9/11 Poll

From your perspective, yes. From other peoples perspective the opposite is true. Can you tell me which is more valid without somehow claiming your perspective is superior?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In a previous thread >SciForums.com : Subcultures : Pseudoscience
9/11 he posted this;

Judging from this poll, what I find intolerable is that this board would allow someone like this to be a moderator and allow his silencing of a significantly large segment of the population on such a critical issue.

As to his excuse for doing it? I can tell you it is patently a false one and a lie, I am proof. I come for the express purpose to counteract lies and disinformation. Could Stryder himself be a government or NWO plant, its very possible, this was standard operating procedure in the 1960's and 1970's.
I am not allowed to post links yet, so google this;(The CIA's Family Jewels - Agency Violated Charter for 25 Years Wiretapped Journalists and Dissidents) The first link.

Let's not be so naive as to think a bigger more expanded agency like the Department of Homeland Security isn't capable and willing to do the same thing to protect the interests of the NWO.

Anyone who has researched this topic to the degree I have will tell you that fire does not melt steel. The emperor is wearing no clothes. What happened on 9/11 was repeated so many times from that very instant, it is now a mantra and a myth. That some people wish to call a spade a spade and should be disallowed in any venue among freedom and liberty loving people of the world, is an Orwellian nightmare I'm afraid to see my son growing up to witness.

I'm new here. I don't know how to report a moderator or if you can. When I hit the report button, in the list of what the "reporting" function was for, none of them listed moderator malfeasance. If anyone knows how to report this and gets this clown's keys to the store taken away, I highly recommend it, or I seriously think peoples freedom of expression and liberty are in danger.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-- Beatrice Hall, "The Friends of Voltaire, 1906"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You specifically joined the forums to post this, your one and only message so far, on the topic of 9/11 debates, even going so far as to suggest that Stryder is likely a government or "NWO" agent. If you're the kind of fly these 9/11 threads are attracting to the forums, I can definitely see why the mods would want to start locking these threads down in the future.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pity there isn't the option in reporting of "being a fruitcake".
He's proof?
Nah, an idiot.

Oops, wrong.
Try more research, instead of speculation.

 

It's harder to pinpoint the key people who masterminded it than it is to point out the various flaws in the official story and things such as the controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings. However, if we can get a critical mass of people who realize the flaws in the official story and the need for a more indepedent investigation, than all of these things can be further investigated by people who are actually paid to do so instead of people who have to grab time away from how they make their livelihood.

Some of the best theories as to who may have been responsible for 9/11 are written about by authors such as David Ray Griffin and Jim Marrs. David Ray Griffin feels sure that there was government complicity, but even he doesn't say he knows who was behind it; but he does give some very strong arguments that certain people were involved.

 

Pro science? There are full fledged -scientists- on my side, such as Steven Jones, who had been published in both Scientific American as well as in Nature, perhaps the top scientific journals, before 9/11 even came to pass. There are also 653 (and counting) architectural and engineering professionals who support a reinvestigation of the WTC building collapses, as can be seen in the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth homepage.

 

I admit I'm a bit surprised that it was deleted; does Skinwalker have jurisdiction here? I thought it was only Stryder. Anyway, when writing on controversial subjects, I have learned it is best to save posts that you may think might be deleted. This way, if your respond to someone and the post is in fact deleted, you can simply send it to them via PM (and even protest the deletion if you think that that might help; but you apparently can't repost it, even in SF Open Government, even if you're not using abusive language, so you'd have to paraphrase).

Anyway, feel free to send me a PM with the gist of your response.

Edit- Sorry, I didn't really digest the last sentence. I regret to inform you that I don't think that Islam is the solution, but I'm certainly willing to here why you think this is the case, whether in forum or via PM. I also believe that there are many things that are wrong with western civilization.

 

I think it depends on how we're defining religion.

 

Agreed; the internet movie Zeitgeist makes this quite clear.

