TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 [61] 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ha- says the guy whose CT buddies compare the WTCs to the empire state or other irrelevant buildings!

A bridge is VERY DIFFERENT from a building. While WTC vs. Empire State are very similar. They're both buildings, and they're not bridges.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium A bridge is VERY DIFFERENT from a building. While WTC vs. Empire State are very similar. They're both buildings, and they're not bridges.

see, thats where you're wrong. sure, they're both buildings, but that doesn't mean you can, even for a second, compare them in the context we're discussing. they're not at all similar from a structural point of view.

^^ LOL, I can't believe you said that.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z ^^ LOL, I can't believe you said that.

huh? which bit?

theyre really not similar!! no, really!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN huh? which bit? theyre really not similar!! no, really!

In that case, me and you are not similar either ... we're very different people. But you're not a monkey though, and WTC is not a bridge.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium In that case, me and you are not similar either ... we're very different people. But you're not a monkey though, and WTC is not a bridge.

yes, and youre not a structural engineer, and colonel is

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yes, and youre not a structural engineer, and colonel is

With all due respect, I think that the Colonel (who's undoubtedly NOT an actual Colonel) is simply using his (alleged) credentials to try and dissuade anyone from futher investigating the facts surrounding both the events of 9-11 and the many ommissions, distortions and inconsistencies printed in our governments "Official" (cover-up) report.

I'd rather listen to a real Colonel, someone who seems to know a great deal more about what he's talking about in regards to the facts surrounding the events themselves and not just someone kowtowing to authority by agreeing with their purposefully misdirected, "governments version of the events."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bowman

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X With all due respect, I think that the Colonel (who's undoubtedly NOT an actual Colonel) is simply using his (alleged) credentials to try and dissuade anyone from futher investigating the facts surrounding both the events of 9-11 and the many ommissions, distortions and inconsistencies printed in our governments "Official" (cover-up) report. I'd rather listen to a real Colonel, someone who seems to know a great deal more about what he's talking about in regards to the facts surrounding the events themselves and not just someone kowtowing to authority by agreeing with their purposefully misdirected, "governments version of the events." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bowman

with all due respect, i think its pretty disingenuous of you to automatically (like youre programmed to ignore?) doubt colonel's academic achievements and experience. Anyone with half a brain can read his posts and see that he does indeed know what he is talking about.

"Dissuade anyone from further investigating?" -perhaps he wishes to save them valuable time for things that are actually constructive? Why is it that the truth movement relies so heavily on youtube and google videos but still hasn't managed to produce a SINGLE peer-reviewed scientific paper that supports the controlled demolition hypothesis?

and it really is becoming old to call everything "government version" -nobody here is kowtowing to the government. we're just not suckered in by "arguments from doubt" that CTs love to create and exploit.

this specific discussion with magnetonium is related closely to the truth movement's lies and junk science regarding the comparison of the WTCs and other large buildings, which to even the casual researcher aren't fair comparisons whatsoever.

So if you wish to defend the truth movement's or magnetonium's invalid comparisons to other steel-framed buildings then by all means structure your argument. but I am over watching the empty accusations and half-truths from shitty videos.

again, don't you ever ask yourself the question as to why you haven't been able to find qualified and registered structural engineers that agree that the controlled demo theory is possible?

oops, double post...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN with all due respect, i think its pretty disingenuous of you to automatically (like youre programmed to ignore?) doubt colonel's academic achievements and experience. Anyone with half a brain can read his posts and see that he does indeed know what he is talking about. "Dissuade anyone from further investigating?" -perhaps he wishes to save them valuable time for things that are actually constructive? Why is it that the truth movement relies so heavily on youtube and google videos but still hasn't managed to produce a SINGLE peer-reviewed scientific paper that supports the controlled demolition hypothesis? and it really is becoming old to call everything "government version" -nobody here is kowtowing to the government. we're just not suckered in by "arguments from doubt" that CTs love to create and exploit. this specific discussion with magnetonium is related closely to the truth movement's lies and junk science regarding the comparison of the WTCs and other large buildings, which to even the casual researcher aren't fair comparisons whatsoever. So if you wish to defend the truth movement's or magnetonium's invalid comparisons to other steel-framed buildings then by all means structure your argument. but I am over watching the empty accusations and half-truths from shitty videos. again, don't you ever ask yourself the question as to why you haven't been able to find qualified and registered structural engineers that agree that the controlled demo theory is possible?

