would-be terrorists included rules for an undercover member: Don't reveal your true name." [Miami Herald, 9/22/01] Yet over and over we hear of the 9/11 hijackers using their real names for everything, even buying their plane tickets in their supposed real names. "In the end, they left a curiously obvious trail -- from martial arts manuals, maps, a Koran, Internet and credit card fingerprints. Maybe they were sloppy, maybe they didn't care, maybe it was a gesture of contempt of a culture they considered weak and corrupt." [Miami Herald, 9/22/01] Why not consider that maybe it was done on purpose? The surprising thing is not that they used stolen identities: the surprise is that the FBI continues to believe in the false trail of evidence and the false identities.

Just one question: Since at least some of the hijackers were using false identities, then how can the FBI link them to Al-Queda if they do not even know who they really are?

 

[nsxtasy]

Eric, you're missing something that's pretty obvious to most people.

There is no reason for someone to conceal his identity if he's planning to commit suicide as part of the plot.

Sheesh...

 

[Viper Driver]

It has become clear to me that I am not dealing with a person who serves to engage in meaningful debate. Instead, whole entire posts are ignored when no rebuttal is possible. Eric, you are a troll, plain and simple. Either acknowledge my points as being valid, rebut them, or quit adding to my thread. I'm not going to go down another piddly rabbit trail with you when the debate is far from over on the ones we're already discussing.

If you fail to answer my posts and address my points, then I'll assume that I am the victor in this pissing contest. Shortly, I am sad to say, you'll probably be the first addition to my "ignore" list as well. Life is too short to try and convince a moron that the sky is blue.

Have a great evening.

 

[Eric5273]

There is no reason for someone to conceal his identity if he's planning to commit suicide as part of the plot.

Sheesh...

You are correct. Obviously there was something else going on then and they were not planning to commit suicide but make it look like someone else did.

Did you read the article? Do you think the BBC and LA Times and all the other newspapers lied when they said they interviewed these various hijackers after 9/11? What is your explanation for the fact that 7 of the 19 hijackers on the FBI's website are still alive? They are alive and well and have been interviewed and a few have even been on television talk shows in Europe.

 

[Tom Larkins]

I just wanted to take this in another direction to completely

Eric, you lost me with your offensive wallpaper post, Andy's thread "pick A or B" and now this......and you say you joined this forum to talk about your NSX and not get slammed by other forum members about your opinions. Have you read some of the things that you've posted here. You have pressed some buttons around here if yo havn't noticed. Do the responses tell you anything at all and now you want to go another direction??????

 

[Viper Driver]

Have you read some of the things that you've posted here. You have pressed some buttons around here if yo havn't noticed. Do the responses tell you anything at all and now you want to go another direction??????

Eric isn't interested in meaningful debate. That's why he changes the subject so often. Trolls are attention whores, and if you ignore them they will go away.

Reposted for the selectively illiterate (Eric):

It has become clear to me that I am not dealing with a person who serves to engage in meaningful debate. Instead, whole entire posts are ignored when no rebuttal is possible. Eric, you are a troll, plain and simple. Either acknowledge my points as being valid, rebut them, or quit adding to my thread. I'm not going to go down another piddly rabbit trail with you when the debate is far from over on the ones we're already discussing.

If you fail to answer my posts and address my points, then I'll assume that I am the victor in this pissing contest. Shortly, I am sad to say, you'll probably be the first addition to my "ignore" list as well. Life is too short to try and convince a moron that the sky is blue.

Have a great evening.

 

[Eric5273]

It has become clear to me that I am not dealing with a person who serves to engage in meaningful debate. Instead, whole entire posts are ignored when no rebuttal is possible.

I answered all the parts of your posts that I am capable of. I am no aviation expert and I do not know the answer to many of the questions you asked.

You keep calling these points I make "YOUR THEORIES" as if I am the one who came up with them. I am simply someone who reads what others write. I am not a researcher.

When someone presents evidence, it either makes sense to me or it does not. Of course it is possible that some of the evidence presented is false, as you pointed out an inaccuracy in the Portugese article. But I do not take the assumption that the government is right unless proved wrong -- an assumption that most Americans do take. The government has simply lied too many times in the past to be trusted. Don't you agree?