I don't quite agree with you there. I think the important thing to note about atheists is their primary disagreement is with the term "God" and/or its common equivalent in the language(s) they know. I think it's fair to say that many scientists dislike the excesses of religion and some certainly identify themselves as atheists. However, God can be defined in many ways; some have used terms like the force (Star Wars). If memory serves, many people in a canadian survey, when asked what their religion was, responded "Jedi" ;-). Captain Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Star Trek Enterprise in TNG never said he believed in God as far as I know (and I really don't think I missed a single episode), but it seems to me that he felt there was much more to reality then met the eye; I believe this was especially notable in a particular episode where the ship goes at a ridiculously fast speed and ends up at the edge of the universe.

I think it's related, but I agree that that this subject would be best in a forum such as Religion; ofcourse Skinwalker moderates religion and I definitely get along less with him than I do with Stryder, so I don't think I'll be appearing there anytime soon.

 

Scott3x I took a look at the website to which you provided a link. On that page it uses the term pyroclastic flow. Any idea why they use that term?

 

Also in the UK: the point being, it was done for a joke not for religious purposes.
A point which seems to have gone over your head.

"Picard" would say whatever the script writers felt was appropriate.
"His" opinion has no bearing whatsoever on anything.

 

Oli, if anyone should be getting reported here, it's you; it's obvious you're engaging in a personal attack. Furthermore, when do personal attacks ever lead to anything productive? Even if the other person has a bad argument, going on the personal attack train isn't going to point that out; if anything, it may well distract from it.

Oli, I must admit I'm curious as to how much research you yourself have done on the issue. To be sure, Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

According to 911review.com, shortly after 9/11, he stated:
"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

However, even NIST later admitted that the fires in the WTC buildings could not have melted the steel. And they're perfectly correct in this. The problem is that molten metal was seen before and after the WTC collapse; since the fires couldn't have done it, there had to have been another factor; upon analysis, it seems probable that both thermite and nanothermite were used; in the case of the Twin Towers, the thermite to start things off and the nanothermite to produce the explosive power to bring the rest of the towers down. So how does NIST account for the molten metal? It categorically denies that it existed, even though there were so many reports that it did; one of which was notably recorded before the building even came down. It had to admit that one, but it goes on with some far fetched story about it probably being molten aluminum, which scientists such as Steven Jones have categorically disproved.

 

Actually it was an observation: Stryder had stated his reasons and The Esotericist had dismissed them completely, going so far as to accuse Stryder of being some sort of disinformation agent, and then claiming that he himself (The Esotericist) was "the proof".
In other words, The Esotericist started the personal (and unfounded) attacks.
Perhaps you should berate him?

None on this particular issue, I am however aware of the thermal properties steel and how its mechanical properties vary with temperature.
All basic engineering information.

 

What you're doing now is an observation. What you did before was a personal attack. TE only stated that he thought it was "very possible" that Stryder was a "government or NWO plant"; he also gave his reasons for his theorizing that this might be the case. I myself have never thought that Stryder was, although I have considered it possible (and still do) for others who write or have written in this forum. I will now explain my own reasoning; Stryder is a super moderator; he doesn't only moderate this forum, he moderates others as well. Sure he seems to shut down threads pertaining to 9/11, but it's not the only subject that he's shut down. However, I think there are far more likely suspects in terms of disinformation agents then Stryder and other posters here. Take NIST, for example. I remember reading a story in one of David Ray Griffin's books where a noted online journalist asked a NIST spokesman that perhaps it would be best if NIST had a public debate with noted conspiracy theorists. The NIST spokesman was emphatic that they wouldn't do that, perhaps wanting to head off any calls by said journalist or any other for this to happen. Now if their story was so sound, don't you think that they would -want- more discussion on the subject, to clear up what are perceived to be the many flaws in its reports?

If memory serves, you're an engineer, right? I view this as a very good thing; I think we can all agree that what is needed here is more people who have a good understanding of engineering, atleast when it comes to the collapsing of buildings. I just wish you were involved in the discussions when Tony Szamboti, who is a mechanical engineer, was here. If things get going again in regards to engineering issues, however, I may well be able to get him to come back.