I don't really doubt that he knows much of what he's talking about, I just doubt his authenticity as someone who's actually searching for the truth since HE SOUNDS LIKE just another one of the Imperial Guards trolling the government's "official" conspiracy theory line. Yes, it is the government's - it's theirs through either active or inactive participation, in my opinion probably as much as it is David Rockefeller's, Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, etc. It's a fabrication, a distortion and a misrepresentation of the truth that was created to stop or at least allay the need for an honest, independent investigation.

They're not simply arguments from doubt, anyway. They're more or less arguments from a perspective of not being able to accept the flagrant violations of reality that the coverup artists are trying to pass as the truth. Violations which are so obvious that those who still participate in the coverup are continually seeking to stifle any real public exposure and/or awareness.

It's all good, though Despite the denialists and the official conspiracy theorist's policing of the population via their constant ridicule for being either a "CT", a "tin-hatter" or a "Truth Seeker" (since when did the truth become faux pas, anyway?), people are still waking up! And as more and more people wake up it will be easier for those whose jobs are on the line to come out and publish their peer-reviewed papers without as much worry that they will be either in the unemployment line come Monday or simply just maligned as being "with the terrorists" as George Bush so eloquently proclaimed of anyone who entertains 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (or displays any such dissent.)

And you wonder why there aren't any major peer reviewed scientific papers floating around? Here's what happens when you question the official story...



Lecturer denounces critics of his 9-11 teachings
'Inside job' theory draws calls for firing, UW probe
By MEGAN TWOHEY
[email protected]
Posted: July 9, 2006

A University of Wisconsin-Madison lecturer who has sparked controversy by teaching that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were an inside job lashed out Sunday at public officials who have questioned his right to teach.

Speaking at a gathering at UW-Milwaukee, Kevin Barrett took aim at state Rep. Stephen Nass (R-Whitewater), U.S. Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.) and Gov. Jim Doyle.

Doyle, a Democrat, joined the chorus of critics Friday by questioning whether Barrett has the "capacity to teach students in this state."

"I've been teaching for 20 years," Barrett told a crowd of more than 100, many of them cheering supporters. "I dare say I know more about teaching than the governor of the state."

The public sparring came as UW-Madison concludes a 10-day review of Barrett. The university is expected to announce early this week whether the part-time lecturer will be allowed to teach a class on Islam this fall, and if so, whether he will be able to share his theories on 9-11, as he plans to do.

UW spokesman Dennis Chaptman, who attended Sunday's event, said he was not in a position to comment.

Barrett, a bearded man with unkempt hair, said in an interview that he had met with Provost Patrick Farrell twice last week. The provost, Barrett said, never suggested that he would be prevented from teaching the fall course titled, "Islam: Religion and Culture," at a salary of $8,247.

He said Farrell was open to his including theories that the Bush administration planned the 9-11 attacks for its own benefit in the class. Barrett has discussed these theories in a previous class on folklore.

"Basically, the rules of the university are such that it would be a gross violation of academic freedom to fire me," said Barrett, 47, who earned his PhD in African languages and literature from UW-Madison in 2004. "I don't think they'll stand in the way of my teaching. I think I'll basically be able to stick with the syllabus as it currently stands."

The theories that Barrett plans to include in his upcoming course are espoused by a small but vocal group of academics that includes Steven Jones, a physicist from Brigham Young University; David Ray Griffin, a retired professor from the Claremont School of Theology; and James H. Fetzer, a retired philosophy professor from the University of Minnesota-Duluth.

Fetzer, a burly man with a booming voice, co-chairs a group called 9/11 Scholars for Truth. He outlined the theories at Sunday's gathering, saying:

• Explosives must have been detonated inside the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, because the impact of the airplanes was not enough to bring down the twin towers.
  
  
• That the damage to the Pentagon was such that a smaller military plane, as opposed to a large commercial aircraft, must have flown into the Pentagon, shooting a missile as it went.
  
