The Black Vault

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinders

You might want to read this Cole, since you were quick to tell me how full of bullshit I am over it. You basically told me my entire career building the rockets that took us to the moon and 125 shuttle launches, I was a ninny for not believing your boloney the moon landing was faked, and for not trashing the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people.

The point is you jump to a conclusion about the horse picture and were sure blinkers on the horse, intended as a insult, were not called blinders. I could care less which is which, the point is your attitude and that you do not research anything. You find the idea of Thermite or the moon landing hoax, believe it hook lind and sinker, and anyone who doesn't is a blind fool.

Maybe its you, that has the blinkers and blinders on, when your judgement is clouded by wanting to be the big conspiracy solver, and skip over what would be real proof.

And you wonder why I said I was done debating, the Gore Election, The WTC, and Moon Hoax. They have all been run into the ground, but you are still inventing the wheel with it.

"Blinder" redirects here. For other uses, see Blinder (disambiguation).

Blinders, also known as blinkers or winkers, are a piece of horse tack that restrict the horse's vision to the rear and, in some cases, to the side. They usually are made of leather or plastic cups that are placed on either side of the eyes, either attached to a bridle or to an independent hood. Many racehorse trainers believe this keeps the horse focused on what is in front of him, encouraging him to pay attention to the race rather than other distractions, such as crowds. Additionally, blinkers (then usually known as winkers) are commonly seen on driving horses, to keep them from being distracted or spooked, especially on crowded city streets. A “set of winkers” can refer to the whole bridle, particularly the heavy bridle used on draft horses.

Most other equestrian disciplines, other than racing and harness competition, do not permit the use of blinders at any time, under penalty of elimination.

In racing, blinkers are usually seen attached to a synthetic hood placed under the bridle. In driving, they are attached to the bridle's cheekpieces. A variation, called "winkers" are seen in Australian Thoroughbred horse racing. These are fleece rolls that are placed around the bridle cheek straps. They do not restrict the horse's view as much as blinkers do. Also used in Australian racing are "pacifiers," which are a blinker style hood with mesh eye-covers, thought by some to calm horses. They may be banned from use on wet days as they may clog up with mud.

A blinder is also a bag or cloth blindfold put over the head of a difficult horse while it is being handled, loaded into starting gates or mounted.[1]

The term is also used metaphorically to refer to people with an overly narrow focus or inability to see the larger picture.

well its not really so much different that some ive seen who think any and all theories about things that aren't in line with popularist and common ideas, are bullshit and worse yet "crazy"....In fact I know some people, plenty in fact, who you take aside and show them a clear picture of, say, a man other than oswald killing kennedy, and they'd just look at you with that odd "no matter what, i wont believe it" look.

guess one might be able to say similar things about those who believe in govt conspiracy...some of them, no matter how clear the evidence is against their stance, they will almost always choose to believe in the conspiracy...now why is this? are they crazy?

not usually.

rather, they KNOW govt is shady and has been part of various ACTUAL conspiracies, many which probably resulted in human casuality...so on its face, they cannot put anything past them no matter how ridiculous.

Rather than saying i "know" this or that took place, I like to say"i believe its possible".

So what do you consider a reasonable burden of proof to bash your government, when it may not be warrented at all? When you think people should be critisized for their burden of proof requiring something more than simple suggestions?

greeney2 wrote:So what do you consider a reasonable burden of proof to bash your government, when it may not be warrented at all? When you think people should be critisized for their burden of proof requiring something more than simple suggestions?

Awww greeney,,, "burden of proof"??

There are some for whom the "burden of proof" that suffices is the mere accusation of gov't wrongdoing.

So, what has the gov't lied about, well Gulf of Tonkin rings a bell, dead enemy count in Vietnam rings that same bell.
Does the fact that they have lied in the past mean that they always lie? NO
Does being able to see, using math and science, that they have not lied about something require that I ignore the fact that what I am told is in fact, the truth? Certainly not!

I mean don't get me wrong, I fully appreciate that you feel that you are justified in not believing things you consider kooky and that you require some hard evidence before you would entertain these types of notions....i mean, I can see where you are coming from.

All im saying is, for me personally, I don't require all these things to believe it...not that I dont see your point, to you it probably makes me look naive and prone to believing anything, but that's not really the case.