I take the assumption that I have no idea what happened until I see evidence, and so far the only evidence I have seen supports the theory of government involvement, or at least that they were aware and let it happen.

BTW, the theory of government involvement is not the "conspiracy theory". All theories about what happened 9/11 are "conspiracy theories", even the government's theory. Last time I checked, they were trying Zacarias Moussaoui for "conspiracy to committ mass murder", meaning he was part of the 9/11 conspiracy. So yes, no matter what you believe happened on 9/11, you are a conspiracy theorist. Unless of course you believe that each of the 4 planes had one hijacker and each of these 4 hijackers were acting independent of eachother -- and I doubt anyone believes that.

Nobody gets a free pass, meaning that if they present no evidence, then I am not going to believe them -- that goes for any theories, even the government's theory.

Perhaps I would better understand your points on the aviation stuff if you would explain them to me. I will acknowledge if it makes sense. Calling me an idiot is not going to make me change my mind, but perhaps if you explain all the technical stuff (which you say proves your point), then I will see your point. So far, from what you have posted, I am not convinced.

 

[Number9]

Ock·ham's razor also Oc·cam's razor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmz)
n.
A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[After Ockham, William of.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[Buy it]


occam's razor



<philosophy> The English philosopher, William of Occam
(1300-1349) propounded Occam's Razor:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

(Latin for "Entities should not be multiplied more than
necessary"). That is, the fewer assumptions an explanation of
a phenomenon depends on, the better it is.

For example, some claim that God caused himself to exist and
also caused the universe to exist - he was the "first cause" -
whereas Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the
possibility of something causing itself then it is better to
assume that it was the universe that caused itself rather than
God because this explanation involves fewer entities.

The negation of Occam's Razor would suggest that an
arbitrarily complex explanation is just as good as the
simplest one. (E.g. God and his cat created a robot called
Sparky who built the universe from parts bought from a shop in
another dimension).

See also KISS Principle.

(1995-11-09)



Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2003 Denis Howe

 

[Eric5273]

occam's razor

Thanks you Number9. I should have posted that earlier.

Ok everyone, now what is the simplest explanation:

1: A bunch of Arab terrorists operating out of a few caves in the poorest and most uncivilized country in the world conspired to hijack 4 American passenger planes and crash them into buildings, because they hate our way of life. During this ordeal, they manage to go undetected by a $30 billion per year group of intelligence agencies and they manage to move 3 of 4 planes to their targets without any interference from a $300+ billion per year military which defends this country. Then 7 of these terrorists came back to life and gave interviews to European newspapers claiming that they had nothing to do with the attacks.

OR

2: A couple large oil companies put pressure on the leaders (also oil-men themselves) of the most powerful military and intelligence organizations in the world to go to war against a tiny third-world country in order to install a friendly government that will allow the oil companies to build a pipleline so they can sell their newly found $1 trillion+ oil reserves in a neighboring country. In order to get public support for such a war, the leaders of this country plan a staged terrorist attack and them tell everyone they have evidence that Arab terrorists are behind the attack, yet they cannot release this evidence due to national security concerns.

Go ahead and vote: #1 or #2

 

[Ojas]

Number9, It is common practice to apply Occam's Razor's to phenomena in complex fields such as world events and human history, opposed to pure science, philosophy, etc. (which seem to ultimately be rooted in underlying principles and foundations)?

To me, it just seems like this would be less applicable on complex events, since the magnitude of these event's intrinsic complexity would obscure one's ability to ascertain a relative "simplicity" between two such events.

No flames, please. Just a simple question from someone who does not know.

 

[Number9]

Number9, It is common practice to apply Occam's Razor's to phenomena in complex fields such as world events and human history, opposed to pure science, philosophy, etc. (which seem to ultimately be rooted in underlying principles and foundations)?

I take exception to your implication that science isn't a complex field. Read the literature on Bell's Theorem and it'll blow your mind. But to answer your question, Occam's Razor is a powerful empirical law that is generally applicable.

Eric5273, I see you've posted something, but unfortunately, I am unable to read it. My loss.

 

[FuryNSX]

OR

2: A couple large oil companies put pressure on the leaders (also oil-men themselves) of the most powerful military and intelligence organizations in the world to go to war against a tiny third-world country in order to install a friendly government that will allow the oil companies to build a pipleline so they can sell their newly found $1 trillion+ oil reserves in a neighboring country. In order to get public support for such a war, the leaders of this country plan a staged terrorist attack and them tell everyone they have evidence that Arab terrorists are behind the attack, yet they cannot release this evidence due to national security concerns.

