I have a question on 9/11 [Archive] - Armageddon Online Forums

Cartesiantheater

Aug 22nd, 2006, 8:34 AM

If all this evidence is showing 9/11 was an inside job and the govt carried it out, and i even heard bush told organization to stand back and allow it to happen, so

1) Why isnt a full invesigation done to arrest and/or overthrow the government?

2) Why isnt the media talking about the evidence, and telling people the govt did it?

3) Why was Bush re-elected in 2004?

4) Why is america asleep or in complete denail?

5) Why isnt something being done, and why are the media letting people believe lies?
2 reasons:

First, the evidence isn't strong at all. It's similar to creationism "evidence," that is, there IS NO POSITIVE evidence that shows that explosives were used. There is only hole-picking in non-demolitions hypotheses. You can't prove a negative, and so, most of the intellectual elite do not pay attention. (this statement comes from what I have discovered by reading many of the scientific papers written about the subject from BOTH sides. You have some things that were observed {planes hitting buildings, fires, collapse}, and papers written based only on what was observed; and you have papers written that claim that the buildings could not collapse based on what was observed, and must turn to demolitions to explain that the buildings fell- instead of papers presenting observed positive evidence to back up this new hypothesis {which is the standard scientific method}) Most of the intellectual elite do not like this diversion from the scientific method, and so they resist these alternatives that do not present positive evidence.

Second, if it really was an inside job, than the government is so magically powerful that no one will be able to oppose them anyway, and hence, you are wasting your time with this thread (well, not entirely; conspiracy theories allow the little guy to wear the Goodguy badge and feel good about himself)

OR................ everyone who is any semblance of a powerful position who doesn't agree with the conspiracy is in on it... including not only the US media, but the mainstream media worldwide... run to the hills, they have everyone...:abduct:

lycanox

Aug 22nd, 2006, 8:43 AM

1) Why isn't a full investigation done to arrest and/or overthrow the government?
Because the government decides if such investigation takes place, and other countries need the governments help for their investigations.

Would you support the investigation to the crimes that you committed?

2) Why isn't the media talking about the evidence, and telling people the govt did it?
The media is state controlled. Just look up the treat about the 911 poll on CNN.
As an matter of fact, the foreign countries do show some stuff about this on TV. so over there things seem to be changing.

3) Why was Bush re-elected in 2004?
Good propaganda i guess. besides America didn't have much to choose from.

4) Why is America asleep or in complete denial?
They want to know for sure. Don't think they can do anything. Are afraid of the government. Or don't believe yet.

5) Why isn't something being done, and why are the media letting people believe lies?
An combination between all the answer above, I guess.

loganosborne

Aug 22nd, 2006, 9:46 AM

1) Why isnt a full invesigation done to arrest and/or overthrow the government?
Because the governments decides to do that or not.

2) Why isn't the media talking about the evidence, and telling people the govt did it?
Because the media is controled by the government as lycanox said CNN poll was a good example.

3) Why was Bush re-elected in 2004?
Because Bush had no competition.

5) Why isn't something being done, and why are the media letting people believe lies?
Because the media is state controled basically.

Micahyah

Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:38 AM

Under Fire! U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation
The Lone Star Iconoclast, Monday, August 21, 2006 (http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=426&z=54)

http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/articlefiles/426-buswell-use.jpg

FT. SAM HOUSTON, Texas — Forty-one-year-old Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell is a hero. Having served over 19 years in the United States Army, Buswell has seen a lot of terrain. On April 15, 2004, he was injured in a rocket attack while serving a tour in Iraq. For this, SFC Buswell was given a Purple Heart. And until recently, Buswell was an Intelligence Analyst stationed at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas.

But if one were to ask Buswell’s Commanding Officer what he thinks of the Sergeant, the response would likely sound a little bit more like, "No comment."

Such were the words given to The Iconoclast by Lieutenant Colonel Jane Crichton after inquiring why SFC Buswell is the focus of an investigation initiated by Colonel Luke S. Green, Chief of Staff at Fifth Army in Ft. Sam Houston.

According to unnamed military sources contacted by The Iconoclast, SFC Buswell "used his Government issued email account to send messages disloyal to the United States …" Because of these statements, SFC Buswell could soon find himself dishonorably discharged, court marshaled, or worse.

It all started as a simple response to a common, unsolicited mass email, sent to 38 individuals at Ft. Sam Houston on Aug. 2, 2006. The message, as well as Buswell’s response, is among documents obtained by The Iconoclast. The sender of the first message is identified as "Anderson, Larry Mr JMC". It reads:

This is being sent more as assurance for what happens when a plane hits a nuclear site more so than in response to that German website alleging a government conspiracy related to the 9/11 Pentagon plane crash (though the website does present an interesting perspective) – LarrySubject: F-4 vs. Concrete Wall

Take a look at this clip [not included] and you’ll get a good feel for what happens to an airplane when it hits a concrete wall. Many of you have seen the produced (but not factual), Michael Moore-esque website that asks the question; "If it’s true that a Boeing airliner hit the Pentagon, what happened to all the parts of it? Why do we not find more pieces of it?

Where did all that mass GO???" (Therefore, the paranoid loony liberal reasoning, 9-11 must have been a US gov’t conspiracy!) Well, for those who question what happened to "all the mass of that airplane".......watch this clip.

It’s the old Air Force engineering tests of the concrete barrier that surrounds nuclear reactor domes —tests to see if it will indeed survive an aerial attack. With the hi-speed cameras rolling, they accelerated an F-4 Phantom to 500mph and.........

SFC Buswell responded later that day, saying:

Subject: F-4 vs. Concrete Wall Hello,

I receive many unsolicited e-mails daily, this one I chose to respond to. The below mentioned premise that an F4 Phantom fighter jet hitting that hardened concrete barrier is akin to the alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon is like oil and water; they don’t mix, and they serve to muddy the issue. The issue is 911 was filled with errors in the ‘official report’ and ‘official story’ of that day, and, what happened that day. We all know and saw 2 planes hitting the WTC buildings, we didn’t see the 757 hit the Pentagon, nor did we see the plane crash in Shanksville PA. Both the PA and Pentagon ‘crashes’ don’t have clues and tell-tale signs of a jumbo-jet impacting those zones!

The Pentagon would have huge wing impacts in the side of the building; it didn’t. Shanksville PA would have had debris, and a large debris field; it didn’t.

Getting back to the F4...The Pentagon isn’t a nuclear hardened structure, so I can’t follow your weak logic that since an F4 vaporized itself in a test impact on a nuclear hardened structure that the alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon should have exhibited the same characteristics!

I say Occums razor is the best way to deduce this ‘day of infamy’; if you weigh all options, do some simple studying you will see 911 was clearly not executed by some arabs in caves with cell phones and 3 day old newspapers! I mean how are Arabs benefiting from pulling off 911? They have more war, more death and dismal conditions, so, how did 911 benefit them? Answer: It didn’t. So, who benefited from 9-11? The answer is sad, but simple; The Military Industial [sic] Complex.

It’s not a paranoid conspiracy to think there are conspiracies out there...and, it’s not Liberal Lunacy either, nor is it Conservative Kookiness! People, fellow citizens we’ve been had! We must demand a new independent investigation into 911 and look at all options of that day, and all plausabilities [sic], even the most incredulous theories must be examined.

Upon returning to his office the next day, Buswell discovered the locks had been changed, his security clearance was revoked, and an investigation had been launched. Buswell’s commanding officer, Colonel Luke Green, drafted a letter assigning Major Edwin Escobar to the investigation. According to sources, Colonel Green has asserted that SFC Buswell failed to obey Army regulations when he used his government issued email account to send what have been termed as messages disloyal to the United States with the intent of stirring up disloyalty, in a manner that brings discredit upon the United States Army.

It has been reported that Colonel Green also wrote that SFC Buswell claims to have information proving a conspiracy on the part of the United States Military Industrial Complex to attack targets within the United States, e.g., The Pentagon. Officials have suggested that the email response sent by SFC Buswell may be in violation of CFR 2635.705(a ), DoD-R 5500.7, and Joint Ethics Regulation paragraph 2-301b. These rules SFC Buswell is said to have perhaps violated regulate how soldiers utilize government resources, how they use their off-duty time, and how they use their official time.

The Iconoclast attempted to establish a dialogue with Colonel Green and Major Escobar, but calls were not returned as of press time. SFC Buswell declined to comment on the investigation, but noted that he spoke with his parents about the matter for a period of two days before he was ordered to not disclose any further information.

"My son spoke with me about [the investigation]," said Winthrop Buswell, SFC Buswell’s father. "There was an unsolicited email. My son, without divulging anything, without usurping anything, without doing anything to discredit anyone in any way, simply responded to that saying ‘Yes, there are what if’s. And maybe there is something that is being covered up.’ That’s all that I know. He responded to it, but it was unsolicited. I think – of course, I’m dad, being very much in love with his son and wanting to praise him – because he is a low man on the totem pole, of course he’s of pretty high rank but not quite an officer, that maybe … Maybe an investigation might be the scapegoat for whomever."

"That is so ridiculous," said Winthrop Buswell. "[To say he is disloyal to the United States] is totally ridiculous. And the discourtesy was, ah, very apparent at that particular time. … I’ve always thought the American way is this: to disagree is important. To dissent is important. And my son simply said, without any fanfare, ‘Look, let’s take a look at the whole picture. If you want to take a look at that, maybe there are a few paragraphs that a Michael Moore might want to emphasize.’ That is all that my son has said. Never, however, to at all disparage the country and the patriotism that is so necessary for all of us. But, patriotism, as suggested by FOX News’ [Bill O’Reilly], is following the line of George W. Bush and cohorts completely! All my son is saying is, ‘Hey, maybe there’s a what if.’ Never, though, did he get sidetracked from the fact that [he loves his] country."

"What disturbed him more than anything else, I think, was the fact that the Iraqi citizens suffered so much and are suffering so much now," said Winthrop Buswell. "The time that he was injured, there were several Iraqis burning to death in front of him. He tried to put out the fire. It was a traumatic experience for him. … He spoke about that a number of times, and how terrible that was to see the citizenry being killed and suffering so much."

"One of his heroes is Abraham Lincoln," Winthrop Buswell continued. "And Abraham Lincoln said many things, but one of the things he said - and I’m paraphrasing - was, ‘I may disagree with the fellow who’s speaking, but I will stand and defend his right to speak.’ That’s my son’s position. He does look at the what if’s. But that doesn’t take away from his dedication and his patriotism. I don’t know a fellow who gets more chills running up and down his spine when he sees the flag flying."

"As a boy, [Donald was] always a very curious fellow," he added. "Very daring, but never risking anything or stepping over the line. He loved motorcycles, but was always very cautious about it, always wearing proper clothing, always wearing a helmet. Also, he was very active in little model racing cars. He was in Cub Scouts. I remember walking to the gymnasium with him and having wonderful conversations with him years ago. His mother and I went through a divorce, and that is never easy for anyone. My son was also very close to his grandfather on his mother’s side, and also his grandfather and grandmother on my side. Donald loves railroading, and my father has the best job that anyone could ever have. He’s a locomotive engineer, and my son related to that. My son also has a strong belief in a power greater than ourselves."

Justice

Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:39 AM

Micahyah

Good find, keep it up

2 reasons:

First, the evidence isn't strong at all.

You know that not to be the case and you are fooling no one here with that statement so why say it.

take a look at all the threads here, do you see lots of elvis lives or lots questioning the events of 9/11 or is the link Micahyah just gave made up or something

Now

Aug 22nd, 2006, 1:48 PM

1) Why isnt a full invesigation done to arrest and/or overthrow the government?

2) Why isnt the media talking about the evidence, and telling people the govt did it?

3) Why was Bush re-elected in 2004?

4) Why is america asleep or in complete denail?

5) Why isnt something being done, and why are the media letting people believe lies?

1. That is the same question being asked by tens of millions of people globally. Perhaps as was the case with Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin conspiracies, they will investigate when all of the implied individuals are dead.

2. Here's an example. General Electric are one of the top 10 contractors to the US military. General Electric also own NBC.

3. That will remain a mystery.

4. Poor diet.

5. Nothing can be done, unless the American people would like to finally find a good use for the 2nd Ammendment and storm the White House en masse, demanding answers from their hijacked and corrupt government. However, there is a good chance you would get killed trying.

The media are simply passing on the lies they are given.

Now.

Cartesiantheater

Aug 22nd, 2006, 2:54 PM

Micahyah

You know that not to be the case and you are fooling no one here with that statement so why say it.

take a look at all the threads here, do you see lots of elvis lives or lots questioning the events of 9/11 or is the link Micahyah just gave made up or something

Pardon, I meant the PHYSICAL evidence of explosives being used (i.e. bomb residue, such as C4 or whatever; unquestionable video tape of bombs exploding of the same caliber of the unquestionable video tape of the planes hitting the buildings; that sort of thing). By evidence, of course I mean positive evidence, the kind needed for a legitimate scientific exploration.
Unfortunately, there really isn't this sort of evidence. Your side will naturally say that that is because the Government has confiscated or hidden that evidence. This, sadly, makes your entire case safe from falsification, and hence, unscientific. The intellectual elite will not heed these arguments because of the reasons I just listed. I don't expect those unfamiliar with REAL science to understand the significance of falsifiability, but I can at least try, can't I?

