Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

  1. #1581
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    I could give a rat's ass about Jones' credentials.

    For me..It's all common sense. I understand the motive for Muslim extremists to attack our country...they saw us as a "Clear and Present danger" to their way of thinking...and they were right...America is a threat to an extreme Muslim way of life. They wanted to hurt us as badly as they could...and one of them came up with the brilliant idea that a commercial aircraft full of fuel for a cross-country flight makes a damn good weapon.
    Explosives do a better job, as 9/11 clearly illustrated. Did you know that the official story now has it that Osama Bin laden is not behind it all? The FBI had never charged him with the crime because they simply didn't find enough evidence to do so. Apparently they're now accusing some sheikh who's in prison (no word on whether the FBI thinks that there's enough evidence to charge -him-, but hey, the important thing is that they got some guy in prison, so people -please- stop going on about 9/11 type thing).


    They found a chink in our armour and utilized it to their benefit.

    On the other hand...I cannot come up with a reasonable motive for the US gov't to want to bring down buildings in New York. There are far easier way to accomplish the same goal. As example in Iraq...want to go to war with someone?...just claim they have WMD...it was good enough to start the war in Iraq.
    The Bush administration tried to tie Al Quaeda to Iraq and I think that, during the time of the invasion, a fair amount of people believed it. Then everyone found out that the bush administration had relied on some Arab who simply wanted a green card for their info. I remember one story where the Bush administration seemed to be perfectly happy with the idea of fabricating evidence if they couldn't have found it; fortunately for them, this green card seeking Arab could figure out what they wanted to hear and told it to them (for a little green card help, natch). No links, but I suppose I could look around if you're interested.


    The question is "Who benefits?"
    Indeed. Let's have a look, shall we?
    Certainly not the Taleban, who lost their country (although they seem to be making a comeback nowadays).

    Or Al Quaeda, who lost their most friendly host government (the Taleban, but they also seem to be making a comeback as well now).

    Both the Taleban and Bin Laden repeatedly stated they weren't behind it. There was a video wherein Bin Laden supposedly stated that he did, but many (myself included) believe that video was of a man who was clearly not Bin Laden. And now the US government claims it was someone else anyway.

    Not Saddam Hussein, who didn't even get along with Al Qaeda and who has now been executed.
    *********

    Now let's take a look at certain individuals a little closer to home:
    http://www.oilempire.us/911why.html

    http://www.oilempire.us/911peakoil.html

  2. #1582
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    but not misinformation perpetuated by engineers and official documents right?

    Any comment on the engineers inaccuracy "The resulting structure was similar to a tube" which lead him to denounce Jones work? Mekatron's misunderstanding can be forgiven as the sentence can be read two very different ways according to where one places a comma in the sentence. Can the engineer's error be forgiven? does it not suggest ignorance of the buildings structure? The engineer's inaccurate misunderstanding is being perpetuated and used by those who wish to discredit and persecute a scientist for political reasons who has sacrificed considerably in search of the truth.

    Didn't the original retracted statement read something like "Jones work will be of delight to those in pakistan and afghanistan", this seems to have little to do with science and more to do with politics.
    No you are right. I am not saying Metakron is being deceptive but that you and scott are.

    I merely came into this garbage to correct that one inaccuracy. I have no real interest in entertaining snake oil salesman with scientific and engineering intellect from the 1800's.

  3. #1583
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Apparently they're now accusing some sheikh who's in prison (no word on whether the FBI thinks that there's enough evidence to charge -him-, but hey, the important thing is that they got some guy in prison, so people -please- stop going on about 9/11 type thing).
    You do realise that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was one of Bin Laden's top men?

  4. #1584
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    You do realise that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was one of Bin Laden's top men?
    Fine. So tell me, has the FBI charged -him- with the crime? Or are they saying that they don't have enough evidence to charge him regarding 9/11 either? I know he's in jail, but he allegedly committed many crimes before 9/11.

    Yes, I know he allegedly "confessed" in Guantanamo Bay (from what I've heard, most courts have considered guantanamo confessions to be utterly unreliable because of the enormous amount of torturing that went on there).

    But perhaps you'd like to look at the alternative story on this man...
    *************************************
    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: The Official Legend of 9/11 is a Fabricated Setup
    The June 2002 Plan to Market a New 9/11 Mastermind
    *************************************
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=5087
    Last edited by scott3x; 10-21-08 at 08:41 AM.