Go ahead and vote: #1 or #2

One question about #2........
If we attacked some tiny 3rd world country (I'm assuming you mean Afghanistan) to install a gov't that allows us to build a pipeline to get oil from a newly found reserve in a neighboring country (I'm assuming this time Iraq), how do we get the oil & pipeline through Iran.


OH SH*T!!! We're going to war again, this time against Iran!!!

(No flame intended,....just askin'.)

-Randy

 

[Eric5273]

One question about #2........
If we attacked some tiny 3rd world country (I'm assuming you mean Afghanistan) to install a gov't that allows us to build a pipeline to get oil from a newly found reserve in a neighboring country (I'm assuming this time Iraq), how do we get the oil & pipeline through Iran.

Well, it's not Iraq. I'll explain....

I copied most of this from an earlier post, but I'll add a couple things for you, so here it goes:

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, American oil companies flooded the former Soviet Republics with offers to allow them to come in and drill for oil. They paid particular attention to those Republics in the Caspian Sea region since this area was suspected to be rich with oil. Since most of these governments were bankrupt, many of them accepted the offers which usually involved large cash advances and then a percentage of the profits.

Some time around 1994-1995, UNOCAL and Chevron both found large oil reserves. UNOCAL found huge amounts of oil in Turkmenistan (estimated worth over $1 trillion) and Chevron discovered the largest natural gas reserve known in the world in Uzbekistan.

The problem was that they had no way to get this oil/gas out of there to sell on the world market as these countries are landlocked. The only oil pipelines that existed went north through Russia, and Russia was demanding 50% of the profit in order to use their pipelines.

So UNOCAL decided they would build their own pipeline to go South to the Indian Ocean. This way they could provide this oil to all the growing Asian markets such as India, Korea, Japan, etc. There are 3 possilbe routes for this pipeline:

1) go through China
2) go through Iran
3) go through Afghanistan and then through Pakistan

#3 was chosen and I'm sure I don't have to explain why. In late 1995, UNOCAL signed a $60 billion deal with a group of companies lead by General Electric to build the pipeline.

Afghanistan had a civil war going on though, so they had to delay the construction until there was peace in nothern Afghanistan as there was no way they could build through a war zone.

So UNOCAL lobbied the Clinton Administration to intervene to make peace there. He refused and instead sent cruise missles there in 1998 (following the African embassy bombings), which completely undermined UNOCAL's goals. So they had to wait until an oil friendly administration entered the White House.

At the time, it was thought that a pipeline deal could be easily negotiated with the Taliban. In 1998, Taliban officials even travelled to Houston to meet with UNOCAL executives and they were wined and dined and expensive gifts were purchased for them. (there were articles in Houston newspapers at the time)

So Bush took office in January 2001. During Colon Powell's first trip to the Middle East & Central Asia, he stopped in Pakistan and while there, he met with the Taliban ambassador and gave him a gift of $43 million in aid. When questioned by the Pakistani press, he said this gift was to reward their excellent policies related to cracking down on opium (heroine) production. Twice more in the next few months the State Dept. gave the Taliban gifts of $40 million, totalling $123 million for the 6 month period (January to June 2001). This money was used to buy arms from Pakistan and this clearly gave them an advantage in their civil war against the Northern Alliance.

By June, the Northern Alliance was almost defeated and pushed back to within 10 miles of the border of Uzbekistan. When it appeared inevitable that they would defeat the Northern Alliance soon, negotiations for the pipeline started up again, this time lead by the State Dept. who was basically representing UNOCAL's interests. However, the Taliban sensing that UNOCAL was getting desperate for this pipeline, made outrageous monetary demands. The State Dept. was offering the Taliban full recognation by the United States and a recommedation to be accepted into the United Nations. In return, they were asking for bin Laden to be turned over and for the pipleine. They offered the Taliban some small amount like 2% of the profits from the oil and the Taliban refused. They did agree to turn over bin Laden to be tried by an international court, but the negotiations broke down because of their demands on the pipeline.