Cartesiantheater

Aug 22nd, 2006, 3:01 PM

2. Here's an example. General Electric are one of the top 10 contractors to the US military. General Electric also own NBC.
Now.
And magically that makes NBC guilty of lying for the Government. Typical leap of logic of the conspiracy theorist.

grendel 13

Aug 22nd, 2006, 4:18 PM

Cartesiantheater

Aug 22nd, 2006, 5:04 PM

cartesiantheater i want to know what you think about this, like i've said in other posts, if the events of 9/11 happened the way the government says they did, than aren't they guilty of not protecting american citizens? they failed in there most important duties. As far as this part is concerned, understand that I agree with you whole-heartedly. My motive is not defending the Government. I generally dislike them. My motive is the integrity of science. People are butchering the scientific method with this stuff. In addition, many people are making frivolous claims about the laws of physics, claims all based on the argument from personal incredulity rather than on exhaustive research. This strikes a nerve with me like no other.

also to say that because ge owns nbc so they lie for the gov. is a leap in logic is just not so, who owns all media, corporations, and who has more influence on our gov. than anybody, corporations, they are definitely in bed together. Yes it is, if we are thinking mathematically. If we are thinking hysterically, than no, it is not a leap of logic. Call me inhuman, but I think it's been shown pretty well by people such as Einstein, Schrödinger , and Heisenberg that common sense and human intuition are completely unreliable. So, instead of trusting my animal gut instincts (which I really don't have anymore anyway), I will trust math. If it is not possible to determine that x + y = z based on the given evidence, I remain agnostic. You guys, on the other hand, are jumping to the conclusion WITHOUT concrete proof, and are making statements as if you had CONCRETE PROOF. Again, call me inhuman, but I can not make such a logical fallacy. If there is EVIDENCE that NBC is lying to protect the Government than I will accept that hypothesis. But since there is NO EVIDENCE, except of the self-fulfilling argument type, I remain agnostic on the issue and say that those who do not remain agnostic on the issue are making a logical leap. That is, just because it is possible that NBC could be a tool of the Government, it does not follow that NBC is a tool of the Government. Here's an example: The Catholic church has vast resources. The late Pope John Paul asked American Catholics to vote for Bush, saying that, because he is pro-life, he was the lesser of two evils (Kerry, of course, is pro-choice). Does it then follow that the Bush Adminstration had complete control of the Vatican and was using the Catholic church as a tool to take over the world? Of course not. That's a HUGE leap of logic. See the parallel? How am I wrong here?

grendel 13

Aug 22nd, 2006, 5:17 PM

i agree with what you say cartesian, and also, understand that i am not saying that the media is a tool of the government, i'm simply saying that the media, which is controlled by massive corporations, would much rather see people like bush and the republican party in office, what with all the tax cuts, oil subsidies and such. therefore it is in the media's best interest to hype up every piece of terror news they get, even when a disaster happens that has nothing to do with terrorism the first thing the media says is that terrorism doesn't seem to be the case. so if it's not the case than why even mention it, to keep the sheeple in feer, to let us know terrorist want to kill us all, and remind them that only tough republicans can keep them safe( even when that's the complete opposite of what they've done).

p.s. whatever happened to the republican party's ideas of less government?

Justice

Aug 23rd, 2006, 5:04 AM

By evidence, of course I mean positive evidence, the kind needed for a legitimate scientific exploration.
Unfortunately, there really isn't this sort of evidence.?

See http://portland.indymedia.org/en/region/global/newswire/archive.shtml

Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.

Your side will naturally say that that is because the Government has confiscated or hidden that evidence.

Are you saying they did not remove CCTV images from the gas station across the road from the pentagon and non of the 100's CCTV on the roof of the pentagon were working.

This, sadly, makes your entire case safe from falsification, and hence, unscientific. The intellectual elite will not heed these arguments because of the reasons I just listed. I don't expect those unfamiliar with REAL science to understand the significance of falsifiability, but I can at least try, can't I?

as you know you can find may papers about the events of 9/11 produced by professors and peer checked so lets be honest here, you are talking a load of crap.

Cartesiantheater

Aug 23rd, 2006, 9:03 AM

See http://portland.indymedia.org/en/region/global/newswire/archive.shtml
were working.

You'll have to read this link (http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm) to truly get what's going on in the quote below. Jones makes an ass out of himself by demonstrating his lack of knowledge of chemistry here.

Another's lucid rebuttal of Professor Jones' conjectures about the sulfidated iron found in the burning piles of WTC wreckage is self-published as follows: "The "absolutely conclusive smoking-gun PROOF" amounts to this: Prof. Jones CLAIMS to have obtained a sample of solidified spatter from post-collapse WTC structural steel. He claims to have determined the sample to be sulfur-contaminated iron. Solely from this basis he leaps to the definite conclusion that it's a residue of thermate (thermite with sulfur and potassium permanganate additives) used to cut the tower's columns. This is quite the leap of inductive reasoning.

Now, let's see if this chemical compound can be created without thermate being pre-planted. This takes a little bit of ground work, apologies.

"HOT STEEL WILL CONTINUE TO UNDERGO EXOTHERMIC OXIDATION REACTIONS WHILE EXPOSED TO AIR, CAUSING IRON TO INCREASE ITS TEMPERATURE UNTIL IT MELTS, FORMING POOLS OF MOLTEN IRON." In iron oxidation, higher temperatures accelerate chemical reactions. (Even at room temperature Iron is "burning"- rust)
"Meaning, a hot iron beam, if combined with a large enough number of other hot iron beams in a confined or semi insulated pile (e.g., covered with cement dust), will burn CONTINUOUSLY until it consumes itself, (and thus will appear to have been "vaporized" to those not looking for the rust residue)."

"The other interesting thing about "iron fire" (fast oxidation of iron) is that it creates a "vacuum" of sorts that "sucks" oxygen to itself. ... an "iron fire" converts the oxygen gas (and possibly also nitrogen gas, but that is tangent) into a solid (rust). Thus, the burning iron metal effectively sucks atmospheric oxygen INTO the pile of burning metal, regardless of convection currents. ...the heat of combustion escapes more slowly from the metal fire furnace than from a carbonaceous fire furnace. Thus, since the heat of combustion does not leave with the combustion products, a metal-air furnace could become much "hotter" faster than a carbon-air furnace of the same scale (e.g., at the same oxygen demand level).
Theoretically, there is no limit upon the temperature that such a large air-metal-fire could attain."
" It has also been suggested that Sulfur especially from tons of decomposing Gypsum (a Sulfur ore used in sheetrock walls and partitions in offices and homes) in the piles accelerated the oxidation or melting of the iron burning in the piles."
"The "Sulfides" produced when sulfur dioxide (e.g., from decomposed Gypsum) contacts burning iron have been identified as an agent that supposedly accelerated the "deterioration" of the steel in the burning WTC piles, on a macromolecular level."
"In other words, Sulfur Dioxide gas (e.g., from decomposing Gypsum wallboard) spontaneously reacts (combines) with iron metal (cold or hot), turning it into iron sulfides and iron oxides (i.e. burning the iron). The sulfides introduced into iron (sulfidation) by exposure of iron to Sulfur Dioxide gas have been used by humans (blacksmiths) for hundreds if not thousands of years, and have been understood in chemical terms for centuries, but apparently, such chemistry is not understood by BYU Professor Jones."
"Professor Jones demonstrates his ignorance of the basic "Blacksmith" chemistry of sulfidation-by-S02-from-fire with his following oblivious or dishonest statements: "Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports. ... While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic. ... Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite."
"In addition to sulfidation of cold iron by its exposure to sulfurous (e.g., SO2) fumes, sulfidation by an even more direct transfer of the sulfur and oxygen from Gypsum to Iron might occur where Gypsum (dust) is in direct contact with the burning (e.g., red hot) iron."
"As we all know, the debris field... was an oven of steel-melting intensity. All of the WTC's debris was churned together... in this pile. Steel is basically highly refined iron. The element sulfur is present in abundance in many building materials. Drywall, for example (also known as GYPSUM board) consists primarily of plaster, i.e. gypsum, i.e. hydrated calcium SULFATE. Churn lots of steel and gypsum together and cook them for three weeks at temperatures sufficient to melt both and I would not be surprised to see "sulfur-contaminated iron" turning up in samples of same. This is not to say Jones is definitely wrong as to what produced it, just that it's ridiculously dishonest and irresponsible to hype this as "absolutely conclusive smoking-gun PROOF" of the use of thermate. There is at least one other completely plausible completely mundane possibility. Prof. Jones focuses on the iron/sulfur mix as a signature of thermate, but makes no mention of aluminum oxide, which would also most definitely be present and which he'd certainly test for and mention if it were. This is a strange omission. Prof. Jones knows better "
" For practical purposes, all this means that a huge pile of iron beams (e.g., mixed in with tons of other materials initially burning) can itself begin to burn like huge iron logs in a pile furnace, and there is no reason not to expect this system to reach a temperature high enough to melt iron. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) gas, released from burning organic materials, and/or from decomposing Gypsum, in the burning piles will spontaneously combine (react) with cold or hot iron, adding more heat to the iron, and adding "sulfides" to the steel and thus lowering its effective melting temperature."
"The first "molten" iron in the WTC piles was reportedly discovered WEEKS AFTER the collapse of the WTC towers, and molten iron was reportedly found regularly during the following MONTHS during excavations of the huge piles. The only rational explanation for this steady-state phenomenon is IRON BURNING. "Professor Jones" is not a rational man, and thus he fails to consider the fact that Iron Burns, and instead assumes that the reported "molten iron" was all created (by surreptitious "Thermite") on September 11, 2001 and that all this red-hot liquid metal just stayed clumped together on its chaotic descent down 70+ floors and then stayed in molten form until it was dug up weeks and months later."

In other words, the chemical compounds that Jones claims MUST HAVE come from previously planted thermate could have formed quite naturally in the burning piles of rubble. Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid. So, this liquid that Jones claims could only have been observed with the help of thermate is also found to be a possible mundane, normal reaction. Jones is either a LIAR or is INCOMPETENT on matters of chemistry (not surprising; he is a PHYSICIST who specializes in cold fusion)
And here is what alledgedly happened when a physicst e-mailed jones with this information (from the link at the top of this post):
"Professor Jones of BYU has since acknowledged in an email to me the fact that "iron burns" but attempts to limit this chemical reaction to only "under certain conditions" (he specifies pure oxygen as supposedly being a requirement), but Jones has failed to acknowledge that hot Iron is combustible (it oxidizes and generates heat) when combined with ordinary air, and Jones has not responded to the following observations that iron is usually sulfidated upon exposure to the fumes from ordinary fires."

Cartesiantheater

Aug 23rd, 2006, 9:05 AM

"Further, as an aside, it is total idiocy for Jones and his associates to assume that someone intent upon both bringing down the WTC towers and being undetected in doing so would go to the trouble of actually "melting" some of the iron (let alone allot of it) within the iron support columns (steel will not "melt" until reaching temperatures of nearly 3000F), rather than just heating some of them to the much lesser temperature point at which the iron would EXPAND and DEFORM (see photos linked below) and become worse than useless to support the enormous weight of the building."

(this is in regards to the molten metal falling out of the window)

"More fundamentally, what good is molten iron falling out of a window to someone who wants to use it to HEAT a VERTICAL IRON BEAM to the point of failure???? In order to USE thermite to heat something, you have to let the molten iron transfer its heat to that thing, which means that the molten iron would cool and solidify if were actually USED to heat something. And, since Jones claims that the thermite was placed on the internal columns of the building (since they failed first), how and why would molten iron show up at the outside perimeter (near a corner) to fall out of a window? Thermite charges are always used ABOVE (or inside) the subject to be heated, because any other position would result in the hot molten iron formed by thermite flowing down away from the subject to be heated and being useless waste. Jones offers no explanation for why anyone would go to the trouble of using "thermite" to produce many gallons of WASTE molten iron that was not kept in intimate contact with vertical Beams and therefore served no purpose other than to fall out of a window and attract attention to itself. So, shall we call Jones' Theory: The Theory of the Incompetent Thermite Bombers Who Just Needed to Call Attention to their Handiwork by Pouring Molten Iron out of a Window. "
"Keep in mind also that Jones is oblivious that hot (molten) Iron Burns spontaneously in air.

Another problem with Jones' theory that this falling molten metal is "iron" (and not aluminum) is that IF it were IRON, at the temperature of melted iron, some of it would probably have constantly been seen exploding/flashing/burning into bright white Light upon being released as small particles in the air."

Cartesiantheater

Aug 23rd, 2006, 9:16 AM

As far as my claim that the 911 CT papers aren't scientific, let me clarify. I mean that at present there is NO PAPER (to the best of my knowledge) that is entirely a working alternative hypothesis of its own. All of the ones that I have found are papers that attempt to explain that non-demolition papers are wrong. Why no one from the conspiracy side has addressed this baffles me. (Although, the uneducated masses would pay more attention to a paper that says THEY ARE WRONG! rather than a mundane alternative hypothesis, IMO) This is bad science because it assumes that everything we know about physics is all that there is to know, and hence, demolition theories must be called into play.

Cartesiantheater

Aug 23rd, 2006, 9:32 AM

In addition, here's an aside. (a tangent)

From Mark Ferren:

All 9-11 internet-published conspiracy theorists, that I have read, are unaware that long before steel members subjected to the heat of fire lose much of their rated strength and rigidity (before their Young modulus decreases too much), they EXPAND in a manner that creates a force that can destroy them, or destroy other members, or destroy their connections to other members. The combination of thermal expansion with a still-high Young modulus creates an enormous force, which typically causes something to distort, tear off, or to move out of the way. As they said back in the day, "something has got to break." http://www.cagenweb.com/quarries/articles_and_books/stone_magazine/fire_trap.html

http://www.debunking911.com/truck.htm (Look at the pictures)
"The hydrocarbon fire (gas, diesel, oil) whatever it was, caused the steel I-beam above it expand, and where the beam was "softest" (its Young's modulus was reduced where it was heated) the beam was deformed by that force. The beam could not move the objects pinning its ends (could not freely elongate), so a compressive distortion occurred within the length of the beam itself. Upon cooling, the beam did not resume its original shape, nor its original length, because the forces generated by its thermal expansion had compressively deformed it. If this were a vertical column supporting a heavy building in parallel with other columns (which would restrain it from freely elongating), the column so heated and deformed would not be able to carry its rated load, and UPON COOLING SOME it would then thermally contract but would be x inches SHORTER than when it was installed and thus it could be PULLING THE BUILDING DOWN INSTEAD OF HOLDING IT UP."