  5. #1585
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    No you are right. I am not saying Metakron is being deceptive but that you and scott are.

    I merely came into this garbage to correct that one inaccuracy. I have no real interest in entertaining snake oil salesman with scientific and engineering intellect from the 1800's.
    ok, now that you've had your two minutes of hate, can you tell me whether the towers were "a tube" structure or a "tube within a tube" structure, or maybe you don't care whether the evidence being used to slander and condemn someone is accurate or not.

  6. #1586
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    wires and cabling?
    how do they fire explosive bolts on spacecraft orbiting mars?
    you're not suggesting they use wires and cables all the way back to earth are you?

    all these speculative questions are irrelevant if high tech unreacted nanocomposite explosives were found:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300WYhC6KQI&e

    In an urban environment, if they used wireless detonators, they would most likely go off from frequency bleed from cellphones/wifi routers/cordless phones/satellite uplinks/etc. The millisecond timing required in a controlled takedown of a building requires the use of wires, because the delay in a scrambled detonation signal in a single detonation would cause the building to fall over instead of drop into it's own footprint.

    Also, I noticed that you glossed over my point about all the drilling/etc required. There were people there that survived, why haven't they come forward saying "They were drilling holes in all the walls and ceilings, installing something in the weeks before the crash". They haven't because there were no explosives in the building planted.

    So called conspiracies like this are just idiot ramblings of the uninformed. It's astounding that people can believe things like this. It's disgusting.

  7. #1587
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeak22 View Post
    In an urban environment, if they used wireless detonators, they would most likely go off from frequency bleed from cellphones/wifi routers/cordless phones/satellite uplinks/etc.
    i have no idea what is meant by "frequency bleed". digital technology allows coded communication between multiple devices. wifi technology can handle multiple simultaneous communication devices without catastrophic interruption.

    The millisecond timing required in a controlled takedown of a building requires the use of wires, because the delay in a scrambled detonation signal in a single detonation would cause the building to fall over instead of drop into it's own footprint.
    so millisecond timing of explosives would have been needed to bring the towers down without "fall over"? and yet fire, asymmetrical damage and progressive collapse does the trick nicely? you are suggesting that random progressive collapse with assymetrical damage causes more precise collapse pattern than could be achieved with explosives and milisecond timing?

    Also, I noticed that you glossed over my point about all the drilling/etc required. There were people there that survived, why haven't they come forward saying "They were drilling holes in all the walls and ceilings, installing something in the weeks before the crash".
    maybe it was done many weeks prior, maybe there was no drilling, roof voids and elevator shafts would have given unobstrusive access to all parts of the structure. its all speculation that could only be answered with an investigation.

    what was unreacted Fe-O-K-Al-Si nanothermite doing in the rubble?
    http://www.gnn.tv/threads/28795/9_11..._In_The_Coffin

    It's astounding that people can believe things like this. It's disgusting.
    the crime was disgusting. I don't think it is disgusting to find out what happened and demand an investigation. Hundreds of victims relatives want answers too.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_t74...eature=related

  8. #1588
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,992
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    But perhaps you'd like to look at the alternative story on this man...
    Er, where is the evidence for this tale?

  9. #1589
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    No, he says precicely this: "about a week later <after 911> she entered and collected some dust which she sent to me, this was our first sample"
    2:15 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjAviEG20dg&
    If that were the case, same issue: she just held onto a bunch of dust from WTC for years and years because...? Why? Because she knew in her heart of hearts that it was going to be important to illustrate a controlled demolition years later? It doesn't. Add. Up. Period. It is extraordinarily fishy - completely fishy. He gives a mushy name that sounds like "Cynthia McKinley" - so who is she? Then a "PhD physicist" collects some, and then the other two are supposedly from later on. Again - why? Was there any doubt about the attack at that point? Private individuals just decided to collect some dust? It isn't reasonable, and it smells very, very fishy.

    Scott has already displayed a video in this thread showing an experiment mixing the materials which NIST stated would glow orange, the materials were heated and poured - and they were silver, not orange.
    I saw those; not much of a test, heating stuff in a cup compared to an open fire.

    you could email your questions to him. he posts on 911blogger too. I'm not in a position to say what he's done and hasn't done, more than what i know anyway.
    Or you could email your questions to NIST.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Ok, wait a second there. Can you cite where you get this "energy-physics nobody" from? I already made it clear that Steven Jones was not just a professor, but one who challenged an eminent physicist on a theoretical point regarding muon catalyzed fusion.. and proved to be correct.
    Which has not a thing to do with engineering. At all.