I wouldn't, for instance, believe things like "there were no planes" or the "planes were holograms" thing, or "aliens beings lasered the towers with an energy beam"....etc etc....but I really do feel strongly that most of the circumstantial evidence when taken at face value and combined together certainly "prove" to me personally beyond a doubt that no one stood more to gain than the united states government from perpetrating the 9/11 attacks on itself and pinning the blame on convenient "terrorist" bogeymen...it just makes sense to me.

futhermore THEIR explanation just seems wayyyy too convenient to me

things like knowing all the hijackers names so soon...the suggestion that they magically found the ID and passport of a hijacker amidst the rubble, puhlease....the all too hollywoodish version of the heroic passengers taking control of 77 and crashing it....come on....sheesh...all the chances to catch bin laden but yet purposefully troops were pulled back....

not to mention the all too obviously PHONY bin laden "confession tape" that came out just after nine-eleven which was supposed to be showing bin laden, but which anyone with a shred of intelligence would recognize is not him....proving deception on some level or another.

ultimately it doesnt matter either way....whether it is real lies, or whether i am a kook....even if it were real theres nothing that will ever be done about it, and if it isnt real then ive wasted the last 8 years of my life preaching about a thing i feel deeply about.

Couple of points.
The hijackers names were on the flight manifests. Arabic voices were heard on the radio and the passengers described Arab terrorists. Nothing odd about having the names that very day.
Bil Laden or his cohorts have not disavowed the tape, they have had nearly eight years to do so.
I would never dismiss the courage of the passengers, no matter who they were, once they knew what their fate was.
The passport would stick out like a sore thumb in all the paper and debris on the streets. At first glance it would look like a wallet or something that might contain cash. Who in NYC would not pick it up?
Incredulity is a poor basis for an argument.

While I am quite pleased that fort does not subscribe to the no-planes, or space-beam fantasies(neither does Cole or Code Black I believe) I do find it odd that someone can simply follow their own incredulity and draw conclusions from it.

If, if ,if, if, the USA had the most to gain(??) from these attacks it can still be carried out by a group of men from an organization bent on attacking the USA. In fact there is a term coined for such a situation , its called LIHOP.(Let It Happen On Purpose)

It certainly would not require 3000 deaths and the total loss of several buildngs to garner strong public support for whatever GWB said should be done.

Ramming 4 planes into buildings, all occupied by American citizens would have more than sufficed.


However did the USA gain from these attacks? No. Spending on Iraq rivals the Obama bail out. Did the USA gain oil fromIraq? Not much, the pipelines kept getting bombed disrupting flow.

Did the USA create an ally in the region? Hardly, after years of basically an anarchistic state, Iraq is a ruined country with so many factions fighting the perceived occupiers and each other that it is now more dangerous to the USA than it was under Saddam.

Did the USA gain an ally in Afghanistan? Again, hardly. The USA invaded, chased Bin Laden around then GWB deceided to show up his daddy and invade Iraq thus allowing Afghanistan to also sink into anarchy.

The USA also suffered extreme losses in the financials markets due to the attacks. Coupled with the bad decisions made in the mortgage sector and the crushing cost of fighting a war on two fronts we end up in the position we are in now. Many around the world blame the USA for the state of world finances and revile the past administration.

No, I fail to see that the USA actually saw a net gain from the 911 attacks.

3dvd wrote:Couple of points.
The hijackers names were on the flight manifests. Arabic voices were heard on the radio and the passengers described Arab terrorists. Nothing odd about having the names that very day.
Bil Laden or his cohorts have not disavowed the tape, they have had nearly eight years to do so.
I would never dismiss the courage of the passengers, no matter who they were, once they knew what their fate was.
The passport would stick out like a sore thumb in all the paper and debris on the streets. At first glance it would look like a wallet or something that might contain cash. Who in NYC would not pick it up?
Incredulity is a poor basis for an argument.

So, no fake ID's needed right?

Arabic voices doesn't sway me.

Bin laden doesnt have to disavow anything, it isnt him in the tape.

So airplane incinerates, massive fireball, yet magically the one piece of paper that needs to survive the fire and destruction, does.....nah....you must be joking....no one said it was a wallet...it was paper.

jay.

the US gov't need not get immediate financial gain, or any financial gain.....the gain is in another type of area...must I point it out?

fortwynt wrote:jay.

the US gov't need not get immediate financial gain, or any financial gain.....the gain is in another type of area...must I point it out?

Hmmm, world power and influence? Nope that can't be it since it had the opposite effect.

Making friends and influencing middle eastern peoples? Nope, opposite effect there too.

Spreading democracy? Nope, that's really not working out too well either since both Iraq and Afghanistan are at best anarchies being held in check tenuously.

So airplane incinerates, massive fireball, yet magically the one piece of paper that needs to survive the fire and destruction, does.....nah....you must be joking....no one said it was a wallet...it was paper.

Happens in many aircraft crashes. A child's teddy is found all but unscathed whereas bodies are torn apart. Wallets and purses are found with ID's intact, paperback books, airline napkins etc.

You did see the rain of paper falling from the towers did you not? The same towers that had huge fireballs blooming out of them as the paper was being expelled.