Shortly after the last meeting in July, a few newspaper articles in Pakistan and Iran quoted government officials as saying they were told the United States would take military action in the fall to remove the Taliban from power.

All that sounds good and well, but here is some more coincidences for you:

1) In 1998, UNOCAL hired a local businessman in Kanduhar to represent them in Afghanistan in their pipeline negotiations with the Taliban. He worked for them as a consultant until late in 2000. His name is Hamid Karzai, the current president of Afghanistan. Three weeks after he became president of Afghanistan (in December 2001), the oil pipeline deal was signed and they are currently constructing it.

2) Enron:
During 1995 & 1996, Enron began to have discussions with UNOCAL about getting a supply of cheap oil to run an Indian powerplant they were considering building. It would be the largest powerplant in the world and would supply power to almost half of the entire country (India). Well, apparently the discussions went well, because in 1997 they began building the Dalbor Powerplant which would become the largest power plant in the world. Enron went into huge debt. in order to build this $3+ billion plant. In India, the power industry is regulated and the Indian government sets the price of power. When the Dalbor plant was finished in 1999, it was unable to open because at current oil prices, it could not produce power cheaply enough to offer on the Indian market and make any kind of profit. So the plant remained closed and Enron continued to borrow more and more money to stay afloat while awaiting the UNOCAL pipeline that would never come.

It seems logical to reason that Enron also had put presure on the Bush Administration to intervene in Afghanistan, although I have seen no evidence of this (there is evidence that UNOCAL had lobbied for this -- UNOCAL officials made their case in a 1998 hearing in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and then again in 2000). Enron's survival depended on the success of this powerplant which needed a new cheap oil supply. Obviously I don't have to tell you what happened to Enron. But this is the main reason why they had their financial difficulties.

 

[Spencer]

This ongoing sideshow is truly hilarious…

Without addressing any of the “facts” that continually get dredged up from spurious sources like the “…Portugal-based investigative journalist” (oh…it’s ‘that’ famous Portuguese journalist! The one who breaks all the big stories. Lol!) and ridiculous conspiracy theory websites, I have a far more simple question…

Just how, in “Eric5273 World” does this story (perhaps one of the biggest stories in history) still stay under wraps?

In an increasingly wired world, with the most aggressive, intrusive press in history, in an environment where anyone will sell a story to a journalist -- how has all of this stayed out of mainstream (i.e. REAL) media?

In a world where Barbara Streisand can’t even sneeze without somebody in Australia watching it real time on cable -- just how is this, the biggest journalist scoop ever, being kept out of the mainstream (i.e. REAL) press?

I guess that maybe Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw are all members of the Illuminati, too. (Damn it! I know I should have never showed them the secret handshake…)

You know, I keep promising myself I’m not going to read any more of the asinine thread, but just like the “Two Headed Baby” article in the Weekly World tabloid, I’m inexorably drawn to it. (Just kidding. I don’t really read it…but I’m sure that at least one of us does.)

Hey I have an idea! Maybe next we can debate whether WWF wrestling is real.

 

[Eric5273]

Challenge me on any fact in my last post and I will produce a major news source, but it probably will not be an American news source. The American media has continuously looked the other way on this issue. However, this stuff is all over the European and particularly the British media.

 

[Spencer]

Challenge me on any fact in my last post and I will produce a major news source, but it probably will not be an American news source. The American media has continuously looked the other way on this issue. However, this stuff is all over the European and particularly the British media.

So essentially, you’re saying that everyone in the American media is covering up the biggest news story of the last 50 years. I’ll grant you one thing…that concept is as logical as much of your other “facts.”

There isn’t a legitimate journalist in this country who wouldn’t break this “story” -- even if it were only 20% legit. Most would risk their reputation, personal fortune, and even their life to break a story like this.

 

[Justin664]

Eric,



So UNOCAL lobbied the Clinton Administration to intervene to make peace there. He refused and instead sent cruise missles there in 1998 (following the African embassy bombings), which completely undermined UNOCAL's goals. So they had to wait until an oil friendly administration entered the White House.

So you are saying that Clinton launched cruise missles into Afghanistan in response to the Embassy bombings? Therefore, he must have concluded that someone in that country was responsible, correct? Yet, when al-qaeda claims responsiblity for the 9/11 events, it must have been run by the US government, not the escalation of tactics by a terrorist group?