    I'm also quite curious as to why you are so interested in why she sent it to him?
    Because I'm very concerned about where the samples came from. Wouldn't it be simple, I wonder, to cook up a sample with the parameters you want and to "mail it in" for "analysis"? His samples have no chain of evidence and he has a definite bias in his outlook.

    Why aren't you focusing on why the government didn't test it themselves? We talk and talk about the particulars of why x woman sent a sample to x man when, or when she sent it precisely. And yet we seem to be completely bypassing the point that if the government had been doing its job, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place.
    And perhaps they should have tested it. But why these samples went to Jones and where he got them from are questions of paramount importance, since the entire issue of 9/11 Troof rests on them. Mind you, they don't explain how thermite cut sideways, apparently, or why it exploded. Or why it would need to.

    I think it was you that once asked why Steven Jones didn't submit a sample to NIST. Are you even aware that NIST doesn't even want to talk to him?
    First, his email is alleged. I cannot verify it and neither can you; we cannot discuss it as evidence, therefore, since no other party would confirm it. Second, I never said NIST. Any second party would do. Yet, this has not been done. There is no other lab that would touch the material? None at all?

    Best regards,

    Geoff

  10. #1590
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    "resulting structure was similar to a tube" - curious given that most of the load was supported by the central column interconnected structure. The general characterisation is "tube within a tube".

    how very...."disturbing". Where did they put the robes and pitchforks?
    He was disagreeing with Jones.

    Surely this is allowed in the new politics of 9/11?

    Best regards,

    Geoff

  11. #1591
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The fact that even a cardboard box shows more resistance to floors falling from above should be a cause of concern to you, considering that the real deal was steel not cardboard. In any case, you are free to label anyone a 'nutjob', but I personally prefer to discredit people's work, not simply slap a label on them and think I've won the argument.
    You simply can't scale down something massive and expect the same physics to apply. Next you'll be saying that the people who jumped out of the towers on 9/11 should have survived their impact with the ground becuase small insects can fall off your coffee table and crawl away unscathed.

    Heavy things behave differently to light things.

    If the leader of A&E for 9/11 truth doesn't realize this, then it makes him stupid and/or dishonest, and his whole organization a sham.

    Steven Jones has made it clear that there weren't just signs; there was a chemical fingerprint of it. All they had to do is what Steven Jones did. But they didn't. They're not even interested in -talking- to him after he did the research. Why do you suppose that is?
    Actually, independant organizations did exam the dust and reported similar elements to which Steven Jones found.

    What you have to do is prove why none of these elements should have been expected. Which is a difficult task when you consider how all the elements Steven Jones claims are a chemical fingerprint for thermite, are also common place throughout most office buildings.
    Last edited by KennyJC; 10-21-08 at 09:41 PM.

  12. #1592
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    20,992
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyJC View Post
    If the leader of A&E for 9/11 truth doesn't realize this
    "Arts & Entertainment"?

  13. #1593
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    Er, where is the evidence for this tale?
    Did you even open the link I provided?

  14. #1594
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    If that were the case, same issue: she just held onto a bunch of dust from WTC for years and years because...? Why? Because she knew in her heart of hearts that it was going to be important to illustrate a controlled demolition years later? It doesn't. Add. Up. Period. It is extraordinarily fishy - completely fishy. He gives a mushy name that sounds like "Cynthia McKinley" - so who is she? Then a "PhD physicist" collects some, and then the other two are supposedly from later on. Again - why? Was there any doubt about the attack at that point? Private individuals just decided to collect some dust? It isn't reasonable, and it smells very, very fishy.
    Maybe she felt that at some point, someone would actually get to testing the dust for thermite arson, as is standard procedure where arson is suspected.

    What's fishy is why NIST never tested the dust itself and still refuses to even talk to Steven Jones, let alone test the dust now that the cat is out of the bag.


    you could email your questions to him. he posts on 911blogger too. I'm not in a position to say what he's done and hasn't done, more than what i know anyway.
    Or you could email your questions to NIST.
    NIST won't even pay attention to Steven Jones, someone who is widely known. Your odds are -much- better to get a response from Steven Jones.


