TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Another Chink in the Conspiracy 9/11 Theory
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo when "entertaining a theory" becomes an influence to ones principles in the face of empirical evidence... look, it becomes dogma for them when you think about it. IMO this [Bin Laden/Al Queera/the Saudis/CIA] should be far from dogma. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 So you want to prove this one wrong, find me the Boeing. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by stevieboy32808 Not welcomed doesn't mean he didn't get a his piece of the pie. He might've been scorned at by his own flesh and blood, but he still had involvement in the family's business affairs as far as I know. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 What evidence? Whos evidence? What does the evidence prove? I hate when critics are quick to discount CTs because of the "evidence" but fail to point to anything specific. The CTs exist because there are holes in the official story. The CTs are begging for someone, anyone, to prove them wrong. So you want to prove this one wrong, find me the Boeing. |
| quote: |
The fires in Building 7 were not severe: * Limited to isolated regions of 2 floors * No broken glass on north side * Puny compared to other building fires |
| quote: |
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we�ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist This proves there was a big hole on the south side. It's in the middle of the building and goes up about 20 stories... Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that�s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 So you want to prove this one wrong, find me the Boeing. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 What evidence? Whos evidence? What does the evidence prove? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN bullshit CTs exist because people search for them. and the people that search for them also dont have the degree of expertise to analyse the data. then you add the internet, and suddenly every 16yo with a computer can digest poor research with even poorer analysis and not even know theyre being fed garbage. we dont ignore the CTs coz theyre CTs, we ignore them because their evidence and argument is suspect. the CTs have been proved wrong on a number of (very big) issues, yet they continue to paste their thoroughly debunked opinions without addressing the counter arguments. |
| quote: |
a CT isnt gonna get any respect from me if they dont answer the questions i raise. and im sorry, but they just dont. |
| quote: |
| no matter how many times you tell them "the WTCs were built using a unique structural design" they'll ignore you and say "never before has there been a total collapse of a steel building due to fire" (which isnt even true by the way). |
| quote: |
or my other favourite- "small fires on only a couple of floors couldnt have brought down WTC7" but they ignore all the fireman quotes about how bad WTC looked, or pick and choose their photos |
| quote: |
find you the boeing? heres part of one |
| quote: |
its not like the evidence disproving many theories isnt out there. people just choose to ignore it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 What evidence? Whos evidence? What does the evidence prove? I hate when critics are quick to discount CTs because of the "evidence" but fail to point to anything specific. The CTs exist because there are holes in the official story. The CTs are begging for someone, anyone, to prove them wrong. So you want to prove this one wrong, find me the Boeing. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 In a court of law a case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not beyond that doubt. You present the evidence and claim it as proven but its not proven. If it was then there'd be no room left for skepticism. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo ok Matlock. i'll bite. lets play this. lets start by you being the DA. what are you alleging the "crime" to be? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 In a court of law a case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not beyond that doubt. You present the evidence and claim it as proven but its not proven. If it was then there'd be no room left for skepticism. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 hypocrisy. you admit ignoring the questions raised by CTs and then demand they answer your own. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 the theories won't go away because they have footing to stand on, albeit you might choose to ignore this footing, but if it werent there then the CTs wouldn't be either. concerning the fires try the following Dr. Steven E. Jones(links to pdf), Kevin Ryan, Morgan Reynolds. these are not Joe Schmoes, they have degrees and credibility |
| quote: |
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper. A few department chairmen at Jones's university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims". The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 and you ignore the The Naudet brothers' footage of the NYC firemen describing a controlled demolition the day of Sept. 11, and the evidence of a bomb going off in the lobby of WTC well before the buildings collapsed which includes the NYC firemen's own accounts of such evidence. |
| quote: |
A video is shown on just about every conspiracy web site which shows a few fireman discussing what they heard and saw. fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block. fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks. fireman2: 2 blocks. fireman1: and we started runnin' fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out � fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det� fireman1: yea detonated yea fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom� In the context of reading it off a conspiracy site this may sound like damming evidence. They are saying �detonated� and �they had planned to take down a building�. They even say �Boom� to describe the sound. But if you hear the other things they�re saying, their body language and context outside the conspiracy theory setting, something else emerges. Before or after every description is �As if�. �As if they had planned to take down a building�. �It was as if as if they had detonated�. They also use body language to show it was the sound of the floors crashing into one another. boom- (hand moves down) boom- (hand moves down) boom- (hand moves down) boom- (hand moves down) boom- (hand moves down) boom- (hand moves down) boom- (hand moves down) boom� This could be just as powerful evidence of pancaking as the use of explosives. But the real evidence isn�t so much examining the video as examining the actions taken, or NOT taken, by the NYC Fire Department after the event. The NYC Fire Department hasn�t rallied its members to force an investigation into the possible murder of over 300 of its members. Some sites offer an explanation of this saying there was a gag order placed on the Fire Department. The only place you will find this is on conspiracy theory sites. No mention from main stream press about the hundreds if not thousands of fireman on the scene not being allowed to talk. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 A few parts of a huge boeing 757. Where are the wings, tail, bodies of 50+ passengers? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 I could say the same thing about proving them. You've presented close to nothing but opinion and certainly haven't proved anything beyond a resonable doubt. Admittingly, the main body of evidence from that day consists of video footage and photographs that rely on interpretation. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 At present moment there isn't enough evidence to prove anything either way. But don't come in here screaming no bullshit while simultaneously flinging your own. |
lets just look at a nice bit of CT "research" shall we.