Now

Aug 23rd, 2006, 10:27 AM

And magically that makes NBC guilty of lying for the Government. Typical leap of logic of the conspiracy theorist.

My suggestion is that the fact that defence contractors and major media owners are part of the same corporate body make them, shall we say, "limited" in presenting an objective perspective with regard to matters which may affect their parent company's profits. I am simply stating the fact that a major contractor to the US military owns NBC. This is also what makes your analogy with the Catholic Church completely irrelevant, because the ruling body is in this case the parent company, not the government. Does GE control NBC? Yes, it does. Does GE profit from war? Yes it does. Does GE contribute millions to political campaigns, including the Bush campaigns? Yes it does. Now carefully apply your logic to this scenario. Is there a link between GE and the government? Obviously, yes. So is there a link between NBC and the government?

There is no "leap" required to comprehend the notion that if the same company has multi-billion dollar contracts with the US military and also dictates the nature of the information presented to the populace, then there will be a conflict of interests whenever there is a need to investigate the workings of the parent company, and in this case its dealings with the US government. That would be the equivalent of an accountant within a firm being given the job of auditing his employer, with his future personal income being on the line, resting precariously on a favorable outcome for the company. What does your logic tell you would happen if he were to report to the tax office that his employer was corrupt?

At what point after being smacked in the face by something do you say "I have been smacked in the face by something." Maybe after you've studied the underlying logic of why your nose is broken and you've swallowed your teeth? Or perhaps that's the time to run a few more scientific experiments and develop a thesis..."Sure, it may seem like I've been smacked in the face by something, but let's not jump to any conclusions!"

Now.

Cartesiantheater

Aug 23rd, 2006, 12:16 PM

Now

Aug 23rd, 2006, 3:58 PM

Even if you assume that the Gov. dictates what NBC will air, how do you explain all the other news companies and cable news companies that do not give CT's much air time? And how do you explain that there was no rebellion among all of the thousands of employees and branches? And what about the fact that some NBC stations are NOT owned by GE? What of these? And, what about other mainstream media, like say, the BBC? Any worldwide western media. So this conspiracy is WORLD WIDE, then, right? There aren't just thousands in on it, but millions, right?

You seem to be assuming that the employees of media companies dictate the policy of the company, which would be ridiculously naive. By nature of the relationship, most employees simply do as they are told, they are delivered company policy and either agree to comply or are replaced by someone who will. So this notion that millions need to be involved in a potential conspiracy is nonsense. That is like saying that all of the soldiers who went to Vietnam were involved in the planning of the Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy.

-btw, can you report a source describing in detail GE's contracts with the military? (I find it likely, but what are they risking by being involved in the conspiracy?)

Well, GE have been selling aircraft engines to the US government since 1917. You shouldn't have too much trouble finding evidence of the connection between GE and the government, they've been in business together for nearly 90 years. Billions and billions and more billions. Try a Google search for "GE military contracts" to get you started.

-in addition, the only way that GE is guilty is if the Gov. is guilty. This is a self-fulfilling argument. Because the Gov. is assumed to be guilty, GE is assumed to be guilty. But what if the US Gov. did not bring down the towers? Then what?

Yes, perhaps they are all innocent. In which case the entire problem would have been solved by the 9/11 Commission report. So, all we need to believe is that the FBI, CIA, NORAD, the FAA, US Defence and the US government all simultaneously failed with untimely precision at their respective responsibilities on the morning of 9/11, that the 5 frames of footage which show nothing of what went into the Pentagon are all that exist, and that falsely identified Saudi's armed with boxcutters were able to bring down 3 buildings and hit the Pentagon in the only section which was being renovated at the time, which then prompted the green light to invade two sovereign nations which just happen to be either side of Iran. And they never did find that suspect either, did they? The main man, the big cheese, the head honcho....Osama. Mind you, they did fly his family back to safety in Saudi Arabia on September 14th.

I expect that you may be tempted to deliver your usual speech about incredulity being no basis for forming an opinion, and that from a purely scientific viewpoint, the government's "Muslim Conspiracy Theory" is technically possible, and that the 9/11 Commission report may well be an accurate document outlining the most dismal failure of a defence system in history, easily outdoing the Trojan Horse for its sheer Marx Brothers lunacy. Similarly, an elephant could balance on the head of a pin, theoretically speaking. So you are safe from a scientific standpoint. You can rest assured that the US government, GE and NBC all have verity as their #1 priority, due to the lack of evidence available to disprove the US government's Muslim Conspiracy Theory. Oh wait, what was it you said about the immunity afforded to conspiracy theories since they cannot be disproved? Indeed.

Now.

Cartesiantheater

Aug 23rd, 2006, 5:31 PM

You seem to be assuming that the employees of media companies dictate the policy of the company, which would be ridiculously naive. By nature of the relationship, most employees simply do as they are told, they are delivered company policy and either agree to comply or are replaced by someone who will. So this notion that millions need to be involved in a potential conspiracy is nonsense. That is like saying that all of the soldiers who went to Vietnam were involved in the planning of the Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy. Well, is it so unreasonable to say that at least one employee of moderate power was also a 911 skeptic? I mean, you guys are everywhere. Got any names of people fired for speaking out? It would seem quite strange if NBC is the only organization that doesn't have outspoken Official Story critics.

Yes, perhaps they are all innocent. In which case the entire problem would have been solved by the 9/11 Commission report. Wrong. You assume that if they were innocent that they would be able to explain everything. The Commission was composed of politicians.

So, all we need to believe is that the FBI, CIA, NORAD, the FAA, US Defence and the US government all simultaneously failed with untimely precision at their respective responsibilities on the morning of 9/11, Not that unlikely. No one attempts these sort of attacks. The Government is not invincible. In addition, calling these institutions is not all that easy. It takes a great deal of time to get a hold of the pertinent people. This isn't like calling 911. Just try to get in touch with a ranking official from one of these organizations.

that the 5 frames of footage which show nothing of what went into the Pentagon are all that exist, You guys should lay off the Pentagon thing, for the sake of your own argument. This is the one part of the CT that OS supporters point to as proof that the CT is wrong. This is what they use to make fun of you. It's not like aircraft attempt to fly into the Pentagon on a regular basis. In addition, there were HUNDREDS of witnesses (which can be verified even on 911 SKEPTIC sites), including the uncle of Armageddon Online's own Cherisa. (of course it's easy to say that she or here uncle are lying, but that's as good as anything you've posted. As far as the other hundreds of witnesses, that's a little bit more difficult to dismiss)

and that falsely identified Saudi's armed with boxcutters were able to bring down 3 buildings First, this statement is subtly racist (implying that Saudi's aren't capable of doing something us more civilized people could do).
Second, it would be difficult, but far from impossible. You or I could have pulled that off with the right training.

and hit the Pentagon in the only section which was being renovated at the time, If a Golf ball strikes a blade of grass, is there something miraculous about the blade that was hit? No. Coincidence (of course, traditionally, the CT does not believe in something as mundane and unspectacular as coincidence). Take a look at how small the section being renovated is. Do you really think that a barely-able-to-fly pilot would be able to be that accurate?

which then prompted the green light to invade two sovereign nations which just happen to be either side of Iran. Since you believe that no muslim terrorist group exists (despite that fact that muslims have been declaring Jihad for the last thousand years), it would do no good to mention that Afghanistan was believed to be a harbor of "terrorists." This self-fulfilling argument naturally makes the US invasions suspect. And since the US changed their story about the reason they invaded Iraq as often as popular opinion changed, it would do no good to mention that the US very well could have and probably would have invaded Iraq anyway.

And they never did find that suspect either, did they? The main man, the big cheese, the head honcho....Osama. Osama is not some sort of lone wolf. It's not that easy. The US is not all powerful.

Mind you, they did fly his family back to safety in Saudi Arabia on September 14th. Got a source? The Bin Laden family is HUGE.

I expect that you may be tempted to deliver your usual speech about incredulity being no basis for forming an opinion, and that from a purely scientific viewpoint, the government's "Muslim Conspiracy Theory" is technically possible, and that the 9/11 Commission report may well be an accurate document outlining the most dismal failure of a defence system in history, easily outdoing the Trojan Horse for its sheer Marx Brothers lunacy. It's exactly as possible as the "US Government Conspiracy Theory." Because of this, neither is more valid than the other, at this point.

Similarly, an elephant could balance on the head of a pin, theoretically speaking. So you are safe from a scientific standpoint. You can rest assured that the US government, GE and NBC all have verity as their #1 priority, due to the lack of evidence available to disprove the US government's Muslim Conspiracy Theory. Oh wait, what was it you said about the immunity afforded to conspiracy theories since they cannot be disproved? Indeed.

Not necessarily. All one has to do to completely disprove the OS is to find proof of bombs. The OS "CT" is specific. The 911 CT on the other hand has five million fall back plans, should one thing be shown to be unlikely. That's why there is conflict among CT websites. When ever one part of the CT is shown to be crap (i.e. no planes hit the towers), the next theory is immediately played. This will continue until you guys say something like this, "The omnipotent US Government has hidden all the evidence. We can't show you it because they are hiding it." The OS have nothing of the sort. If real evidence of bombs are to be found, they are quite fucked.

And another way you could illistrate the difference is this: On this forum, someone (I think it might have been Micahyah, but I'm not sure) said that us non-demolitions-hypothesis-people wouldn't believe even if George Bush confessed to it (which of course, is not true). The interesting thing here is that Bin Laden HAS ALREADY confessed to it, yet you guys don't believe him. THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART: If Bush confessed, no one from our side can say that he is just the pawn of a higher power, and that his confession is just one more piece of the scam. Bin Laden, on the other hand, is thought by you guys to be a pawn of Bush. So if Bin Laden confesses (which he DID) you guys can (and DID) just reply that he was following orders. If Bush confesses, on the other hand, we can NOT resort to that. Do you see the difference?

Justice

Aug 24th, 2006, 7:24 AM

Cartesiantheater

Three massive posts but you failed to answer the question I put to you so I will ask again.

Are you saying they did not remove CCTV images from the gas station across the road from the pentagon and non of the 100's CCTV on the roof of the pentagon were working.

If you don’t understand the question then I’ll be more than happy to elaborate.

Cartesiantheater

Aug 24th, 2006, 12:26 PM

Cartesiantheater

Three massive posts but you failed to answer the question I put to you so I will ask again.

If you don’t understand the question then I’ll be more than happy to elaborate.

I'm sorry Justice. I thought that was the most irrelevant part of your post. I was focusing almost entirely on the "Jones' evidence for thermate" thing for the first two of those posts. The third one was a responses to a post by Now. I know nothing of what you're talking about. Would you be kind enough to post a link so I can research that aspect of the Pentagon theory? (the only thing I knew about in that regard is the official video release)

Now

Aug 24th, 2006, 2:57 PM

Well, is it so unreasonable to say that at least one employee of moderate power was also a 911 skeptic? I mean, you guys are everywhere. Got any names of people fired for speaking out? It would seem quite strange if NBC is the only organization that doesn't have outspoken Official Story critics.

Completely sidestepping the point. You suggested that it would take millions to be involved in the conspiracy because they work for these media organizations. I pointed out that this is obviously not the case, as they are delivering the news they are given and are none the wiser. There is substantial debate raging about the validity of the 9/11 Commission report, and yet very little of it gets to the mainstream media. Why are they not at least discussing the fact that so many people are questioning the report?

Wrong. You assume that if they were innocent that they would be able to explain everything. The Commission was composed of politicians.

No, I assume that if they were innocent, they wouldn't have changed their story 3 times as was the case with NORAD and the FAA'a "moving timelines." I would also assume that if they were innocent, they wouldn't have omitted the eye witness reports from the WTC which spoke of a series of otherwise unexplained explosions prior to the collapses. This would surely be considered vital evidence, and yet it took several court cases to have these eye witness testimonies made public, after the Commission report was already published. Perhaps you can explain that. I would also assume that if they were innocent, they would have given a full explanation of why WTC7 collapsed, rather than simply ignore it.

I think you will find that the Commission leaned heavily on information from the NSF, ASCE, NIST, FEMA, FBI & CIA. I would've thought their job would be to "explain everything." To say that only politicians were involved in the Commission report is either deliberately misleading or ridiculously uninformed.

Not that unlikely. No one attempts these sort of attacks. The Government is not invincible. In addition, calling these institutions is not all that easy. It takes a great deal of time to get a hold of the pertinent people. This isn't like calling 911. Just try to get in touch with a ranking official from one of these organizations.

Really? No-one anticipated these sort of attacks? Then you may be shocked to read this... http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

Yes, it may be difficult for you or I to call NORAD, but do you seriously believe that it is difficult for the FAA to call NORAD? Or for the FBI to call the CIA? Or for Bush to call Cheney? I can hear the phone call now..."Yeah, hi, its the FAA here, I just wanted to report a plane that's gone 90 degrees off course and they've turned off the transponder...." (beep) Welcome to NORAD, unfortunately all our lines are busy right now, if you are calling about America being under attack, please press 1, if a plane has slammed into the Pentagon, please press 2, for all other enquiries, please hold...."