    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Ok, wait a second there. Can you cite where you get this "energy-physics nobody" from? I already made it clear that Steven Jones was not just a professor, but one who challenged an eminent physicist on a theoretical point regarding muon catalyzed fusion.. and proved to be correct.
    Which has not a thing to do with engineering. At all.
    My point is that he's meticulous in his research. I also think it's a lot easier for a physicist to learn about engineering principles then an engineer to learn about muon catalyzed fusion. Do you believe otherwise? In any case, it's clear that many engineers admire Steven Jones' work, as can be seen from the site "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth".

    I'm also quite curious as to why you are so interested in why she sent it to him?
    Because I'm very concerned about where the samples came from. Wouldn't it be simple, I wonder, to cook up a sample with the parameters you want and to "mail it in" for "analysis"? His samples have no chain of evidence and he has a definite bias in his outlook.
    Wouldn't it be even simpler if NIST had tested for thermite from the very beginning? Then we would have to be worried about a few specs of dust now, would we? It's not too late I suspect; unless they've conveniently gotten ride of all the dust that might contain these iron spheres, they may still find it. As I've already mentioned, even the program director of NIST's AML would like to see this testing done. And yet NIST seems unmoved by it all. To me, the logical explanation is that the people in charge of the investigation know they'd find thermite and it's precisely what they don't -want- to find. I recently found the following article. A real eye opener to me at any rate:
    *********************************
    Government's 9/11 Investigators Were ALSO Lead OKC Bombing Investigators
    Would you be surprised to learn that the exact same investigators who headed up the government's investigation into the World Trade Center collapses and the Pentagon attack on 9/11 also headed up the government's investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing?

    The WTC collapses, Pentagon attack and OKC bombing involved assessments of entirely different kinds of structures inflicted with different kinds of damage. And there are 1.5 million engineers in the U.S., many of them highly-qualified to investigate attacks and their damage.

    And yet the authors of the official report on the Murrah Federal Building -- Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlaker, and Mete Sozen -- were all among the initial team of the American Society of Civil Engineers' 9/11 investigation.

    Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, and that would suffer if it were known that 9/11 was an inside job, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers.

    As if that is not bad enough, the same handful of people who came up with the unscientific "pancake collapse" theory for the Twin Towers while working for FEMA then moved over to spread unscientific theories for NIST:


    * FEMA Chapter 1 authors:
    o Therese McAllister: co-write NIST report 1-6 and 1-7
    o John Gross: co-wrote NIST report 1-6 and 1-7
    o Ronald Hamburger: NIST contributor
    * FEMA Chapter 2 authors:
    o Ronald Hamburger: see above
    o William Baker: NIST contributor, Freedom Tower
    o Harold Nelson: co-wrote NIST report 1-5 and 1-7
    * FEMA Chapter 5 authors (WTC7):
    o Ramon Gilsanz: co-wrote NIST report 1-6F
    o Harold Nelson: see above

    Does this essay put the above-described information in perspective?

    All of the above information and much of the actual content and presentation comes from Kevin Ryan's presentation A New Standard for Deception and Jim Hoffman's review of that speech. All of the credit goes to Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffman.
    *********************************

    http://georgewashington.blogspot.com...were-also.html

  15. #1595
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    Why aren't you focusing on why the government didn't test it themselves? We talk and talk about the particulars of why x woman sent a sample to x man when, or when she sent it precisely. And yet we seem to be completely bypassing the point that if the government had been doing its job, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place.
    And perhaps they should have tested it.
    Wow. You didn't always hold that view did you?


    But why these samples went to Jones and where he got them from are questions of paramount importance, since the entire issue of 9/11 Troof rests on them.
    No, it's only one of many issues. But many do agree that the WTC collapses is the strongest point for alternative theories to the official one. In any case, if NIST really wanted to put all this to rest, they would either say "Sorry, we destroyed all the dust, can't test it" or "Why sure we'll test the dust" (and that point one would have to hope that -they- don't replace the original dust for dust obtained somewhere else.

    It may be that some of the samples they have also show a chemical fingerprint of thermite, in which case they might not need to rely on dust.