the CT edit
| quote: |
I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?�--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory |
| quote: |
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 I'm not alluding to any particular crime. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, common sense should tell you that if there is insufficient evidence you should hardly entertain the idea that there are dark elves living on the far side of the moon. the simple fact is the 9/11 CT movement has virtually nothing to strap all its outlandish claims upon. your mere mentioning of jones' supposed "research" just goes to show that you havent read anything critical of his work. which puts you in the average CT category- the lazy man's conpiracist- likes what he reads coz we're not experts and it sounds plausible without any contrary information at hand. debunking 911.com is your friend |
Re: Another Chink in the Conspiracy 9/11 Theory
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX Looks like, unless now "you conspiracy lovers" think that Al-Jazeera is an US Government arm of the Propaganda against radical Muslims, video has been released. Hearing the "real" truth is hard....but even I once believed in the Tooth Fairy, when i was 4 years old.. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 I'm saying the critics mutually don't have enough to say they're not. Common sense aside, if I wanted to believe there are dark elves living on the far side of the moon, you couldn't very well prove to me there aren't. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, we're waiting. ive pointed out just one instance of bullshit from the CT believers. how bout you go find us some "specific" evidence that isnt full of half-truths or shoddy research and justify your defence of the CT brigade? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, youre obviously reading the wrong critics, becuase the ones ive read provide as much proof as one can get from surfing the net. but also of major concern, and something that really began to tip the balance for me, is to see the ways in which the CTs present their "facts". its poor research in some areas and outright dishonesty in others. thats what really made me doubt the CT arguments in the end. if someone is cherry picking their quotes or using photographs that dont tell the whole story, then i begin to doubt their credibility. |
| quote: |
| Main Entry: proof Function: noun 1 a : the cogency of evidence or of demonstrated relationship that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact Main Entry: proof Function: adjective 1 : firm or successful in resisting or repelling |
^^ see, this is what im talking about. no matter how many times you show how many people or institutions disagree with jones' arguments, the CTers keep popping up with their links to his "research".
they ignore the fact that he's not qualified to make these arguments, and ignore all the structural engineers that condemn him.
i have no idea why theres no footage of a plane hitting the pentagon. all i can say is thank fuck theres footage of the WTC coz god knows what kind of bullshit you cretins would end up believing without it.
in case anyone missed it:
jones is not a fucking engineer!