You guys should lay off the Pentagon thing, for the sake of your own argument. This is the one part of the CT that OS supporters point to as proof that the CT is wrong. This is what they use to make fun of you. It's not like aircraft attempt to fly into the Pentagon on a regular basis. In addition, there were HUNDREDS of witnesses (which can be verified even on 911 SKEPTIC sites), including the uncle of Armageddon Online's own Cherisa. (of course it's easy to say that she or here uncle are lying, but that's as good as anything you've posted. As far as the other hundreds of witnesses, that's a little bit more difficult to dismiss)

If you read my post again, the actual words and not the ones you imagined being between the lines, you will notice that I said "5 frames of footage which show nothing of what went into the Pentagon are all that exist." I believe that something went into the Pentagon. Nice try at a diversionary arguing tactic, though. All we need is the ample available footage to be shown to the public and we can all see what it was. Now, why aren't they showing us?

First, this statement is subtly racist (implying that Saudi's aren't capable of doing something us more civilized people could do).

You could not possibly stray any further from the truth. The only potential racism involved is in your inference. I described them as Saudi's because they were allegedly Saudi's. When I talk about Americans, I call them Americans. When I talk about Jews, I call them Jews. Omigod, I said Jews! That's anti-semitism!

Do you really think that a barely-able-to-fly pilot would be able to be that accurate?

No, actually I don't. You're not the first to raise that point. However, you are the first supporter of the official story I have heard raise that point.

Since you believe that no muslim terrorist group exists (despite that fact that muslims have been declaring Jihad for the last thousand years), it would do no good to mention that Afghanistan was believed to be a harbor of "terrorists." This self-fulfilling argument naturally makes the US invasions suspect. And since the US changed their story about the reason they invaded Iraq as often as popular opinion changed, it would do no good to mention that the US very well could have and probably would have invaded Iraq anyway.

Gross assumptions from a self proclaimed man of science. Yes, Muslim terrorist groups exist, I have never suggested that they don't. These are the kinds of arguing tactics used to attempt to whitewash all opponents with the same generalizations. You will need to provide evidence of where I have stated that I believe that "no Muslim terrorist group exists," otherwise you will have to admit that you are making unfounded assumptions, which would be decidedly un-scientific of you.

Got a source? The Bin Laden family is HUGE.

Yeah, here you go. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12758358,00.html

The interesting thing here is that Bin Laden HAS ALREADY confessed to it, yet you guys don't believe him.

Actually, there is a great deal of suspicion regarding the validity of the so-called Bin Laden confession tape. See if you can pick the "odd man out" from the five photographs of Osama here... http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html It's at least worth a look before you decide for yourself that the US government were telling the truth.

Now.

Justice

Aug 25th, 2006, 2:42 AM

I know nothing of what you're talking about. Would you be kind enough to post a link so I can research that aspect of the Pentagon theory? (the only thing I knew about in that regard is the official video release)

"I know nothing of what you're talking about"

then don't claim that you have done much research as everyone who has done a little will knows that the FBI turned up within minutes of the so called pentagon attack and removed CCTV images from the Sheraton hotel and also the petrol station across the road.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/docs/sheraton_natl.jpg

Non of the few frames released by the pentagon show anything that resembles a commercial airliner and years later people are still fighting to have all the images released.

More Details here (http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html)

“At least two plaintiffs have attempted to obtain videos seized by the FBI, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The first, documented at Flight77.info, began with a request to the FBI in October of 2004. The second, undertaken by the Judicial Watch, Inc. began with a request to the Department of Defense (DOD) in December of 2004. Following is a timeline of the requests and subsequent lawsuits. Entries relating to the first case are distinguished with boldfaced dates.”

You got to ask yourself why does the pentagon not come clean and release this evidence and don’t get it into your head that it’s has anything about protecting the families of people who where murdered on 9/11 because they too are calling for the images to be released.

also see FBI Withholding 84 More Tapes of Pentagon on 9/11 (http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm)

Do you think the CCTV would had seen anything from this petrol station

http://www.infowars.net/pictures/may2006/160506gasstation2.jpg

Raptor Witness

Aug 25th, 2006, 7:46 AM

Cartesiantheater

Aug 25th, 2006, 9:36 PM

Gross assumptions from a self proclaimed man of science....
Ah... that was supposed to be sarcasm. I was making fun of Conspiracy theorists with that one. The point I was trying to make (note the phrase "self-fulfilling argument" that I used) was that the US would likely have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan whether or not they perpitrated the WTC attacks. The fact that Iraq and Afghanistan "happen to be on either side of Iran" is used as "evidence" that the Bush administration was guilty. The way you phrased that suggested to me that you were among those who believed that the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan is "Proof" that they are guilty. That's what I was trying to get at. (similar to the popular mechanics article- it would have been published as it was regardless of whether the editor or his alleged brother were in on the conspiracy- yet it is always thrown up in my face as a means to strengthen the conspiracy argument.)

As an aside, there is a difference between making assumptions about the person you are arguing with and MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE FACTS WITHOUT PROPER EVIDENCE. And, btw, the quote of you that I posted above is a use of "arguing tactics." You are very good at arguing, I'll admit. But this part of your post is total BS, and is relevant to nothing except your attempt to discredit the whole of my argument by making it seem like I am hypocritical or incompetent because you believe that I made an assumption about what you believe. Totally irrelevant.

Completely sidestepping the point...
Wait, and somehow ALL OF YOU are the wiser, but none of them are? There's not even any media people protesting the dictatorship of their biased employers. Surely there would at least be some, wouldn't there? Or are ALL of the employees completely blind to what's allegedly going on.

There is substantial debate raging about the validity of the 9/11 Commission report, and yet very little of it gets to the mainstream media. Yes, but WHAT is the content of that debate. It COULD very well be about certain government sections lying about their own negligence, rather than them lying about being actively involved. In fact, this is my side's entire argument. They were negligent, or they just plain fucked up. These lies of theirs would be exactly what I would expect. (like if you, say, got into a car accident and fled the seen. When asked about it, you LIE to save your ass; but that does not mean that you ran over old granny on purpose) Yet, without a doubt, conspiracy theorists will hear the word "lie" and then jump all over the bandwagon, citing the debate as more "proof" of the Governments active involvement. Honestly, am I wrong here?

Here's some of the Washington Post article (one example of the lies)

Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center. These tapes seem to show more of "covering your ass' negligence and idiosy" than deliberately helping a premeditated inside attack. Yet, all will proclaim it as proof that the attacks were inside jobs.

Why are they not at least discussing the fact that so many people are questioning the report?
Well, give it time. And besides, if you actually read the article, it's not saying anything all that ground breaking. It's not saying that "they lied about helping the attacks."

Unless you're asking why the Mainstream media is not talking about the millions of 9/11 skeptics. I think I actually saw a CNN article about that.

No, I assume that if they were innocent, they wouldn't have changed their story 3 times as was the case with NORAD and the FAA'a "moving timelines." I would also assume that if they were innocent, they wouldn't have omitted the eye witness reports from the WTC which spoke of a series of otherwise unexplained explosions prior to the collapses. This would surely be considered vital evidence, and yet it took several court cases to have these eye witness testimonies made public, after the Commission report was already published. Perhaps you can explain that. My explanation for the lime highlight is that they very well could have been changing their story to save their asses from the consequences of their fuck ups. It happens all the time.
My explanation of the bold white highlight is that these "explosions" were the exact sounds you would expect from a building about to collapse from fire and structural damage.

I would also assume that if they were innocent, they would have given a full explanation of why WTC7 collapsed, rather than simply ignore it. Maybe they ignored it because no one had figured out how the hell it could have collapsed at the time? It's not like explaining a building collapse from fire is an easy task, or even a very difficult one. It's MONSTROUSLY complex.

I think you will find that the Commission leaned heavily... Look, the point I was trying to make is that the 9/11 Commission was not invincible and all knowing. None of these people are. This isn't just some easy thing to explain. That you would expect the 9/11 Commission to be able to explain everything is a little surprising to me. NIST had a very extensive report although not everything was covered. But if you read carefully, the report is NOT exhaustive and that anomalies remain. Again, these things are not easy to explain.

As to your link, from what I read of it, there were excersizes simulating these sort of attacks, yes. But they were WITHOUT all the bureaucracy that is involved.

Really? No-one anticipated these sort of attacks? Then you may be shocked to read this... That's not what I said. I said no one attempts to fly airplanes into the Pentagon. And how many times have you seen a commercial air plane shot down? What if they were wrong and killed civilians? They'd be fucked. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yes, it may be difficult for you or I to call NORAD, but do you seriously believe that it is difficult for the FAA to call NORAD?... Ah... yeah. You make it seem like they're just waiting by the phone or something. You have to get permission from your supervisor, who then gets permission from his, who then calls NORAD, and they go through their chain...
There's a shit load of red tape. I'll read your link if you read mine.

http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html

All we need is the ample available footage to be shown to the public and we can all see what it was. Now, why aren't they showing us? Maybe because there ISN'T any. That is possible. But there WERE hundreds of witnesses (found on 911 research.com). (btw, witnessing a JET is far removed from hearing sounds and interpreting them as bombs exploding)

You could not possibly stray any further from the truth... They way you said it suggested to me that it was even more incredulous because they were Saudi's. Instead of "some Saudi's" you could have said "the alleged hijackers." Or perhaps I am over sensitive to racism. I don't deny the possibility. It definitely is a hot button subject with me.

No, actually I don't. You're not the first to raise that point. However, you are the first supporter of the official story I have heard raise that point. There is little doubt to me that what hit the Pentagon was a Jet. Therefore, it seems quite obvious that where the plane hit was incidental and irrelevant. The only "evidence" I have been shown by CT's is the same old "where's the video tape, then?" There aren't but a few witnesses who say that they saw a military plane or a missile, but naturally, you don't question THEIR versions- only the MANY MORE who say they saw something different.

Yeah, here you go. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12758358,00.html Oh please! Obviously, if the wrong person found out that people who were related to Bin Laden were anywhere near them, they would have been lynched! You would EXPECT the Bush administration to allow innocent people who share a last name with a public fugitive of Osama's magnitude to leave. It's called good foreign policy. Here's the last line from your link.

The wealthy bin Laden family broke ties with bin Laden years before the September 11 strikes.

Actually, there is a great deal of suspicion regarding the validity of the so-called Bin Laden confession tape... See my point? I'll take your argument seriously, though. I've seen other stills from that same tape that look exactly like the Osama of other tapes. That's just lighting and resolution - i.e. deception. But seriously, even if there wasn't that strange shot, you still wouldn't believe that he operated independent of the US Gov. would you? However, if Bush confesses, I'm through with the non-US Gov.-conspiracy-theory side. That's one of the huge differences between our respective arguments. That's why it does no good for you to claim that my argument is no different than your side's argument. It is.

Cartesiantheater

Aug 25th, 2006, 9:51 PM

"I know nothing of what you're talking about"

then don't claim that you have done much research
I don't.

as everyone who has done a little will knows that the FBI turned up within minutes of the so called pentagon attack and removed CCTV images from the Sheraton hotel and also the petrol station across the road.

Wrong. "Everyone" who has researched 911 SKEPTIC SITES knows that. I've been spending most of my time devoted to 911 researching ENGINEERING BOOKS AND PHYSICS BOOKS. I don't even know why I'm debating this part of the argument. Maybe just for the entertainment of arguing... But my point is, one is able to have an wide sweeping knowledge of 911 only if one is willing to only research the surface of the issues. You guys don't need to research in depth because as soon as someone points out that one of your arguments is useless, you simply move on to the next one, many of which can not be disproved. But this is completely irrelevant. I'm not trying to say that the CT arguing method should be changed or anything. It can't be. But it does lead to a few side effects- like the skeptics of CT's not being able to research every aspect thoroughly.

I look at the rest of your post later. It's late, and I'm tired.

Now

Aug 27th, 2006, 8:14 AM

The point I was trying to make (note the phrase "self-fulfilling argument" that I used) was that the US would likely have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan whether or not they perpitrated the WTC attacks.

This is purely hypothetical and unsubstantiated. The general hatred and distrust of "people of Middle Eastern appearance" brought about by the accusations regarding 9/11 were precisely the sort of propaganda required to give Americans a sense of righteousness in attacking any Middle Eastern country then, now and in the future. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified by a sense of revenge and the search for Osama, the alleged belief being that that's where he was. However, at that point Bin Laden had publicly denied any involvement in 9/11, and there was no existing "confession tape," even of the questionable variety. There are still ill informed and easily confused individuals who believe that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Do you really think that Americans would support something called a "War on Terror" if it only involved people thousands of miles away? If so, why didn't they declare a "War on Terror" for the events happening in Northern Ireland for a half century, or the continuing acts of localised terrorism throughout the Middle East and Africa ? No, a strike on home soil was exactly what was required to shock the American people into supporting an agenda.

The fact that Iraq and Afghanistan "happen to be on either side of Iran" is used as "evidence" that the Bush administration was guilty. The way you phrased that suggested to me that you were among those who believed that the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan is "Proof" that they are guilty.

Again, you are confusing implication with inference. These points are not made to constitute stand alone "proof." I'm not sure of the process you employ to arrive at your assumptions, but may I suggest that its not serving you particularly well. Each of these points may contribute to an overall picture, but none of them alone are being suggested as definitive proof. However, the 9/11 Commission report is being presented as proof of the official story, even though it is littered with lies and ambiguities, and omissions of eye witness evidence and testimony. Despite this, you seem to be happy to go along with it because it fits in with your personal opinion. Are you absolutely sure that you are applying the same "scientific" method to your own position?

As an aside, there is a difference between making assumptions about the person you are arguing with and MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE FACTS WITHOUT PROPER EVIDENCE. And, btw, the quote of you that I posted above is a use of "arguing tactics." You are very good at arguing, I'll admit. But this part of your post is total BS, and is relevant to nothing except your attempt to discredit the whole of my argument by making it seem like I am hypocritical or incompetent because you believe that I made an assumption about what you believe. Totally irrelevant.