By the way, take a flying lesson. I've been flying for 15 years and on your demo flight, the instructor will have you banking and turning to new headings within minutes. Not a very difficult thing to do.

 

[Eric5273]

So essentially, you’re saying that everyone in the American media is covering up the biggest news story of the last 50 years. I’ll grant you one thing…that concept is as logical as much of your other “facts.”

There isn’t a legitimate journalist in this country who wouldn’t break this “story” -- even if it were only 20% legit. Most would risk their reputation, personal fortune, and even their life to break a story like this.

There are journalists who have written articles. The editors reject such articles because they "do not fit in with company guidelines and the viewpoints we are trying to portray". If you read independent news sources (not owned by large corporations) such as the Village Voice, or the American Free Press, then you would see these types of articles quite often.

But anyway, if you don't believe me then take me up on my challange and prove that I'm full of crap. Pick a single fact from my last post which you think is the most unbeleivable out of the entire post. Tell me what that fact is, and I will give links to the sources which give that information, and they will not be conspiracy websites, but major newspapers and/or media sources.

 

[Ponyboy]

Anyone believe censorship is a viable option for some in this country?

 

[Eric5273]

So you are saying that Clinton launched cruise missles into Afghanistan in response to the Embassy bombings? Therefore, he must have concluded that someone in that country was responsible, correct?

Or he was trying to get his sex scandal off the front pages. He also sent cruise missles to bomb an Asprin factory in Sudan.

Yet, when al-qaeda claims responsiblity for the 9/11 events

They never claimed responsibility.

All that was produced as evidence of a "confession" was a video in which some guy who looked similiar (but not the same) as Osama bin Laden discussed the attacks with some others on a home video camera. They claimed the guy was bin Laden, but within a few days the FBI stopped mentioning the tape after numerous laboratories confirmed that the guy in the video was definately not bin Laden.

Here you go:

"E" is the guy from the video. "A" through "D" are the real bin Laden. Unless he got plastic surgery and became right-handed (he was known to be left-handed, but he can be seen writing right-handed in the video), that is not him. Close, but no cigar.

The only other evidence of "confessions" given by the FBI is their claim that a few of the senior Al-Queda officials they have in custody have confessed. However, they have not shown video or audio of any of these confessions. They just say these confessions exist and we are suppose to believe them.

You as well as most other Americans think there was a confession because this tape was showed all over the media for a few days. Then when the tape was proved to be false, there was no mention of this and they just stopped mentioning the tape alltogether. I saw a poll a few weeks ago that around 40% of Americans believe we have already found WMD's in Iraq. I wonder why? Because they tell you on the news that they found something, and then when it turns out to be a false alarm, they mention it in a tiny article on page 31 of the newspaper. So the average person keeps hearing that we found stuff and never hears the retraction of such claims.

 

[Spencer]

There are journalists who have written articles. The editors reject such articles because they "do not fit in with company guidelines and the viewpoints we are trying to portray". If you read independent news sources (not owned by large corporations) such as the Village Voice, or the American Free Press, then you would see these types of articles quite often.

If you think that a major media outlet in this country would avoid breaking what would be potentially the largest story in the last 50 years because it doesn't "fit in with company guidelines and the viewpoints we are trying to portray" then you’re more than a little naive.

I also think that your portrayal of the Village Voice as some kind of small (“not owned by large corporations”), organization is hilarious. My father-in-law happens to have been published in several of the properties owned by Village Voice Media. And while independent, sometimes a little ‘zany’ / sometimes a little ‘correct’, it’s not exactly some small organization. Working into my point, the fact is…Village Voice Media is large enough and influential enough THAT IF IT WERE A LEGITMATE STORY, THE MAJOR MEDIA OUTLETS WOULD BE ON IT. Hell, even when Matt Drudge breaks something that IS LEGITIMATE -- it gets traction in the mainstream media!

In order for your theory to work it would require a conspiracy if impossible size.

I need to take my leave now; I’ve gotta go practice my Bohemian Grove skit.

 

[Eric5273]

Again:

But anyway, if you don't believe me then take me up on my challange and prove that I'm full of crap. Pick a single fact from my last post which you think is the most unbeleivable out of the entire post. Tell me what that fact is, and I will give links to the sources which give that information, and they will not be conspiracy websites, but major newspapers and/or media sources.