  
• That the debris of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was scattered so widely that it must have been shot down.
  
  
• That half a dozen of the men who are said to have hijacked the planes are still living in the Middle East.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN see, thats where you're wrong. sure, they're both buildings, but that doesn't mean you can, even for a second, compare them in the context we're discussing. they're not at all similar from a structural point of view.

A B52 smahsed into the empire state building, it still stands, WTC didn't go down because of a plane.

Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?

Yes 142 61.21%
No 90 38.79%



The truth ALWAYS speaks for itself.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir A B52 smahsed into the empire state building, it still stands, WTC didn't go down because of a plane.

repeating known fallacies does your side of the argument no good. at least have an idea what youre talking about before trolling in here with ignorant statements that have absolutely no bearing on the debate.

trancer, i can understand that the topic would be pretty unpopular in the US, but its not the only country in the world remember still not a single peer-reviewed paper. not one. until there is some scientific analysis that supported the demolition theory, its just junk science and poor assumptions like those made my cronodevir.

quote:

Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? Yes 142 61.21% No 90 38.79% The truth ALWAYS speaks for itself.

LOL. yep! an ambiguous poll on an EDM forum really is the be-all and end-all of the debate

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN repeating known fallacies does your side of the argument no good. at least have an idea what youre talking about before trolling in here with ignorant statements that have absolutely no bearing on the debate. trancer, i can understand that the topic would be pretty unpopular in the US, but its not the only country in the world remember still not a single peer-reviewed paper. not one. until there is some scientific analysis that supported the demolition theory, its just junk science and poor assumptions like those made my cronodevir. LOL. yep! an ambiguous poll on an EDM forum really is the be-all and end-all of the debate

All you have made is just junk debate points about how a simple fact all the sudden becomes "a known falacy" [did you just look that phrase up on wikipedia?], and poor asumptions. Lol. You Fail.



Show me another building that has fallen because of an airplane smashing into it, and i will show you 20 buildings that have had airplanes smash into them, and they are still here today. And were built 30 years before WTC.

You are more likely to fall through a wormhole, then have an airplane destory the strongest, most durable, buildings ever made.

What i think it was, was this, you had the government fly some planes into a building, then another guy flip a demolitions switch, which brought them down. Then you have NBC posting a picture of Osama bin Laden, and then ameirca goes to war in iraq. I like how everything connects nicely....................riight.

Whats even funnyer is how muhammad atta is still alive, and frequents arab news stations. But no, that doesn't happen either. Just like it wasn't wrong that Iraq had WMDs, and just like it wasn't wrong that Afghanistan was the place where Osama was hideing. Nooo, couldn't be wrong.

hey, colonel!!! we have another one

oh, where to begin!

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir All you have made is just junk debate points about how a simple fact all the sudden becomes "a known falacy" [did you just look that phrase up on wikipedia?], and poor asumptions. Lol. You Fail.

firstly, if youre gonna accuse someone of failing because of something you dont understand then at least get the spelling right. ahhh, kids today! pay more attention in school. no, really.

a known fallacy; meaning, there are those of us that know that the comparison is a completely without basis. yes, really. dont take my word for it. there are plenty of websites that deal with this particular known fallacy, but kids like your good self, with attention spans so terribly short, just cant get past your silly conspiracy sites to engage the topic from all angles.

here's just a very abridged bunch of facts for you to mull over before you wander into this thread and make a fool of yourself.

rightyo...

the empire state building and the B-52.

firstly, it was a B-25 bomber, not a B-52 as stated in one of the earlier versions of loose change. this known fallacy (hey, there's that word again!) has been repeated all over the web by everyone who is just a bit too lazy to really research the evidence.

let's compare the planes shall we?