I would imagine that assumptions of any variety, whether they be of a personal nature or otherwise, are contrary to an analytical approach. I realize that your intention is to divert from the matter at hand, but that does nothing to dissuade me from the original point, being your assumption that I believed that "no Muslim terrorists group exists," which I notice you have failed to address. Perhaps because it points out your propensity for assumption and generalization, you have chosen to ignore or perhaps avoid it. I made no attempt to "discredit the whole of your argument" as I was clearly referring to your assumptions about my beliefs regarding Muslim terrorist groups. In reality, this is precisely "MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE FACTS WITHOUT PROPER EVIDENCE," regardless of the subject matter of the facts in question. Isn't that something of which you would normally disapprove?

Yes, but WHAT is the content of that debate. It COULD very well be about certain government sections lying about their own negligence, rather than them lying about being actively involved. In fact, this is my side's entire argument. They were negligent, or they just plain fucked up. These lies of theirs would be exactly what I would expect. Yet, without a doubt, conspiracy theorists will hear the word "lie" and then jump all over the bandwagon, citing the debate as more "proof" of the Governments active involvement. Honestly, am I wrong here?

If it were the case that the relevant authorities were severely reprimanded, sacked or discredited for their gross negligence and lethal incompetence, your argument would be made more reasonable. However, none of the authorities in question were even slapped on the wrist. Some were promoted, others went on to high ranking positions in commerce, and the rest have retained the positions they held prior to their fatal bungling. Whilst this proves nothing per se, it is one of a plethora of significant details which require explanation and do nothing to quell suspicion regarding the depth and nature of the deceit.

Well, give it time. And besides, if you actually read the article, it's not saying anything all that ground breaking. It's not saying that "they lied about helping the attacks."

Roughly how much time would you suggest we give it? The details of the report have been in question since it was released. It has been a hot topic of debate world wide for over two years. The media wouldn't wait that long if Bush were to get a blow job from an intern, why would they wait so long to report on something of this importance?

My explanation for the lime highlight is that they very well could have been changing their story to save their asses from the consequences of their fuck ups. It happens all the time.
My explanation of the bold white highlight is that these "explosions" were the exact sounds you would expect from a building about to collapse from fire and structural damage.

In the case of the "moving timelines," yes, it may be possible that they were covering their incompetence. It is also possible that they were adjusting their lies to fend off the reasonable criticism of their dubious original statements. Either way, a court of law would take a dim view of a suspect who changes their story three times. What we are to believe here is that an innocent party changed their story three times to cover up incompetence, which was then completely overlooked by their superiors who in most cases retained them in their positions despite their abject failure. Sometimes it seems like the official story is dangling by the most insubstantial of threads, and that those who adhere to it are willing to cling tightly to any of them. Regardless of any of this, your explanations are simply one person's opinion, they prove nothing, and they are not supported by the government's official stance.

I wouldn't be exactly sure what sounds to expect from a steel structure building collapsing due to fire, considering that it had never happened before 9/11, nor has it happened since...just three times on that one particular day. So I wouldn't expect eye witnesses to say, "Oh yeah, that's the sound a skyscraper makes when its collapsing due to fire and structural damage." In fact the firemen, police and paramedics simply said they heard huge explosions, like bombs going off. Several of them testified to explosions at the base of the buildings well before the collapses. Those testimonies are well worth reading, they are fascinating eye witness evidence from an array of experienced emergency workers. These are the testimonies that the Commission report omitted and which took several court cases to have released. Why would this be?

Maybe they ignored it because no one had figured out how the hell it could have collapsed at the time? It's not like explaining a building collapse from fire is an easy task, or even a very difficult one. It's MONSTROUSLY complex.

Perhaps they should have thought of that before they sold and shipped off all of the evidence, sorry, materials, to Asia before reasonable investigations could be carried out. Now why would they do that?

Now

Aug 27th, 2006, 8:15 AM

Look, the point I was trying to make is that the 9/11 Commission was not invincible and all knowing. None of these people are. This isn't just some easy thing to explain. That you would expect the 9/11 Commission to be able to explain everything is a little surprising to me. NIST had a very extensive report although not everything was covered. But if you read carefully, the report is NOT exhaustive and that anomalies remain. Again, these things are not easy to explain.

Its all true. The events of 9/11 are not that easy to explain, and the Commission failed to provide conclusive explanations. They constructed theories, omitted eye witness testimonies, ignored some facts, and lied. But still you feel compelled to support their findings?

As to your link, from what I read of it, there were excersizes simulating these sort of attacks, yes. But they were WITHOUT all the bureaucracy that is involved.

I find it impossible to believe that with the amount of planning and preparation for attacks of this very nature, right down to some of the exact details, that the systems would not be in place to address such events in a real world scenario. To put this down to some spotty kid having to ask his supervisor for permission whilst innocent people are dying in New York is nothing short of reaching. You are attempting to make concessions for the most heavily funded defence system on the planet by saying that it took some time to get the paperwork done and make a few calls. Do you really believe what you are saying?

That's not what I said. I said no one attempts to fly airplanes into the Pentagon. And how many times have you seen a commercial air plane shot down? What if they were wrong and killed civilians? They'd be fucked. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Two planes hilacked from the same airport. Transponders switched off. Hijackers mistakenly relaying messages to control towers with Arabic dialects. Desperate phone calls from passengers. A third and then a fourth plane similarly off course, headed for Washington. First plane slams into the WTC. Hey, I think at some point they may have worked out that this was a genuine threat. Presuming, of course, that one of the three time lines stated by NORAD and the FAA was close to the truth. The problem is, which one?

Ah... yeah. You make it seem like they're just waiting by the phone or something. You have to get permission from your supervisor, who then gets permission from his, who then calls NORAD, and they go through their chain...
There's a shit load of red tape.

Cheney took direct control of shoot down orders at NORAD in the months prior to 9/11. That's where the red tape stops. He still has a job. Why?

Maybe because there ISN'T any. That is possible. But there WERE hundreds of witnesses (found on 911 research.com). (btw, witnessing a JET is far removed from hearing sounds and interpreting them as bombs exploding)

You're arguing with the wrong guy on this one. I believe that something that looked like a commercial 757 went into the Pentagon. I also believe there was a C-130 military cargo plane behind it, as seen by eye witnesses. No footage? The Pentagon security cameras, highway traffic cameras, the confiscated Sheraton security camera footage and the confiscated gas station footage. No footage? No, I don't believe that one.

They way you said it suggested to me that it was even more incredulous because they were Saudi's. Instead of "some Saudi's" you could have said "the alleged hijackers." Or perhaps I am over sensitive to racism. I don't deny the possibility. It definitely is a hot button subject with me.

There was nothing of racist intent in my reference to Saudi's, but I can understand your sensitivity to racism. I feel the same. (Except for those stupid, sheep fucking New Zealanders....)

There is little doubt to me that what hit the Pentagon was a Jet. Therefore, it seems quite obvious that where the plane hit was incidental and irrelevant. The only "evidence" I have been shown by CT's is the same old "where's the video tape, then?" There aren't but a few witnesses who say that they saw a military plane or a missile, but naturally, you don't question THEIR versions- only the MANY MORE who say they saw something different.

Personally, I will go as far as saying that something that looked like a jet went into the Pentagon, based on the reports of eye witnesses. I just think its a shame that they were able to put an unarmed C-130 on its tail, but not something a little more supersonic. Still, who would've thought of defending the Pentagon?

Oh please! Obviously, if the wrong person found out that people who were related to Bin Laden were anywhere near them, they would have been lynched! You would EXPECT the Bush administration to allow innocent people who share a last name with a public fugitive of Osama's magnitude to leave. It's called good foreign policy. Here's the last line from your link.

Good foreign policy? Why the fuck would the US government start practicing good foreign policy at this late stage of the game? What about protective custody while they ask a few close relatives about the most wanted man on the planet? With this sort of thinking, you may have a bright future as a spin doctor if your plans go astray! (Which of course they won't, I realize that you are a bright young man!)

See my point? I'll take your argument seriously, though. I've seen other stills from that same tape that look exactly like the Osama of other tapes. That's just lighting and resolution - i.e. deception. But seriously, even if there wasn't that strange shot, you still wouldn't believe that he operated independent of the US Gov. would you? However, if Bush confesses, I'm through with the non-US Gov.-conspiracy-theory side. That's one of the huge differences between our respective arguments. That's why it does no good for you to claim that my argument is no different than your side's argument. It is.

I would have to see these other stills where the shape of his nose and chin completely change from those in this still in order to comment, if you can post a link. You see, Osama's alleged guilt is entirely dependent on that video. If its a fake, then so is the proof of his alleged involvement, because elsewhere he has vehemently denied it. Of course, his denial had no bearing on preventing the US kicking the crap out of the country where they thought he may be sitting on his donkey in a cave. And if not Osama, then who? Either way, Bush in all his wisdom decided that it was no longer so important to find him. Oh, ok then...

Our arguments differ in some ways, and are identical in others. Neither side has the required proof, and both come down to a matter of opinion. It is unlikely that either of us will convince the other. For the record, when I watched the second plane go into the WTC, I turned to my then partner and said to her, "They did this themselves." I know, completely unscientific, totally intuitive, and of no real interest other than to point out that this is not some bandwagon I have leapt upon, nor am I in possession of a tin foil hat, nor do I believe that I have been anal probed by aliens. I just thought "Burning of the Reichstag Mk II, you assholes," and I don't know why. When the newscaster said within 15 minutes "This is clearly the work of Osama Bin Laden," another name popped into my head. I thought "That's the quickest FBI investigation since Lee Harvey Oswald!" I have seen and heard nothing yet which has changed my opinion.

Now.

stewey

Aug 27th, 2006, 6:44 PM

Actually according to historians, the Reichstag fire was not caused by the Nazis but w as a legit fire. Look it up on wiki.

Now

Aug 28th, 2006, 1:00 AM

Actually according to historians, the Reichstag fire was not caused by the Nazis but w as a legit fire. Look it up on wiki.

Actually stewey, you need to read your own sources properly before you quote them...

"Historians generally agree that van der Lubbe was involved in the Reichstag fire. The extent of the damage, however, has led to considerable debate over whether he acted alone. Considering the speed with which the fire engulfed the building, van der Lubbe's reputation as a mentally disturbed arsonist hungry for fame, and cryptic comments by leading Nazi officials, it is generally believed the Nazi hierarchy was involved in order to reap political gain — and it obviously did. Others have contended that neither the Nazis nor Communists were behind the fire, and that van der Lubbe acted alone. According to this view, the Reichstag fire was a stroke of good luck for the Nazis. The idea that he was a "half-wit" or "mentally disturbed" was propaganda spread by the communist party to distance themselves from an insurrectionary anti-fascist who was once a member of the party and took action where they failed to.[citation needed] The historian Hans Mommsen concluded that the Nazi leadership was in a state of panic the night of the Reichstag fire, and they seemed to have regarded the Reichstag Fire as a confirmation that all their propaganda about a Communist revolution being imminent was actually true.
British reporter Sefton Delmer witnessed the events of that night first hand, and his account of the fire provides a number of details.[1] Delmer viewed van der Lubbe as solely responsible, that the Nazis sought to make it appear to be a "Communist gang" who set the fire, whereas the Communists sought to make it appear that van der Lubbe was working for the Nazis, and that they had plotted the whole thing.
Another theory appears in the book Himmler's Secret War by Martin Allen (published in Great Britain by Robson Books in the year 2005). According to this book, the Reichstag fire was started by a band of Sicherheitsdienst (SD, the SS security service) agents who secretly entered the Reichstag through an underground tunnel that was connected to Göring's official residence.

Your statement of what historians believe is completely misleading, because they clearly differ in their opinions and theories. However, I'm glad that you at least now know something about the Reichstag fire.

Now.

Justice

Aug 28th, 2006, 3:47 AM

I don't.

But my point is, one is able to have an wide sweeping knowledge of 911 only if one is willing to only research the surface of the issues

Very true but lets dig a bit deeper.

99.9999% of the world once believed the earth was flat as they were told and yet they knew nothing about the subject apart from knowing that just about everyone else believed the same thing so it was safe to go along with the crowd.

The ones that questions the earth being flat not only had to brake from the crowd, question what they had believed most their lives but go on first prove the facts to themselves long before they would stand up to try and convince the majority.

Are you saying the 99.9999% did more research than the 0.00001% because I find that hard to believe and most people that question the events of 9/11 don’t understand simple physics like E=Mc/2 and indeed few even know that 3 building came down on 9/11.

If for the sakes of arguments 1 in 3 people question something the government has done then don’t you think the government has a DUTY to defend itself and by that I mean hold an open and independent investigation or are you going to argue that the official story is just perfect in all it’s detail.

Nasik

Aug 28th, 2006, 1:36 PM

Personally, I've not been persuaded by theories claiming explosives were planted in the WTC by the government. I'm more inclined to believe that given the nature of the structure and the heat involved the joists began to bow (the temperatures needed to weaken the steel is about 1/2 of what is needed to melt it - from what I understand) and the floors fell one on top of the other - and in the absense of a lateral force, that movement would be more or less straight down, as was witnessed.

Did the government have foreknowledge or even more insidious, had some involvement in these attacks? There is credible evidence that convinces me the government may not only have been forewarned, but have funneled some funding towards groups involved (although I must say, it is so dire to believe that I'm not sure I can). As far as the scientific method goes - we can apply it to the dynamics of a building collapse but it fails to be useful when exploring the dark underbelly of political machinations.

WaR

Aug 28th, 2006, 9:06 PM

Are you saying the 99.9999% did more research than the 0.00001% because I find that hard to believe and most people that question the events of 9/11 don’t understand simple physics like E=Mc/2 and indeed few even know that 3 building came down on 9/11.