    Why aren't you focusing on why the government didn't test it themselves? We talk and talk about the particulars of why x woman sent a sample to x man when, or when she sent it precisely. And yet we seem to be completely bypassing the point that if the government had been doing its job, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place.
    Mind you, they don't explain how thermite cut sideways, apparently, or why it exploded. Or why it would need to.
    I suggest you carefully read NIST's AML program director Robert F. Moore's rebuttal of NIST's reasoning behind not investigating for thermite. He doesn't mention whether nanothermite does or does not cut sideways (my understanding is that uncontrolled explosives will destroy in every direction), but he makes it clear that he finds it entirely possible that thermite (perhaps in the form of nanothermite) was used and that it should be tested for, handily rebutting all of NIST's objections towards such an investigation. I have posted the relevant part of his article here:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1564


    I think it was you that once asked why Steven Jones didn't submit a sample to NIST. Are you even aware that NIST doesn't even want to talk to him?
    First, his email is alleged. I cannot verify it and neither can you; we cannot discuss it as evidence, therefore, since no other party would confirm it.
    If NIST hasn't heard that Steven Jones wants to talk to them by now (when a sizeable amount of truthers are all too aware of said fact), then they truly are out of touch.


    Second, I never said NIST. Any second party would do. Yet, this has not been done. There is no other lab that would touch the material? None at all?
    It would be good to look into, to be sure. I'm reminded of the X-files in all of this...

  16. #1596
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    He was disagreeing with Jones.

    Surely this is allowed in the new politics of 9/11?

    Best regards,

    Geoff
    Yes, it's allowed. And 9/11 stirred many emotions in people. It's quite possible that in the heat of the moment, the idea that the government might have played a part in it was simply too much for some to bear. Relevant details may have been overlooked (such as the 'tube within a tube') in a somewhat desperate bid to make it look as if only foreign terrorists could have done such a heinous act. Seriously, who wants to contemplate that elements within their own government did such a thing?

  17. #1597
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyJC View Post
    You simply can't scale down something massive and expect the same physics to apply. Next you'll be saying that the people who jumped out of the towers on 9/11 should have survived their impact with the ground because small insects can fall off your coffee table and crawl away unscathed.
    You're right, you can't scale everything down. But surely you must realize that steel is much stronger then cardboard and that many architects and engineers, not to mention a few physicists believe that only controlled demolition had the capacity of bringing down those buildings. Architects and Engineers work with -real- buildings and physicists know a lot about things such as the preservation of energy. One day, I hope that you will thoroughly read articles, such as Steven Jones' "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":
    http://physics911.net/stevenjones

    You may be surprised at what you find.


    Heavy things behave differently to light things.

    If the leader of A&E for 9/11 truth doesn't realize this, then it makes him stupid and/or dishonest, and his whole organization a sham.
    Is he the leader? I just came across his bio first. He's certainly not the only one in believing that there needs to be more investigation done on what happened to those buildings in the site (there's another 512 architects and engineers as of my last count), and there are even other architects and engineers are impressed with Steven Jones' work. The following site contains a part wherein a Mechanical Engineering professor is thanking Steven Jones' for his [SE Jones] article (not sure which one that might be). Personally, I think this professor may in fact be from Steven Jones' former university. This professor makes it clear that some of his students are offended by the implication that their own government could be involved in such things. Nevertheless, he continues to bring the subject up in his class. I will include an excerpt:

    *************************************
    3. From a Mechanical Engineering Professor, email to Dr. Jones:

    * "You may be interested in the fact that I have begun approaching discussions of the WTC "collapses" in my classes. It began with the appearance of your [SE Jones] article, last fall. I found the article just before class, and left it on my laptop so that when I plugged in the laptop projector, the students would see it. (I tried to make it look accidental.) Some were very interested, but I had a few violent responses… (e.g. "I'm extremely offended") and a few of the students acted as though they would turn me in to the Dean. I'm embarrassed to say that I backed down.
    * That was on a Friday (Veteran's Day). By Monday, I had my wagons in a circle and was ready to take on the Dean, if need be. I felt the topic of the WTC was totally appropriate to discuss in this class (Engineering Statics), and I could counter any logical argument against it. By the end of the semester, at least a third of the class was seriously questioning the official story. Also, I've been continually improving my techniques for approaching this topic in my classes, and it has become very rewarding. ...
    *************************************
    http://www.911truthseekers.org/modul...m.php?itemid=4

    Actually, independant organizations did exam the dust and reported similar elements to which Steven Jones found.