| quote: |
Which is exactly what I was getting at. You look at a plane part and consider it proof while others look at the same thing and aren't satisfied. That's not proof. |
Re: Re: Another Chink in the Conspiracy 9/11 Theory
| quote: |
| Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Doesn't prove a thing. You can know it's going to happen and still LET it happen. So enough of your flippant, smug remarks. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the simple fact of the matter is, no CT is able to give us a properly articulated position as to how the towers were brought down and by what. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 neither is anyone else. because the rubble was cleared without being examined there is no physical evidence that explicitly tells what brought down the towers. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 Which is exactly what I was getting at. You look at a plane part and consider it proof while others look at the same thing and aren't satisfied. That's not proof. No acceptance of the mind here, and hardly impenetrable. |
| quote: |
Or consider this first-person commentary by a reporter for USA Today: 'Tomorrow always belongs to us' By Vin Narayanan, USATODAY.com 09/17/2001 - Updated 02:43 PM ET "At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon. The windows were dark on American Airlines Flight 77 as it streaked toward its target, only 50 yards away. The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball." |
| quote: |
Some of the sources relied on by Griffin claim to have debunked ten or twenty eyewitness accounts they found on the internet; but there were, in fact, hundreds of eyewitnesses to the commercial jet hitting the Pentagon. Scores gave their accounts to reporters and investigators. Some of their statements can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/identification.html |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN would that be proof?[/URL] |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Again no, because there are 'dozens of eyewitnesses' who claim they saw a missile fly towards the Pentagon, so why don't you believe them???? |
| quote: |
CONSPIRACY CRANKS CREATING CRAZED '9/11 TRUTH' By JAMES B. MEIGS September 12, 2006 -- ON Feb. 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for world domination. That day, Popular Mechanics, the magazine I edit, hit newsstands with a story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs - which calls itself the "9/11 Truth Movement" - was aflame with wild fantasies about me, my staff and the article we had published. Conspiracy Web sites labeled Popular Mechanics a "CIA front organization" and compared us to Nazis and war criminals. For a 104-year-old magazine about science, technology, home improvement and car maintenance, this was pretty extreme stuff. What had we done to provoke such outrage? Research. Conspiracy theories alleging that 9/11 was a U.S. government operation are rapidly infiltrating the mainstream. These notions are advanced by hundreds of books, over a million Web pages and even in some college classrooms. The movie "Loose Change," a slick roundup of popular conspiracy claims, has become an Internet sensation. Worse, these fantasies are gaining influence on the international stage. French author Thierry Meyssan's "The Big Lie," which argues that the U.S. military orchestrated the attacks, was a bestseller in France, and his claims have been widely repeated in European and Middle Eastern media. And recent surveys reveal that, even in moderate Muslim countries such as Turkey and Jordan, majorities of the public believe that no Arab terrorists were involved in the attacks. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts." Yet conspiracy theorists want to pick and choose which facts to believe. Rather than grapple with the huge preponderance of evidence in support of the mainstream view of 9/11, they tend to focus on a handful of small anomalies that they believe cast doubt on the conventional account. These anomalies include the claim that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to have been made by a commercial jet (but just right for a cruise missile); that the Twin Towers were too robustly built to have been destroyed by the jet impacts and fires (so they must have been felled by explosives), and more. If true, these and similar assertions would cast serious doubt on the mainstream account of 9/11. But they're not true. Popular Mechanics has been fact-checking such claims since late 2004, and recently published a book on the topic. We've pored over transcripts, flight logs and blueprints, and interviewed more than 300 sources - including engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of investigative teams. In every single case, we found that the very facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies are mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified. Here's one example: Meyssan and hundreds of Web sites cite an eyewitness who said the craft that hit the Pentagon looked "like a cruise missile with wings." Here's what that witness, a Washington, D.C., broadcaster named Mike Walter, actually told CNN: "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up. It's really low.' And I saw it. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon." We talked to Walter and, like so many of the experts and witnesses widely quoted by conspiracy theorists, he told us he is heartsick to see the way his words have been twisted: "I struggle with the fact that my comments will forever be taken out of context." Here's another: An article in the American Free Press claims that a seismograph at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory picked up signals indicating that large bombs were detonated in the towers. The article quotes Columbia geologist Won-Young Kim and certainly looks authoritative. Yet the truth on this issue is not hard to find. A published Lamont-Doherty report on the seismic record of 9/11 says no such thing. Kim told Popular Mechanics that the publication's interpretation of his research was "categorically incorrect." Yet the claim is repeated verbatim on more than 50 Web sites as well as in the film "Loose Change." Every 9/11 conspiracy theory we investigated was based on similarly shoddy evidence. Most of these falsehoods are easy to refute simply by checking the original source material or talking to experts in the relevant fields. And yet even the flimsiest claims are repeated constantly in conspiracy circles, passed from Web site to book to Web site in an endless daisy chain. And any witness, expert - or publication - that tries to set the record straight is immediately vilified as being part of the conspiracy. The American public has every right to ask hard questions about 9/11. And informed skepticism about government and media can be healthy. But skepticism needs to be based on facts, not fallacies. Unfortunately, for all too many, conspiratorial fantasies offer a seductive alternative to grappling with the hard realities of a post-9/11 world. James B. Meigs is editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics. The magazine's new book, "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand up to the Facts," is just out. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.