I am so sick of this bullshit. I have left the debate on this issue some time ago but since I keep reading things like this I feel like I have to say something. Stop posting sentences like "basic physics is enough," "simple physics question the official story," and similar nonsense like that. There is no simple physics for this problem!

You can't just apply theoretical physics to something as complex as this. People have to stop trying to become heroes. Shit, don't you think that if it was that simple then the many scientists that don't question the story could be able to figure it out? Oh I'm sorry I forgot that the government pays them or threatens the hundreds if not thousands of engineers that don't question the story. The funny thing is I haven't received a threatening phone call or even a check, maybe it's on its way to my mailbox though.

I tell you what, what don't you apply your stupid little "simple physics" sentence on this:

Find the reactions at the 2 supports of this beam using the widely known stiffness method.

| 5 kN
\/
________________
......... o.............^

Even if you are a civil engineer, it's not so simple isn't it? Now imagine things much more complicated when the towers collapsed. Think about it and be quiet.

You guys can continue on and on with your little conspiracy theory debate but leave the "expert" talks outside. No one is an expert. In the end, the conspiracy theories and parts of the official story are all one giant speculation party. Deal with it and debate about it keeping that in mind.

PS. By the way, I'm sure you really meant E=mc^2. I'll consider it a typo, even though the / and the ^ keys are quite far apart from each other on the keyboard...

Justice

Aug 29th, 2006, 7:12 AM

I am so sick of this bullshit. I have left the debate on this issue some time ago but since I keep reading things like this I feel like I have to say something. Stop posting sentences like "basic physics is enough," "simple physics question the official story," and similar nonsense like that. There is no simple physics for this problem!

Do we all need Phd’s before we are allowed (by you) to say that the metal should not have melted in the towers or is this OK today.

You guys can continue on and on with your little conspiracy theory debate but leave the "expert" talks outside. No one is an expert. In the end, the conspiracy theories and parts of the official story are all one giant speculation party. Deal with it and debate about it keeping that in mind.

and after your rant i was thinking you was the only authority on the subject

Seems to me that if you can not understand that the towers fell too fast to support the pancake theory then I would not want you designing my house, or anything else for me.

You seem so frustrated but I do hope your little rant relived some of the tension for you.

WaR

Aug 29th, 2006, 10:20 AM

Do we all need Phd’s before we are allowed (by you) to say that the metal should not have melted in the towers or is this OK today.

I assume that was a question even without the question mark. Anyway, I guess you are absolutely sure that the melted steel came in fact directly from the structural members themselves. If you are referring to the steel melting and then causing the collapse then you are a moron. Steel doesn't have to melt to lose its strength. But let's assume you meant the former one. You are right on one thing though, I guess not having an advanced degree does give you the opportunity to put your foot in your mouth, so carry on.

and after your rant i was thinking you was the only authority on the subject
Even after I said no one is an expert? I'm lost for words. That's your fault not mine.

Seems to me that if you can not understand that the towers fell too fast to support the pancake theory then I would not want you designing my house, or anything else for me.

That is one of the stupidest claims. Believe me I can understand that much better than you can as you failed to even attempt the problem I posted. Basic physics, huh? Unfortunately for you and the rest of the masters of conspiracy you just can't say "ooh, ooh, the towers fell too fast, it looked like a control demolition, therefore it is. Where is my medal?" when you are talking about a 500,000 ton building losing part of its support.

Why would you need an engineer to design your house? You know that alien technology is better, right? Just don't tell the government you hired them.

You seem so frustrated but I do hope your little rant relived some of the tension for you.
Common, who wouldn't be frustrated when people like you dare to undermine the problem by using stupid reasoning as you have just done (again) by saying things like "it fell too fast," "the steel should not have melted"? But anyway, it did relieve me. And just so you won't miss the point of the post, here it is again: stop being naive with your little "simple physics" bullshit and treat the problem as complex as it is by minimizing the simplified and idiotic claims.

I'm not going to continue debating this nonsense. It really is a waste of time.

PS. Want to have a laugh? This guy puts it quite delicately for you. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Cartesiantheater

Aug 29th, 2006, 9:03 PM

Very true but lets dig a bit deeper.

99.9999% of the world once believed the earth was flat as they were told and yet they knew nothing about the subject apart from knowing that just about everyone else believed the same thing so it was safe to go along with the crowd.

I would beg to differ. I would say that it was just as much a result of the fact that the earth LOOKS flat as the theory that it was widely "known." I mean, if you don't do the geometry and careful observation of the stars for yourself, and if you hadn't been taught that the world was spherical, it would be OBVIOUS to you that the world was FLAT, I believe. But this is a tangent.

The ones that questions the earth being flat not only had to brake from the crowd, question what they had believed most their lives but go on first prove the facts to themselves long before they would stand up to try and convince the majority. Well, in case this is in any way meant to imply that I don't question what I've been taught or hold dear, I'll give you a little of my intellectual history. I was raised Christian and was "on fire" for God. At around 16 I started using the internet for the noble purpose of trying to prove the existence of God. I was sold out. But I took on the idea that if you want to prove something is true, you have to attempt to disprove it, until you exhaust every possible disproof. Eventually, against my best intentions, I came accrossed very logical arguments that put my literal interpretation of Genesis in jeopardy. And I thought, if the Bible is wrong, how could I still believe? I then spent four years of my life in a horrible nihilistic depression. Yep. Contemplated suicide, cursed God (who I feared did not exist- I cursed him for being invisible, I cursed him for having no evidence of his existence), and on and on. And then, slowly, I began to let go. It was a long journey of reason about how my life could have meaning "just in case" God wasn't there. It was hard, but after my years of indoctrination, I have truly rebelled and decided for myself based on evidence alone. And now, I have completely abandoned my faith. I am a very forceful supporter of evolution. And my entire world view has shifted from seeking a higher meaning to instead reflecting on the finiteness of the Universe and the intricacy of it. So, in a nutshell, I am more capable of changing my indoctrinated world view that most of the people on this forum.

Are you saying the 99.9999% did more research than the 0.00001% because I find that hard to believe and most people that question the events of 9/11 don’t understand simple physics like E=Mc/2 and indeed few even know that 3 building came down on 9/11. First (and this is completely irrelevant), you should probably write that as E=mc^2. That's the way it is written most of the time. Using that "/" might make people think you are saying E equals mc divided by 2. Anyway.

I agree that comparably less people know about tower 7. But it was live on the news that day, so that isn't a result of the conspiracy. The reason most people don't know about it, I believe (this is a HYPOTHESIS), is that the phrase "the twin towers came down!" naturally implies TWO.

As far as the rest of what your saying here, I don't think you get what I was trying to say. You see, those of us who have not accepted the demolitions hypothesis at this time have to answer the challenge "the laws of physics do not permit the buildings to fall without demolitions!" Do you understand the magnitude of this claim and the HUGE amount of work that must be done to answer it? It is FAR FAR FAR easier to make that claim than to actually find out if it is true. Your side does NOT generally have to find out if it is true. Our side DOES on the other hand (at least we must find out if it is reasonable {reasonable from a SCIENCE sense, not LEGAL sense}) So that's why we generally have NOT researched the myriad of challenges you guys have made. Your side is easier from an argument and research perspective. MUCH easier. (btw, this is simply because of the nature of our respective sides, not because I am trying to belittle your side; as evidence by the MANY arguments you guys have, I would say that the TOTAL amount of research on either side is similar. It's the SPECIFIC ITEMS RESEARCHED that varies)

If for the sakes of arguments 1 in 3 people question something the government has done then don’t you think the government has a DUTY to defend itself and by that I mean hold an open and independent investigation or are you going to argue that the official story is just perfect in all it’s detail. Well, I would answer this by pointing out WHO it is that usually questions this. (PLEASE DON'T TAKE OFFENSE! THIS IS A GENERALIZATION!) See, from my own experience, the people who believe the conspiracy theory are those from the inner cities, those with lower amounts of education. And the people who generally do NOT believe the conspiracy theory (aside from your typical redneck Nazi Patriot) are generally college educated, middle to upper class.

That last bit was just from personal experience, but WITHOUT A DOUBT, the educated elite tend to scorn conspiracy theories as the wishful fantasizing of the poor who have nothing better to reason and philosophize about. While the more educated are pondering the meaning of life, the less educated are finding other ways to validate their existence.

THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK! THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY EXCEPTIONS (Jim Hoffman, for example) This is just another valid HYPOTHESIS as to why the government does not pay much attention to the 1 in 3 who accuse them. Seriously, when does the US government EVER pay attention to the uneducated classes?

{btw, as weak evidence for my hypothesis that most 9/11 skeptics are uneducated, just look at the more ridiculous aspects of the conspiracy theory and how many people actually believe them, or did at first}

Anyway, in regard to polls, just remember what happened on election day a couple of years back. You had people who were ashamed that they voted republican (and they probably only voted republican because of abortion and gay rights) who LIED at exit poles. Also, there have been many times that poles have been worded in such a way that the respondent is coorced into an answer he or she wouldn't normally give. And one more thing. There are MANY versions of the CT, so it isn't all that surprising that many people believe at least ONE. (but this all is determined by how the poll is worded)

Nasik

Aug 29th, 2006, 9:15 PM

CT,

I agree with what you are trying to say, in part. I'm not convinced by some of the "evidence" of a controlled demolition. Some of the documentaries, available on the net and so forth, putting forth this therory are guilty of some serious flaws and among those, "quote mining"

I don't cast out the possibility that the government had foreknowledge, but a person would be wise to be skeptical of the information.

The interview I saw with the engineer seemed to explain how the buildings collapsed in a perfectly reasonable way to me.

Government corrupt - sure, did they benefit from this, absolutely (I sound like Rumsfeld here) - did they plant explosives (brother, that's a tough one to prove)

Cartesiantheater

Aug 29th, 2006, 9:24 PM

and in the absense of a lateral force, that movement would be more or less straight down, as was witnessed. All of the research I have done agrees with that.

Did the government have foreknowledge or even more insidious, had some involvement in these attacks? There is credible evidence that convinces me the government may not only have been forewarned... THIS part of the argument I may be able to swallow. However, it seems very likely to me that a "terrorist" group like the one led by Bin Laden would eventually strike the US. Just think about what the US has done to these countries. I can see the justification from their side.

but have funneled some funding towards groups involved (although I must say, it is so dire to believe that I'm not sure I can). I have not seen any credible evidence to this. The only "credible" evidence for this that I have seen is all wrapped up in a giant circular argument that is entirely dependent on the attacks being US led. Because we know that the US Gov. did it, it doesn't make sense that Al Qaeda did it. Therefore, Al Qaeda must be a tool of the US Gov.

As far as the scientific method goes - we can apply it to the dynamics of a building collapse but it fails to be useful when exploring the dark underbelly of political machinations. Well, I partially agree. You can't use the scientific method to decipher motives, or things that can't be observed. However, you can apply mathematical logic to certain claims about whose truth can't be determined. And if a claim can not be determined to be true, it should not be assumed to be true. Especially if a reasonable argument can be made against the claim, or if the claim rests on other assumptions (many of these 9/11 claims rest on the US being guilty).

Nasik

Aug 29th, 2006, 9:34 PM

If you have the patience CT, there is an hour long video available on Google videos by Dr. Chessldiaoufd... Okay.. His name is difficult to spell... Dr. Chessouddajfdakjfdk aj ... anywho. He is respected in his field and he talks about many things - including the fact that a Pakistani middle man who had connections with Osama and the Administration and there some evidence to suggest that possibly there was some money being transferred to the group. Some people certainly had foreknowledge that something was going to happen. At least it was utter negligence, at worst it was a black operation - Bush got is Trifecta - his cause for war - can things be that corrupt? You have believe they could be to accept or entertain any of this. After reading Northwoods, I believe maybe, that corruption "could" exist.

But conspiracy theories about 9/11 (specifically, hidden explosives) just really detract from the question people should really be asking.

Friends don't let friends get sucked into conspiracy theories!

P.S. If you're interested, I'll get off my a$$ and get that link for you and figure out how to properly spell the guy's name!

Cartesiantheater

Aug 29th, 2006, 9:58 PM

P.S. If you're interested, I'll get off my a$$ and get that link for you and figure out how to properly spell the guy's name!
Well, I would be, but I am just too busy now, and will be for the next three months (school- the hardest classes known to man!). (note that I haven't posted since Friday {I think})

But as far as using logic in this debate, I will post a link that showcases some common logical fallacies that 911 skeptics make. These types of logical fallacies (http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html) are what make me skeptical of the skeptics, so to speak. (when we're talking about all the non-scientific issues) For example, it is said that because Bush waited in the classroom, he knew before hand that the attacks were coming. This is called Affirming the Consequent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent). If A then B, B, therefore A.

If Bush knew about the attacks in advance, he would remain in a classroom.

Bush stayed in the class, therefore this is evidence that Bush knew about the attacks in advance.

Here's an example of this fallacy
If someone is human (P), then she is mortal (Q).
Anna is mortal (Q).
Therefore Anna is human (P).
But in fact Anna can be a cat; very much a mortal, but not a human one.

If you cut out all of that kind of crap, it is more believable to me, but still more complex than non-demolition theories, and therefore tentatively rejected by me due to Occam's Razor. In addition, there is no REAL INDISPUTABLE evidence of demolitions, while there IS INDISPUTABLE evidence that planes hit the buildings, and there IS reasonable models that show how they could have collapsed. Of course not everything is explained, but MUCH is in these models. At this point I'm not going to jump to the demolition hypothesis just because there is a relatively small energy deficiency in a non-demolition model. That's absurd to me.

Nasik

Aug 29th, 2006, 10:07 PM

Well all I can say is GOOD LUCK in your studies and hit the books hard.