.............B25...767-200...767-200ER...B-52
wingspan 67'6"...156'1"...156'1"...185'0"
length 52'11"...159'2"...159'2"...159'4"
weight 35,000...300,000...395,000...452,000
speed 230...530...530...526
Fuel (gal)670...16,700...23,980...46,000

edit: sorry for how crap that looks, but im sure you can follow it.

notice any particular differences? such as the size differences of the planes? the fuel capacity? the speed? do think that comparing a B-25 to a 767 is even remotely possible in this particular context? of course not. the variables are so different (in a ridiculously high order of magnitude) to make them incomparable.

but wait, we have more.

quote:

The B-25 is much, much smaller than a 767. Furthermore, the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center towers were not built alike. The Empire State Buiding has concrete-encased steel columns arranged in a grid configuration on every floor, which doesn't leave many open areas. The World Trade Center towers had exterior steel columns connected to the core columns by lightweight steel trusses, with large amounts of open floor space. A B-25 crashing into the Empire State Building is vastly different than 767s crashing into the WTC towers, and comparing these events is pointless.

http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3

here's a pic to explain what that means:


your average, steel-frames skyscraper, like the empire state building (note, not an actual diagram of this particular building, just a basic reference point for you to catch).


the very specific "tube in a tube" design that the WTCs (including building 7) were build from.

see the extraordinary difference? now, take all the differences from a B-25 bomber flying slowly in fog in the 1940s (so far less than its top speed of 230 mph) compared to a 767 being flown at 500 +/- Mph, multiply that by the incredible differences in the "two" buildings from a structural standpoint, add the massive differences in fuel spewing into the buildings, and consider the fact that the fire in the empire was fought and brought under control within a reasonable amount of time...

this is why this particular example is a known fallacy. thankyou for reading this far

quote:

Show me another building that has fallen because of an airplane smashing into it, and i will show you 20 buildings that have had airplanes smash into them, and they are still here today. And were built 30 years before WTC.

again, this kind of argument is completely illogical and without merit. saying "something hasn't occured before, therefore it cannot ever occur" -does that make sense to you??

there are all kinds of differences in buildings, imagine trying to compare any of them in a "parallel" context in a completely unpreditable and chaotic environment such as a plane crash? ask any engineer to explain it you. im not anywhere near qualified, which is why my explanations are simple and to the point.

i guarantee you that there isn't a single other incident in the world that is scientifically comparable to that day. not one. so stop trying to pretend that there are. here are some criteria for you to think about :

quote:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high 2) Which takes up a whole city block 3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design 4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7) 5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result. 6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours (WTC-7) 7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolt

http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

quote:

You are more likely to fall through a wormhole, then have an airplane destory the strongest, most durable, buildings ever made.

interesting. i assume you have some kind of statistical study to back this claim up??

again, i really don't think you're even remotely qualified to begin making such arbitrary statements about these particular buildings. its quite obvious you dont really appreciate the full story from a structural point of view. so i'll leave those particular statements to people who design these things, wouldn't you agree?

quote:

What i think it was, was this, you had the government fly some planes into a building, then another guy flip a demolitions switch, which brought them down.

i'll let colonelcrisp, our resident engineer to explain to you why this is another known fallacy

quote:

Whats even funnyer is how muhammad atta is still alive, and frequents arab news stations. But no, that doesn't happen either. Just like it wasn't wrong that Iraq had WMDs, and just like it wasn't wrong that Afghanistan was the place where Osama was hideing. Nooo, couldn't be wrong.

i'll leave this kind of drivel to speak for itself.

so, please come back if you feel that you have something to offer beyond repeating the same tired old shit that has been circulating on conspiracy websites for the last few years.

have a nice day.

Your theroy still fails. Because it doesn't account for the massess of people who saw and heard demolition explosions serveral times after the planes hit. But i'm sure you will try too throw in some random excuse for those, to try and unconfuse yourself, and tell yourself the government was right.

And, as stated before, the 'terrorists' onboard thsoe planes are well, all still alive. but of course, you won't tackle that fact, because you know you can't bullshit your way out of it by posting links and useing big words to appear to make yourself know what you are talking about.

You also have the fact that there was no plane reckage in penssilvania. No planes to not disinigrate into trillions of tiny metal shards. Thats another thing, show me another instance where a plane hit dead on, into the ground, and completely and utterely vaporised and there was NOTHING left, period. Well, nothing left other than a 5-7 foot diameter whole. Which, if you ask any arab, he would tell you its a missle impact crater. And who knows more about getting bombed with missles? You? or Arabs...