In any case, there is a site of architects and engineers who would like the investigation of the cause of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 reopened; they have stated their reasons on said site; perhaps you could take a look to see if they've made any mistakes? It's on the right hand side of the page:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

Yep. To quote the blurb from a good video of why the term was used to describe the collapse of the Twin Towers:
Pyroclastic flow is defined on the US Geological Survey website as a ground hugging avalanche of hot gas and debris. The couliflower shaped debris clouds observed during the collapse of the WTC buildings on 09/11/01 were telltale signs of a pyroclastic flow. These phenomenon are typically visible only during volcanic eruptions and controlled demolition of buildings.

Here's the video that goes along with it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1381525012075538113

 

Perhaps there was some humour in it, but I think there's something else to consider here; how a person defines religion. I've seen it defined in various ways, but my favourite (with a little snipping) was one that defined it as a set of beliefs. We all have those. The merits of telekinesis aside, I can certainly believe that many people (including myself) believe more in the force than they do in the type of God defined in various institutional religions.

Again Oli, especially when dealing with people who like science (and who have discussed both Star Wars and Star Trek for a very long time), what characters like Jean Luc Picard has said actually does have merit. What people fail to understand is that a person doesn't have to belong to any particular religious institution in order to be believed; as a matter of fact, the person doesn't even have to be 'real' per se; many people doubt that Christ, as depicted in the bible, ever existed; and yet, about a billion people apparently believe that he did. Similarly, many people believe that 9/11 was as the official story says. This doesn't mean, however, that that's actually true.

A few lines I've heard that I think may help in highlighting my point:
•There is truth in your fiction and fiction in your truth.
•Reality is much stranger than fiction.

 

TE also stated "Anyone who has researched this topic to the degree I have will tell you that fire does not melt steel."
Since that is incorrect he's either a liar (about his "research") or an idiot, I merely thought that "liar" was more offensive and therefore didn't use it, but either will do as an observation.

And the last time I offered my services I was accused of "being vague" (not by you) when I listed some of the pertinent factors that would need to be known.
The last thing I need is know-nothings deciding that that being comprehensive is somehow skirting the issue: if I weren't comprehensive in real life then half of my projects would be in pieces on the ground by now.

As I've said before, I have no particular interest in 911, I do however object to posts containing blatant idiocy from people claiming to have "researched" a subject.

 

No, it was all humour - it was an internet meme that caught on with the geek population.

Star Trek and Star Wars have very little to do with science: many is the time that science has been over-ridden by plot requirements.
They are both entertainment.
And whatever is said follows that requirement first.

 

If someone is truly a liar, I think that that's a justified term to use for someone. A liar -should- be defined as someone who knows the truth, but tells an untruth. I know that fire -can- melt steel; it may be that TE simply didn't know this. Perhaps he meant to say that the fires in the WTC buildings couldn't have melted the steel but didn't quite get it out that way. Regardless, neither of these possibilities makes TE an "idiot". I personally don't think that the term should be used on anyone; a careful look at the history of the term on wikipedia clearly demonstrates that the term was generally used as a personal attack; and though the guideline against personal attacks is rarely enforced here, I think there's a reason that it was created; mainly because it frequently leads to the person being attacked probably suffering atleast some emotional harm and either responding in kind or leaving the discussion; all of which is counterproductive to having good discussions.

I remember that, yes. The problem was that at that point, Stryder had decided that we couldn't talk about 9/11, which resulted in it being very difficult to specify the factors you needed to know in order to calculate the results.

I admit that TE's statement that fire can't melt steel is incorrect, but my guess is that he either misworded it or misread something which probably stated that the fire in the buildings couldn't have melted the steel. Regardless, this doesn't mean that TE is a 'know-nothing'. However, I must say that I was quite impressed with Tony Szamboti's knowledge concerning why the WTC buildings had to have been controlled demolitions; I believe I was impressed because unlike most of the people who have discussed the issue, he -is- a mechanical engineer with a firm understanding of structural engineering.

And yet, here you are

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Perhaps it would be slightly more accurate to say that you only have a marginal interest; enough to respond to me, not enough check out a site wherein architects and engineers elaborate on their reasons for questioning the official story. If you stick around long enough, though, I may get inspired to bring their points to you; I've certainly done it before in this forum.