Personally, I don't think Bush necessarily knew himself - he's not the brightest president. But, what is clear is that it provided a pretty good pretext to invade Iraq and erode the constitutional rights of the citizens. So, planned? I have no idea but the corollaries are fairly evident and certainly, a few rather large corporations are making some rather large coinage off the whole affair.

Something smell slightly rotten in that department.

But again, when you want me to send you the link (which is very dry - make sure you have coffee) then I'm happy to do so.

Cartesiantheater

Aug 29th, 2006, 10:29 PM

Its all true. The events of 9/11 are not that easy to explain, and the Commission failed to provide conclusive explanations. They constructed theories, omitted eye witness testimonies, ignored some facts, and lied. But still you feel compelled to support their findings? No (nor have I ever, really; most of the time I've spent on this debate centered more on NIST or mainstream science, not the Official Report). But neither do I support your interpretation of this.

I find it impossible to believe that with the amount of planning and preparation for attacks of this very nature, right down to some of the exact details, that the systems would not be in place to address such events in a real world scenario. To put this down to some spotty kid having to ask his supervisor for permission whilst innocent people are dying in New York is nothing short of reaching. You are attempting to make concessions for the most heavily funded defence system on the planet by saying that it took some time to get the paperwork done and make a few calls. Do you really believe what you are saying? There are very good reasons for a chain of command, and for delayed action. I am not making concessions. I'm simply stating how the defense system worked at that time. Remember how long it took to intercept Payne Stewart's plane? Quite a while. Does that therefore mean that Payne Stewart was a Black Ops suicide pilot?

Cheney took direct control of shoot down orders at NORAD in the months prior to 9/11. That's where the red tape stops. He still has a job. Why? I haven't looked into this too much, but perhaps he still has a job because he wasn't the only one who failed that day. An equally valid explanation.

Good foreign policy? Why the fuck would the US government start practicing good foreign policy at this late stage of the game? Have you not noticed the US change in the way the interact with the world after the Iraq fiasco? It is reasonable that they didn't want the entire Arab world to hate them.

What about protective custody while they ask a few close relatives about the most wanted man on the planet? Huh? Are you saying that they could have done that instead?

Our arguments differ in some ways, and are identical in others. Neither side has the required proof, and both come down to a matter of opinion. It is unlikely that either of us will convince the other. For the record, when I watched the second plane go into the WTC, I turned to my then partner and said to her, "They did this themselves." I know, completely unscientific, totally intuitive, and of no real interest other than to point out that this is not some bandwagon I have leapt upon, nor am I in possession of a tin foil hat, nor do I believe that I have been anal probed by aliens. I just thought "Burning of the Reichstag Mk II, you assholes," and I don't know why. When the newscaster said within 15 minutes "This is clearly the work of Osama Bin Laden," another name popped into my head. I thought "That's the quickest FBI investigation since Lee Harvey Oswald!" I have seen and heard nothing yet which has changed my opinion. It is very hard not to lump the CT people into one group. There are SO MANY versions. Of course, the newscaster is not the FBI. He could have just been voicing an opinion. That is a valid explanation (as valid as the "news is a tool conspiracy"). I can be convinced, but is unlikely because of the evidence that my conversion would require. In fact, I'm not even convinced that it was Bin Laden (based on something I read about the translation of the confession tape- it is claimed that numurous words were added to implicate Bin Laden; for example, he said,"We calculated the the number of casualties" was translated as "We calculated in advance the number of casualties."). It very well could have been done by another memeber of Al Qaeda, or Isreal, or anyone. However, from a general view, I don't think that US gov. had more to gain then they had to lose by doing the attacks to themselves. No one here has given me anything that I consider reasonable. Just that they could have more oil. But this is one more logical fallacy of the Affirming the Consequent variety.

Cartesiantheater

Aug 29th, 2006, 10:36 PM

If I wasn't one of your main "arch-rivals" in this debate, I wouldn't be posting this. But I have to inform you guys that I will not be debating about this subject very much in the future. It is very research intensive, and I work fulltime and I now have the toughest college schedule known to man. However, I'll still read in from time to time, and during my holiday breaks expect to hear some disagreement. Hopefully I've helped to sharpen your arguments and arguing skills, as you have sharpened mine (and I must say, I am definitely more prepared for my Chemistry and Physics courses because of this debate).

In the least I understand the Conspiracy theory better, enough not to just right it off as tin foil hat fantasy. Thanks for the insight and new perspectives.

So, until next time...

Justice

Aug 30th, 2006, 3:04 AM

Cartesiantheater

Well, I would answer this by pointing out WHO it is that usually questions this. (PLEASE DON'T TAKE OFFENSE! THIS IS A GENERALIZATION!) See, from my own experience, the people who believe the conspiracy theory are those from the inner cities, those with lower amounts of education. And the people who generally do NOT believe the conspiracy theory (aside from your typical redneck Nazi Patriot) are generally college educated, middle to upper class.

Total rubbish and you know it and this is the same ploy that is used to discredit people who are patriots and are apposed to mass immigration and jobs being taken away from their youngsters.

We have lots of unpaid professors and doctors on our side that have spent their own time doing the research and sums and in that respect I would listen to them long before I’ll listen to some government worker who is basically bribed to turn out slanted theories and twisted maths.

Do me and my work colleagues fall into this lower class of people as most here at work believe something is seriously wrong with the official story and we all work in ‘IT’ so out of necessity we need to understand formulas and mathematical calculation.

Are you part of the “educated elite” you mention ?

“While the more educated are pondering the meaning of life” like religion and stuff like that i take it you mean.

“when does the US government EVER pay attention to the uneducated classes”

You seem to have a thing about class don’t you but I think you will find that it’s the unemployed that the governments are most scared off as these are the people that have nothing to lose and are the first ones to riot if pushed too far so I find your above statement to be miss guided to say the least.

He says

Originally Posted by Freaked out
and in the absense of a lateral force, that movement would be more or less straight down, as was witnessed.

And you say

All of the research I have done agrees with that.

But this pictures seems to tell a totally difrent story does it not ?

http://www.ussartf.org/images/wtc_collapse2.jpg

shows steel beams being thrown over 63 meters, this is the width of the towers.

War

“I'm not going to continue debating this nonsense”

Godb bye

Cartesiantheater

Aug 31st, 2006, 6:01 PM

Are you part of the “educated elite” you mention ?

You seem to have a thing about class don’t you but I think you will find that it’s the unemployed that the governments are most scared off as these are the people that have nothing to lose and are the first ones to riot if pushed too far so I find your above statement to be miss guided to say the least. Are you saying that socioeconomic classes don't exist? And are you saying that predictable behavior of people from specific socioeconomic classes does not exist? Let me ask you this: why (at least in the US) are the milk and bread always in the back of the grocery store? Here's why. Research has shown that grocers who spend more time in a store tend to spend more money, and people run out of milk and bread more than anything else. So owners of Grocery chains have designed their stores so that the most bought products require the most walking (read TIME, which is proportional to money based on research) in the store.

Therefore, human behavior is predictable based on circumstance. I was hypothesizing about why certain behaviors of certain socioeconomic and education classes occur.

Cartesiantheater

Total rubbish and you know it and this is the same ploy that is used to discredit people who are patriots and are apposed to mass immigration and jobs being taken away from their youngsters.

We have lots of unpaid professors and doctors on our side that have spent their own time doing the research and sums and in that respect I would listen to them long before I’ll listen to some government worker who is basically bribed to turn out slanted theories and twisted maths.

Do me and my work colleagues fall into this lower class of people as most here at work believe something is seriously wrong with the official story and we all work in ‘IT’ so out of necessity we need to understand formulas and mathematical calculation.

How did I know that you were going to ignore this?
THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY EXCEPTIONS (Jim Hoffman, for example)

Ok, I take this one step at a time. First, don't get mad. You demanded an explanation for why the Government doesn't defend itself if 1 out of 3 people think they are guilty, and I gave one. Anyway, I'll explain it.
True, you do have some PhD's and what not on your side. But how many compared to the total of PhD's and professors? There's a huge difference here. Just admit it and quit playing games. Incidently, it is also true, judging form polls you and others on your side have posted, the majority or a large portion of laymen DO believe the conspiracy. These are simply the facts (and to pacify you a little bit, I'm intending on asking permission from my psychology professor to do this exact poll as my psyc project, except it will be with the Professors instead of your average Joe. If I get a large enough sample, the results will be as reliable as any polls you guys have posted. Rest assured, the majority will say that they don't believe in the CT)
What does this mean? Your hypothesis is that it means that most scientists (WORLDWIDE, mind you) are paid off or threatened by the US Government.

My HYPOTHESIS (explanation why) is that those with post undergraduate education tend (usually- there are exceptions) to: A.) Have a certain logical bias that average people do not, and B.) Think in a certain way that precludes decisions based on speculation for the most part and generally precludes contemplation of issues that can not be tested or disproved.

And that people with no graduate or post high school education tend to A.) Believe and stick to the very first idea or explanation that comes to them (whether by hearing it form someone else or thinking of it themselves) {btw, how many of you have stuck to your first belief about 9/11 without truly considering the alternative?} B.) If they are poor, tend to view those in power as evil and secretly causing all the woe in their lives and in the world. This is because, IMO, (and from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE) poor people do not take initiative for their lives and will pass on cause to a higher power (whether good or bad- the US gov. is the higher power in this case)

He says

And you say

But this pictures seems to tell a totally deferent story does it not ?

http://www.ussartf.org/images/wtc_collapse2.jpg

shows steel beams being thrown over 63 meters, this is the width of the towers.

Wait, I sense a circular argument here... You guys say that because the buildings fell into their own footprint, that is proof of demolitions. Then you say that they didn't fall into their own footprint, and that is proof of demolitions...hmm...

Anyway, when I agreed with him on that post, I did not mean literally that they fell straight down. I simply meant that they would not fall SIDEWAYS. Read some of my posts about that subject. I have said numerous times that they did NOT fall straight down (in the context that straight down means "fell in an exact straight line.") in response to the traditional CT claim that the buildings fell straight down and thus had explosives. They DID NOT fall in the manor of a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. They simply didn't.

Smoke

Sep 1st, 2006, 2:07 AM

What does this mean? Your hypothesis is that it means that most scientists (WORLDWIDE, mind you) are paid off or threatened by the US Government.

i wouldent exactly say threatend or paid off, most wouldent eve bother to look into it because they think it is crazy to even go there and the ones that do probably have a reputation to uphold. thats just my thoughts. ez

Justice

Sep 1st, 2006, 3:22 AM

“And that people with no graduate or post high school education tend to A.) Believe and stick to the very first idea or explanation that comes to them”

You are contradicting yourself here since 99.9% of the general population swallowed what CNN and other media outlets were saying on the 9/11 and it was only after a period of a few years that people en-mass started to question what they had been told.

On the question of you conducting your own poll with professors at your university I would insist it an anonymous type poll as the web is awash with articles where respectable teachers and professors are penalised for questioning the events of 9/11 in the classroom.

Furthermore I don’t go along with your assumption that most professionals in a particular field go along with the official story as I work with a lot of airline pilots just now and on the whole they are very sceptical of the official story and I have also been told categorically that mobile phone will not work once the plane is more than a few hundred meters off the ground.

“Wait, I sense a circular argument here... You guys say that because the buildings fell into their own footprint, that is proof of demolitions. Then you say that they didn't fall into their own footprint, and that is proof of demolitions...hmm...”

You are twisting what we say here. The main structure, or 90% plus percent fell on it’s footprint but other sections were blown out sideways and upwards by explosive forces, you know you see the same thing with controlled demolitions sometimes

“Anyway, when I agreed with him on that post, I did not mean literally that they fell straight down. I simply meant that they would not fall SIDEWAYS. Read some of my posts about that subject. I have said numerous times that they did NOT fall straight down (in the context that straight down means "fell in an exact straight line.")”

stop playing with words and explain why some steel beams were blown over 63 meters sideways and away from the building or are you going to suggest this is normal for an object being acted upon by gravity.

You still continue to assert that educated/upper class people don’t go along with the so called conspiracy theorists in an effort to paint people as stupid that do not agree with you but it just so happens that you are debating with someone that has more than likely obtained more high level degrees than you will get during your lifetime !

Cartesiantheater

Sep 1st, 2006, 6:27 PM

You are contradicting yourself here since 99.9% of the general population swallowed what CNN and other media outlets were saying on the 9/11 and it was only after a period of a few years that people en-mass started to question what they had been told. I meant change your opinion after you heard your first critical analysis. The original conspiracy theories were ridiculous (no planes hit the towers). After those were shot down, the CT evolved and was strengthened. Then a few scientists got involved (Jim Hoffman and Steve "Indiana" Jones)

On the question of you conducting your own poll with professors at your university I would insist it an anonymous type poll as the web is awash with articles where respectable teachers and professors are penalised for questioning the events of 9/11 in the classroom. A.) Please post this "awashness" of articles for me to read. Only one I can think of is BYU and Steven "Indiana" Jones. But of course he's catching flak. His papers have had several flaws in them.
B.) The poll will be anonymous. In fact, it won't even expressly be about 9/11. There will be two or three questions on it, but there will be many other things, due to reasons similar to what you posted.

Furthermore I don’t go along with your assumption that most professionals in a particular field go along with the official story as I work with a lot of airline pilots just now and on the whole they are very sceptical of the official story and I have also been told categorically that mobile phone will not work once the plane is more than a few hundred meters off the ground. A.) I don't think I said that most professionals go along with the official story. I believe I said that most do NOT go along with the conspiracy theory (specifically, the demolitions hypothesis). B.) I said the educated elite, specifically, post graduate school education- refereing to academia.

You are twisting what we say here. The main structure, or 90% plus percent fell on it’s footprint but other sections were blown out sideways and upwards by explosive forces, you know you see the same thing with controlled demolitions sometimes
stop playing with words and explain why some steel beams were blown over 63 meters sideways and away from the building or are you going to suggest this is normal for an object being acted upon by gravity."Sometimes?" What happened to that being unquestionable proof? Oh, no gravity wouldn't do that alone, but in tandem with everything else that goes on in that kind of collapse, the IMMENSE amount of force involved, yeah it could. And since when do demolitions go from top to bottom?

You still continue to assert that educated/upper class people don’t go along with the so called conspiracy theorists in an effort to paint people as stupid that do not agree with you No. No one said stupid. I simply implied that people with post-graduate education are not as easily convinced as laymen. They could still be wrong, in principle. If my poll goes as I predict (assuming my psyc professor allows it- I would be deviating from the curriculum {we're supposed to do traditional tests, like the ink-blot test), then those with post-graduate education will disagree with laymen. At this point I will have a credibility judgement. Who has a better track record at discovering truth? Laymen, or Ph.D's?

but it just so happens that you are debating with someone that has more than likely obtained more high level degrees than you will get during your lifetime! Riiiiiiiight. At this moment I am in college majoring in physics, and I have NO intention of stopping until I get a Ph.D. So which high level degrees do you have? Are these degrees worth anything? What was your dissertation on? Really, I'd like to know, although this is completely irrelevant.

Cartesiantheater

Sep 1st, 2006, 6:41 PM

i wouldent exactly say threatend or paid off, most wouldent eve bother to look into it because they think it is crazy to even go there and the ones that do probably have a reputation to uphold. thats just my thoughts. ez
EXACTLY! That's what I've been saying! (partially) But the ones that do "go there" have generally not been convinced by the papers produced by the likes of Hoffman, Jones, and co. Why? Aside from the many things Jones and company have overlooked (including perfectly viable explanations for sulfidated iron present at ground zero that do not invoke thermate), and aside from the nature of their arguments, there are equally if not more compelling theories that do not invoke demolitions. Until every one of those are reasonably exhausted, it is proper to not jump to the demolitions hypothesis. The reason I get frustrated with you guys is because I am QUITE certain that most of you jumped to the demolitions hypothesis without even reading any of the non-demolition papers, as evidenced by the fact that you guys have made such strong assertions and conclusions, while SCIENCE has NOT. (notice that I did not say "without even reading a 9/11 web site's INTERPRETATION of the non-demolition papers"?) (and I should also note that skimming a paper and then reading a critique of it does not count. You have to carefully investigate the paper, read a critique, and then read an addendum, if available.)

WaR

Sep 1st, 2006, 11:12 PM

it just so happens that you are debating with someone that has more than likely obtained more high level degrees than you will get during your lifetime!

hehe... The above is yet another proof of the thinking process behind a conspiracy theorist. Who in their right mind would post something as laughable as that?

What was your dissertation on? Really, I'd like to know

Oh man, I can't wait for the answer. I'll be checking the forums daily for this one.

uki

Sep 2nd, 2006, 12:38 PM

1) Why isnt a full invesigation done to arrest and/or overthrow the government?the people are too sedated on prescription drugs, too hypnotized by the t.v., and too overweight even if they wanted to... not to mention the crunch in gun control nowaday's.

2) Why isnt the media talking about the evidence, and telling people the govt did it?cuz the major media networks(time-warner-aol, bloomberg, and the like) are all owned and operated by the same group of lackeys that are in power in the government.

3) Why was Bush re-elected in 2004?because free election and democracy are a sham... the truth is it has been all staged... everything.

4) Why is america asleep or in complete denail?again it is due to the massive pharmecutical industry, politics, and the hypno-zation of the nation... television is a subliminal trance without anyone even taking prescription drugs... add them to the factor and you have one of the greatest mind-control tatics in this quadrant of the universe.

5) Why isnt something being done, and why are the media letting people believe lies?read the above and you already have all the answers...

Smoke

Sep 2nd, 2006, 9:44 PM

the people are too sedated on prescription drugs, too hypnotized by the t.v., and too overweight even if they wanted to... not to mention the crunch in gun control nowaday's.
cuz the major media networks(time-warner-aol, bloomberg, and the like) are all owned and operated by the same group of lackeys that are in power in the government.
because free election and democracy are a sham... the truth is it has been all staged... everything.
again it is due to the massive pharmecutical industry, politics, and the hypno-zation of the nation... television is a subliminal trance without anyone even taking prescription drugs... add them to the factor and you have one of the greatest mind-control tatics in this quadrant of the universe.
read the above and you already have all the answers...

again UKI you hit the nail right on the head.

Raptor Witness

Sep 2nd, 2006, 11:45 PM

uki!

http://static.flickr.com/85/232408215_ab58f1bbcc.jpg

Justice

Sep 4th, 2006, 3:43 AM

Oh man, I can't wait for the answer. I'll be checking the forums daily for this one.

Electrical engineering and Msc IT and no it's not a class thing

Justice

Sep 4th, 2006, 4:16 AM

Cartesiantheater

Please post this "awashness" of articles for me to read. Only one I can think of is BYU and Steven "Indiana" Jones. But of course he's catching flak.

With pleasure

here (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0818/p03s01-legn.html)

here (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/07/teaching-911-denial-at-uw-madison.html)
and here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14548525/)

“His papers have had several flaws in them.”

What and the official story doesn’t

The poll will be anonymous. In fact, it won't even expressly be about 9/11. There will be two or three questions on it, but there will be many other things, due to reasons similar to what you posted.

Then I can not see it being a poll that could possible reflect how many professors suspect that 9/11 was carried out by the government or if they go along with the official story.

No. No one said stupid. I simply implied that people with post-graduate education are not as easily convinced as laymen.

Yes in effect stupid. Again you are playing with words.

Once more I ask a simple question that you have failed to answer

explain why some steel beams were blown over 63 meters sideways and away from the building or are you going to suggest this is normal for an object being acted upon by gravity.

Micahyah

Sep 4th, 2006, 1:16 PM

explain why some steel beams were blown over 63 meters sideways and away from the building or are you going to suggest this is normal for an object being acted upon by gravity.

People try so hard to fit the evidence into an explanation offered by the government that is physically impossible, its sad.

I'm putting this up because it was brought up by one of the 3 clinging to the government's story, I don't remember who, Now? bbv3.0?

The 'confession video' by 'Bin Laden'. When you see them side by side, you see its not the same person.

Someone tried to claim that it was a doctored picture, or that in other places you could see that it was him in this tape.

Here is other pictures from the same tape

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a321/bogumilo/1-1.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a321/bogumilo/Captured8.jpg

As you see, these pictures further match E below, but do not match the real Bin Laden, A through D. (The picture in C is from the real Bin Laden tape that was made 10 days after the supposed confession tape was made.)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binladen8.jpg

Now

Sep 4th, 2006, 3:27 PM

I'm putting this up because it was brought up by one of the 3 clinging to the government's story, I don't remember who, Now? bbv3.0?

The 'confession video' by 'Bin Laden'. When you see them side by side, you see its not the same person.

Someone tried to claim that it was a doctored picture, or that in other places you could see that it was him in this tape.

Ouch! I have been confused for one of the grasping minority! Damn, after about 50 posts slamming the official story, I have been mistaken for one of "them." That hurts! I think you will find it was Cartesiantheater who challenged my point about the phony Bin Laden confession tape...

Now.

Micahyah

Sep 4th, 2006, 3:42 PM

sorry about that Now.

Another MSM story on 9/11 truth:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html

Justice

Sep 5th, 2006, 3:34 AM

Micahyah

I think the CIA, MI6, hollywood could easily fake images of bin-laden and given the time I think even I could do a fair job. They even have real time capabilities to clone a persons voice.

Bin-Laden will say anything he is told, he’s playing the bad cop for GW Bush as Bush has links directly to the bin-laden family dating back many years and Bush is up the bum of the Saudi royals.

Image ‘D’ above looks suspicious and ‘E’ looks nothing like him unless he had suddenly put on a lot of weight.

Cartesiantheater

Sep 8th, 2006, 7:22 PM

Cartesiantheater
With pleasure

here (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0818/p03s01-legn.html)

Ok, I don't really have that much time these days, so I may or may not respond to what you posted. However, I did read some of your first article, and noticed this

while the university has been deluged with e-mails against Barrett. Yet it has stuck by the decision to have him teach a planned course on Islam this fall.

and...

That's the view the administration took as well, when they investigated. They found that however outlandish his personal opinions, Barrett - who was given an $8,427 contract to teach this course - was given good reviews for his past teaching.

and...

"He does a good job teaching that course, no matter what his views are," says John Wiley, the university's chancellor. Interference from legislators or the public sets a dangerous precedent, Chancellor Wiley adds. "If there's one place controversy should be welcomed, it's universities."

As you can see, it isn't the University that is giving him flak. It is conservative talk radio and government officials. My point was that academia is not firing professors who question the official story. The Universities are NOT penalizing professors for questioning the government's story. Therefore, those of you who say that scientists are remaining quiet for fear of losing their jobs are wrong up to this point.
Here's some from your second article- this is the response of the University in question about public fire one of it's faculty was put under about his views on 9/11:

If Barrett tries to force his views about 9/11 on students, he will be called on it. But everything he has said suggests that he will be a responsible instructor. Indeed, Barrett has been very specific about the fact that he wants to try to "present all defensible sides of important issues" and "let students make up their own minds."
and...

That sounds a lot like the values expressed on a plaque at the UW that reads: "Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found."

Steve Nass should go up to Bascom Hall and read the plaque before he starts telling this great university to fire controversial instructors.
Again, the University and various organizations are DEFENDING the instructor, NOT firing or penalizing him... I haven't looked at the third one yet, but I guarantee the story will be the same. Hmm... let's see...

"Professor Woodward is clearly lacking any evidence for his theory that the U.S. government orchestrated 9/11. However, he has every right to present those views as his opinions in an upper-level class at a state university. I don't think our young people need Sen. Gregg's protection from the indoctrination of a leftist professor. They are more than able to think for themselves."

and...

James Osborne of Manchester also had words of praise for Woodward.

"Bravo to Professor Woodward!" he wrote. "An institution of higher learning should be a place to present ALL ideas regardless of how radical or out of the mainstream they may be." Of course, this article only presents personal opinions, and there are opinions contrary to the ones I quoted (from mothers of students, some politicians, the like), but AGAIN there is NO PLACE where the University tried to penalized, fire, or censer the instructor, other than admonishing him to allow a difference of opinion in his class, to allow students to decide for themselves. The Universities are NOT trying to stop professors from criticizing the government. They haven't for years and they probably never will again.

What and the official story doesn’t The official story is not a peer reviewed scientific paper. Therefore, your point here doesn't even matter in regard to the question I was answering when I brought up Jones' work on 9/11.
The point is that the scientific community does not accept the demolition theory precisely because of a lack of strong enough physical evidence. However, to your side's credit (and really, to my argument's credit), there have been several non-demolition papers that have been critiqued and then altered, and there are several different non-demolition hypothesis still being worked on and scrutinized.

Then I can not see it being a poll that could possible reflect how many professors suspect that 9/11 was carried out by the government or if they go along with the official story. Well, if there is a few questions that explicitly ask if they believe that the US government orchestrated 9/11 by use of demolitions, it will. (And keep in mind that I can highlight or drop any data I want- if I want to know what they think about 9/11, I can concentrate specifically on how they answered the questions about 9/11. I mean, when you take a poll, you answer SEVERAL types of questions, and the data you give can be scrutinized together or by category. My professor is going to get the entire poll, however, for our purposes here, I would only focus on the relevant parts)

Yes in effect stupid. Again you are playing with words. Well, if you define stupid as accepting an idea as truth without x level of indisputable proof, well... than yeah, stupid. Of course, with this definition you and I would now have to say that EVERY SINGLE THEIST ON THE PLANET IS STUPID. Do you want to go that far? (I personally don't mind; I think religion is impossibly primitive- but who the hell am I?)

Once more I ask a simple question that you have failed to answer

explain why some steel beams were blown over 63 meters sideways and away from the building or are you going to suggest this is normal for an object being acted upon by gravity. I didn't fail to answer. But here, I will be more concise. No, gravity alone does not do that, to the best of my knowledge. However, you are being impossibly simplistic here. There is WAY more going on than things falling straight down. Energy does not magically disappear. And in that sort of collapse, in addition to HUGE amounts of gravitational kinetic energy, you have many more forces acting. Have you ever dropped a book onto a pile of dust? What happens to the dust? It is DISPLACED along with the air. How much kinetic energy does a book have falling from a few feet? Not very much. Now how much kinetic energy are we dealing with in the WTC? In addition, keep in mind how LITTLE explosives contribute to the kinetic energy of a collapse. If you had an explosion alone capable of throwing something that far, I would suspect that we would have seen a whole lot of flame spewing around that debris, rather than just dust . (And btw, you shouldn't judge whether something is right or not based on my ability to explain it. But I suppose that is the nature of a debate forum- and of course, the nature of the Conspiracy Theory. Oh! And that is one more reason your side is not going to convince the majority of science any time soon. You can't make such a strong opinion before everything is considered and expect to be taken seriously. If you start behaving in a "God of the Gaps" sort of way, few critically thinking people will listen to you.)

Anyway, you guys have yet to present evidence strong enough to convince me, and as I already pointed out, I am not the sort that clings impossibly to a belief because it makes me feel good- I've already rejected everything that my life stood for before, remember? I was an anti-evolution warrior, a Man of God, if you will, at one time. And now I have completely denounced everything that gave my life meaning and made it worth something. So, if you can provide strong enough evidence, I will convert to your side. However, I will NOT convert from the sort of weak "evidence" you guys have shown thus far. You might be able to pull me more to the middle with it, but there's NO WAY I will abandon the critical reasoning that pulled me out from the bondage of brainwashed, forced-fed religion.