What about the pentagon? No airplane there either. Yet another missle impact site.

So your telling me the government told the truth about WTC but lied about Penn and Pentagon? Riight.

I guess those two planes just vaporised into thin air, and the ones that hit the wtc didn't...because reckage of the planes [large peices, the sizes of cars] were still found, after haveing burned for several hours or so.

Plus the countless eye witnesses in Penn And pentagon who saw figher shooting missles at the ground and at the pentagon. they are all liars.

Fail, Fail, Fail.



No one said the planes didn't hit the building. Its just there is no proof they caused it to flal, which is very much a waste of time debateing, because it doesn't give a shit how the WTC collapsed, what matters is who did it.

look mate, here's how a debate works. you make an argument (like you did concerning the B-25 and the empire state), i show you why that argument is illogical and essentially pretty stupid. you then come back with an argument defending your original position.

if youre not going to engage in a proper debate and take me to task on the evidence i have provided, then i have already lost interest in you and your ability to take this seriously.

your poorly-worded latest bunch of nonsense is full of the same type of untruths that i destroyed in my previous post. i have neither the time nor the inclination to argue with someone that merely moves the goalposts each post, without engaging the previously accepted topic (ie the B-25).

so, if you feel like defending that particular part of your argument, i may deem you worthy to illustrate to you why your latest post is also nonsense. otherwise, please stop wasting my time.

quote:

useing big words to appear to make yourself know what you are talking about.

haha. don't be jealous. its just what having a good education and literacy level is all about. pay attention in school kid.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN look mate, here's how a debate works. you make an argument (like you did concerning the B-25 and the empire state), i show you why that argument is illogical and essentially pretty stupid. you then come back with an argument defending your original position. if youre not going to engage in a proper debate and take me to task on the evidence i have provided, then i have already lost interest in you and your ability to take this seriously. your poorly-worded latest bunch of nonsense is full of the same type of untruths that i destroyed in my previous post. i have neither the time nor the inclination to argue with someone that merely moves the goalposts each post, without engaging the previously accepted topic (ie the B-25). so, if you feel like defending that particular part of your argument, i may deem you worthy to illustrate to you why your latest post is also nonsense. otherwise, please stop wasting my time. haha. don't be jealous. its just what having a good education and literacy level is all about. pay attention in school kid.

Lol, you have destroyed nothing. You tried to make a point, then you self declared yourself the winner.

Everything you posted about the b25 wasn't relevent to the fact that airplanes don't bring buildings down. [Which was the original point, you bringing proof an airplane can bring down a building. Which you never did.] In newyork, i didn't see an airplane bring down a building, i seen an airplane crash into a building that was about to be demolished with preset explosives, and i also heard the systematic explosions that took place thereafter, followed by a systematic and perfect center collapse. A very good demolition job if ya ask me. Further more, the fact that all of those 'hijackers' are still alive..well, that is the real debunker to the arabs causeing 9/11 myth. Plus the fact that two massive airplanes just vanished in thin air [somethign else that had never ever happened in the history of aviation.] [[what is that? two events happening in an hour time frame, that have never ever happened in the history of mankind?]] the building fell due to melted steel? What about the 10's and 20's of other buildings through history that burned for long periods of time, your telling me the steel in thsoe buildings, built 40-50 years before WTC were 'super steel'? And the WTC was made with regular steel? A fire cuaseing steel to melt and a building to colapse, another first time event in the history of mankind.

Like i said before, who gives a shit how it happened? You obviously do. What matters is who cuased it. And everything that happened before and after it, points to the current adminstration.

You can keep posting illrelevent stuff about "how-a-boeing-747-is-bigger-than-a-b25-thus-a-boeing-cuased-wtc-to-fall." all you want. How it happened is rather illrelevant now.

Its not even a technical detail that shows why it is the current adminstriations doing. Infact, it has less to do with science, and more to do with political planning, and world planning. Exastion of resources, keeping nations powerless, and helping a nearly wiped out race of people rule large quanities of the planet.

Thinking that a handful of saudi arabs wanted to attack the united states because of "death to ameirca MWHAHAHA" is something you read in comic books. In stories. Don't be so in over your head that people actually covet anything in ameirca that it simply causes hate to swell up in them and they want to go kill kill kill...no one gives a shit about this country until this country starts to help others hurt them. And quite frankle, none of the 'hijackers' were palestinian.

well, i had hoped you were going to be worth the trouble. i think you've gone to greats pains to show me you arent. too bad. jesus, at least some of the other crackpots in this thread understand the debate and how to structure their arguments

your lack of commitment to proper inquiry and logical debate is a perfect illustration of how these dumb ideas gain popularity in the first place.

come back to this thread when you have something actually worth contributing, and are prepared to engage particular points in depth, rather than running around with non-sequiturs.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, i had hoped you were going to be worth the trouble. i think you've gone to greats pains to show me you arent. too bad. jesus, at least some of the other crackpots in this thread understand the debate and how to structure their arguments your lack of commitment to proper inquiry and logical debate is a perfect illustration of how these dumb ideas gain popularity in the first place. come back to this thread when you have something actually worth contributing, and are prepared to engage particular points in depth, rather than running around with non-sequiturs.

Lol, maby you don't understand, that i just don't debate?

I haven't found somethign worth debateing, i was just giveing you facts, wether you accept them or not is not really relevant.

Convinceing some random guy on the internet about something as small as 9/11 is not my idea of spending time on something constructive.

anyways, i'm done, lol.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I don't really doubt that he knows much of what he's talking about, I just doubt his authenticity as someone who's actually searching for the truth since HE SOUNDS LIKE just another one of the Imperial Guards trolling the government's "official" conspiracy theory line.

oh come on. he is arguing from a purely academic point of view, in line with his experience and knowledge on the subject. His facts and opinion are rather compelling, and certainly more scientifically convincing than the junk science papers written by those like steven jones. i find it rather disingenuous for you to arbitrarily judge someone of colonel's experience whilst at the same time supporting a physicist with no experience in structural engineering who hasn't produced proper scientific work on the subject at hand.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Yes, it is the government's - it's theirs through either active or inactive participation, in my opinion probably as much as it is David Rockefeller's, Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, etc. It's a fabrication, a distortion and a misrepresentation of the truth that was created to stop or at least allay the need for an honest, independent investigation.

see, i dont see how you can justify labelling the "government" as a single-cell entity instead of a multiverse of individuals. there really is no "hive" mind, and i think its rather naive to think that there is. shit man, are you gonna ignore my posts simply because im employed by the government? a job is a job, it doesn't necessarily make the man you know! im certainly not part of any conspiracy to undermine the truth, i am merely a citizen who is still waiting for real evidence to come to light.

i dont see any evidence to suggest the thousands of federal and state employees are somehow agents of the bush administration. there are a lot of honest, hard-working people (like me) in a government's infrastructure (tho tbh i dont work that hard hehe). not everyone is a closet FBI wannabe it really boggles the mind how you guys think government's can maintain such secrets, and that government investigators are somehow in on it too. this is the government that couldn't keep illegal wiretaps secret? prisoner abuses in iraq? secret prisons around the world? yet somehow they're keeping their mouths shut re 9/11? how do you reconcile that inconsistency?

I know your side love to poke holes in NIST etc, but its a little silly considering that you haven't been able to provide anything even remotely approaching the NIST report in terms of scientific accuracy and work. sure, the government has much greater resources, but the world is a big place and as long as the structural engineering experts side with the "official" explanation for the collapses I really don't see how you can be so sure of your position when those that investigate these occurences for a living disagree iwht you.

quote:

They're not simply arguments from doubt, anyway. They're more or less arguments from a perspective of not being able to accept the flagrant violations of reality that the coverup artists are trying to pass as the truth. Violations which are so obvious that those who still participate in the coverup are continually seeking to stifle any real public exposure and/or awareness.

sorry, but this just sounds like empty rhetoric to me. most of the arguments are from doubt. such as trying to create doubt that a plane hit the pentagon, yet possesss no valid explanations for what happened to that plane and crew. i dont understand how any committed intellectual could so easily dismiss such a glaring weakness in that particular train of thought. whilst there might certainly be "cover-ups" surrounding 9/11, there is simply no evidence to suggest (for instance) explosives in the twin towers. when demo experts and engineers argue one thing, and your doctors of philosophy or theology etc argue another, why do you side with those outside their sphere of expertise? that just seems like bad science to me.

quote:

It's all good, though Despite the denialists and the official conspiracy theorist's policing of the population via their constant ridicule for being either a "CT", a "tin-hatter" or a "Truth Seeker" (since when did the truth become faux pas, anyway?), people are still waking up! And as more and more people wake up it will be easier for those whose jobs are on the line to come out and publish their peer-reviewed papers without as much worry that they will be either in the unemployment line come Monday or simply just maligned as being "with the terrorists" as George Bush so eloquently proclaimed of anyone who entertains 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (or displays any such dissent.)

hehe, i like your eternal optimism but here's a thought- has it ever occured to you that you lack the scientific peer-reviewed papers because the demolition hypothesis is so scientifically fraudulent? if, say, in 50 years time you still haven't received said peer-reviewed article, are you capable of entertaining the idea that you could be wrong?

i am still open to the fact i could be wrong. but after several years of research (and im talking ALL research, not just those sites with 9-11 truth in their URL) there remains no evidence of controlled demolition.

im sure you'll think im just another government sap, but i have great faith in the expertise of various vocations, and i am not nearly arrogant enough to argue i know buildings better than the thousands of structural engineers worldwide that produce academically reviewed papers that support the "official" story.

i find it a great job in avoidance when said articles are completely ignored, yet (say) an incorrect story released by the BBC on that day is heralded as the second-coming of evidence supporting conspiracy. its just not sound research. i don't mind arguments from "left-field" (i am a recovering socialist after all but the claims made on a daily basis by conspiracy theorists do not contain an equal amount of evidence and logic.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh come on. he is arguing from a purely academic point of view, in line with his experience and knowledge on the subject. His facts and opinion are rather compelling, and certainly more scientifically convincing than the junk science papers written by those like steven jones. i find it rather disingenuous for you to arbitrarily judge someone of colonel's experience whilst at the same time supporting a physicist with no experience in structural engineering who hasn't produced proper scientific work on the subject at hand. see, i dont see how you can justify labelling the "government" as a single-cell entity instead of a multiverse of individuals. there really is no "hive" mind, and i think its rather naive to think that there is. shit man, are you gonna ignore my posts simply because im employed by the government? a job is a job, it doesn't necessarily make the man you know! im certainly not part of any conspiracy to undermine the truth, i am merely a citizen who is still waiting for real evidence to come to light. i dont see any evidence to suggest the thousands of federal and state employees are somehow agents of the bush administration. there are a lot of honest, hard-working people (like me) in a government's infrastructure (tho tbh i dont work that hard hehe). not everyone is a closet FBI wannabe it really boggles the mind how you guys think government's can maintain such secrets, and that government investigators are somehow in on it too. this is the government that couldn't keep illegal wiretaps secret? prisoner abuses in iraq? secret prisons around the world? yet somehow they're keeping their mouths shut re 9/11? how do you reconcile that inconsistency? I know your side love to poke holes in NIST etc, but its a little silly considering that you haven't been able to provide anything even remotely approaching the NIST report in terms of scientific accuracy and work. sure, the government has much greater resources, but the world is a big place and as long as the structural engineering experts side with the "official" explanation for the collapses I really don't see how you can be so sure of your position when those that investigate these occurences for a living disagree iwht you. sorry, but this just sounds like empty rhetoric to me. most of the arguments are from doubt. such as trying to create doubt that a plane hit the pentagon, yet possesss no valid explanations for what happened to that plane and crew. i dont understand how any committed intellectual could so easily dismiss such a glaring weakness in that particular train of thought. whilst there might certainly be "cover-ups" surrounding 9/11, there is simply no evidence to suggest (for instance) explosives in the twin towers. when demo experts and engineers argue one thing, and your doctors of philosophy or theology etc argue another, why do you side with those outside their sphere of expertise? that just seems like bad science to me. hehe, i like your eternal optimism but here's a thought- has it ever occured to you that you lack the scientific peer-reviewed papers because the demolition hypothesis is so scientifically fraudulent? if, say, in 50 years time you still haven't received said peer-reviewed article, are you capable of entertaining the idea that you could be wrong? i am still open to the fact i could be wrong. but after several years of research (and im talking ALL research, not just those sites with 9-11 truth in their URL) there remains no evidence of controlled demolition. im sure you'll think im just another government sap, but i have great faith in the expertise of various vocations, and i am not nearly arrogant enough to argue i know buildings better than the thousands of structural engineers worldwide that produce academically reviewed papers that support the "official" story. i find it a great job in avoidance when said articles are completely ignored, yet (say) an incorrect story released by the BBC on that day is heralded as the second-coming of evidence supporting conspiracy. its just not sound research. i don't mind arguments from "left-field" (i am a recovering socialist after all but the claims made on a daily basis by conspiracy theorists do not contain an equal amount of evidence and logic.

I'm going to have to reply to this later as I'm headed out the door in a couple of minutes. I just wanted to inform or remind you, since you've obviously either forgotten or just chose to mindlessly assume, but I'm actually more conservative in my views than the majority of the Straussian/Trotskyist Neo-cons who serve under my government's current administration. I used to be a Republican but over the course of the years have migrated to Libertarian. I'd at least appreciate it if you got your facts straight when trying to malign me. Thanks

Oh, and yeah, I have a brother who works for a private defense contractor that's funded by the DHS and my grandfather was in the OSS and then shortly thereafter, the newly formed CIA. I'm not the tree hugging liberal that you'd like to think that I am. I do love trees, though - so don't get me wrong. I hug them all the time

Anyway, I'm sorry that this particular post had so little to say about the coverup.

I say we enlarge this discussion in the future and include some info regarding the FBI being pulled off of the terrorists trail via orders from above. Maybe that will help vindicate my position here.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I'm going to have to reply to this later as I'm headed out the door in a couple of minutes. I just wanted to inform or remind you, since you've obviously either forgotten or just chose to mindlessly assume, but I'm actually more conservative in my views than the majority of the Straussian/Trotskyist Neo-cons who serve under my government's current administration. I used to be a Republican but over the course of the years have migrated to Libertarian. I'd at least appreciate it if you got your facts straight when trying to malign me. Thanks Oh, and yeah, I have a brother who works for a private defense contractor that's funded by the DHS and my grandfather was in the OSS and then shortly thereafter, the newly formed CIA. I'm not the tree hugging liberal that you'd like to think that I am. I do love trees, though - so don't get me wrong. I hug them all the time

fair points mate. its just that your usage of tags "THE Government" lends itself to a very different interpretation. im sure you'll agree that this misunderstanding is easily possible.

therefore, we can reach a compromise where you can be a little more narrow in your field of vision, and instead of saying "the government", use a particular agency? makes it a little easier to swallow, because i just dont buy the fact that scientists and engineers that are employed by the government are somehow in on the conspiracy.

quote:

I say we enlarge this discussion in the future and include some info regarding the FBI being pulled off of the terrorists trail via orders from above. Maybe that will help vindicate my position here.

to be honest, i prefer much narrower topics of discussion. there is so much (mis)information out there that i prefer sticking to things that are irrefutable- ie buildings fell down. because without a plausible argument that shows how demolition is possible, the theory fails pretty badly.

im not that interested in the other parts of the conspiracies to be honest. im not here to debate the administration's possible "aiding and abetting", im more concerned with the theories that revolve around pre-set explosives because the analysis from the truth movement is so very poor. the most ludicrous assumptions are made and accepted with little or no logical inquiry. such as cronodevir's statements; he makes assumptions about explosives with no understanding of how explosives (or demolitions for that matter) actually work.

quote:

[b]Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN such as cronodevir's statements; he makes assumptions about explosives with no understanding of how explosives (or demolitions for that matter) actually work.

And you claime that for the first time in human history, an airplane brought a building down.

Without actually haveing and evidence to suggest that, other than a few staged videos by cnn.

Not to mention you were in australia, and i was there, on 9/11.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.