    What you have to do is prove why none of these elements should have been expected. Which is a difficult task when you consider how all the elements Steven Jones claims are a chemical fingerprint for thermite, are also common place throughout most office buildings.
    I believe it's the proportionate qualities involved that make it clear that it was nanothermite.

  18. #1598
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    ok, now that you've had your two minutes of hate, can you tell me whether the towers were "a tube" structure or a "tube within a tube" structure, or maybe you don't care whether the evidence being used to slander and condemn someone is accurate or not.
    There was no hate in what i posted. As a matter of fact i am trying to help you and scott by being honest with you. Every time your own or the people you quote outrageous theories get ridiculed and debunked you change them slightly. If i say someone lacks the intellect to grasp a certain concept or event then there is no malicious intent, you can take it that way but if it is true...

    Now where is the hate in my comment?

    No you are right. I am not saying Metakron is being deceptive but that you and scott are.

    I merely came into this garbage to correct that one inaccuracy. I have no real interest in entertaining snake oil salesman with scientific and engineering intellect from the 1800's.
    As a matter of fact my response was an act of kindness which frankly you may not deserve.

  19. #1599
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin
    Quote Originally Posted by John99
    No you are right. I am not saying Metakron is being deceptive but that you and scott are.
    I merely came into this garbage to correct that one inaccuracy. I have no real interest in entertaining snake oil salesman with scientific and engineering intellect from the 1800's.
    ok, now that you've had your two minutes of hate, can you tell me whether the towers were "a tube" structure or a "tube within a tube" structure, or maybe you don't care whether the evidence being used to slander and condemn someone is accurate or not.
    There was no hate in what i posted. As a matter of fact i am trying to help you and scott by being honest with you. Every time your own or the people you quote outrageous theories get ridiculed and debunked you change them slightly. If i say someone lacks the intellect to grasp a certain concept or event then there is no malicious intent, you can take it that way but if it is true...

    Now where is the hate in my comment?

    As a matter of fact my response was an act of kindness which frankly you may not deserve.
    calling people "stupid liars" is an undeserved helpful act of kindness? I don't think i'd like to see an unkind response.

    The phrase two minutes of hate comes from Orwell's 1984, perhaps you misunderstood the context.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate

    I was pointing out that some people would rather attack and abuse rather than discuss the issues in any meaningful way.

    "Every time your own or the people you quote outrageous theories get ridiculed and debunked you change them slightly"
    I don't see any evidence of that. The "debunking" i see is self-declared and usually unsupported speculative explanations, and all supported evidence not conforming to that fixed belief is filtered away. Debunking prefers explanations that support the fixed belief over any notion of credibilty, case in point - the debunkers claiming the red chips are shredded Dr Pepper cans! or the alumino-iron microspheres are laser printer toner! or the eutectic reactions are caused by gypsum!

    I see the official story changing quite a lot though:
    hijackers names changed.
    several different collapse theories,
    bin laden/KSM,
    molten metal/no molten metal,
    cheney in the bunker/not in the bunker,
    rumsfeld in conference with richard clarke/could not be located.
    Myers in conference with richard clarke/at the whitehouse
    fundamentalists partying in stripclubs and taking drugs
    fbi denying the Olsen phone call
    Norad changing their story 3 times

  20. #1600
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by headspin
    "resulting structure was similar to a tube" - curious given that most of the load was supported by the central column interconnected structure. The general characterisation is "tube within a tube".
    He was disagreeing with Jones.
    Surely this is allowed in the new politics of 9/11?
    His reasons for agreeing with the official theory were based on misinformation about the towers structure - he was wrong. Therefore his reasons for disagreeing with Jones were wrong!
    It is not enough to believe someone just because of their expertise. If a scientist says "the sky is green", then it does not follow that the statement "the sky is green" is based on good science.

Similar Threads

  1. By Jozen-Bo in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 08-02-08, 03:09 PM
    Replies: 81
  2. By Tnerb in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 07-16-08, 02:06 PM
    Replies: 33
  3. By Thoreau in forum Politics
    Last Post: 12-09-07, 12:19 PM
    Replies: 18
  4. By Lord Hillyer in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 11-13-07, 02:33 PM
    Replies: 11
  5. By Orleander in forum Site Feedback
    Last Post: 10-27-07, 11:45 PM
    Replies: 16

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •