|
9/11 Pentagon bombing (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by dcougar99
listen to this and it may clear things up.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm
Alex Jones Responds To Ben Chertoff, Popular Mechanics 9/11 Debunking Campaign
Alex Jones responds to the Popular Mechanics 9/11 debunking exercise. Popular Mechanics featured a so-called 'serious analysis' of alternative explanations behind 9/11 in their March issue.
In actual fact, the entire article was a straw man exercise. Popular Mechanics attributed false arguments to researchers and then attacked them. On top of that they lied outright by claiming that there was only one intercept of errant aircraft before 9/11.
Alex also addresses the issue of Ben Chertoff, the chief editor of the piece, being cousins with Michael Chertoff, the new Secretery of Homeland Security, an agency which owes its very existence to the establishment version of the 9/11 attack.
:) |
Ok I read the transcript and actually it doesn’t clear ANYTHING up. Particularly since he doesn’t make any specific claims whatsoever to the seismic data, nor addresses the fact that Prisonplanet categorically lied when it claimed that the head seismologist of the study supported its baseless claims. The fact that he resorts to ad hominems to attack the editor doesn’t help much. |
|
|
| dcougar99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Ok I read the transcript and actually it doesn’t clear ANYTHING up. Particularly since he doesn’t make any specific claims whatsoever to the seismic data, nor addresses the fact that Prisonplanet categorically lied when it claimed that the head seismologist of the study supported its baseless claims. The fact that he resorts to ad hominems to attack the editor doesn’t help much. |
Did you listen to the actual recording thats 15-20mins long on the link? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by dcougar99
Did you listen to the actual recording thats 15-20mins long on the link? |
I'm at work so I read the transcript. Most of it is rhetoric that doesn't address anything. If the transcript is wrong, what does he specifically say about selectively using the 30 minute long seismology readings as opposed to the more detailed one and what does he specifically say about the seismologist's rebuttal? |
|
|
| dcougar99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I'm at work so I read the transcript. Most of it is rhetoric that doesn't address anything. If the transcript is wrong, what does he specifically say about selectively using the 30 minute long seismology readings as opposed to the more detailed one and what does he specifically say about the seismologist's rebuttal? |
ok this could go on forever... I have been researching this for some time now and this page has some good info. You cant trust any one page but if you spend a lota time looking at all the pieces... well they make a picture that is much more clear then the mainstream media paints... I dont want to believe me thats for sure. Go find out the info for yourself... but make sure you go at it from both sides as I did... as you may have also
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
8. Seismic Spikes
The idea that seismic spikes preceded the collapses of the towers is the subject of the page, ERROR: Seismic Spikes Preceded Collapses. Unfortunately a number of web sites seized upon this idea without critically evaluating it. The article takes advantage of this red-herring by pointing out that PrisonPlanet.com and WhatReallyHappened.com support it, while ignoring the much larger bodies of valid evidence of demolition that these sites present. |
|
|
| weymouth |
People who think things like this are a conspiracy are retarded to me. Imagine what the families of the victims would say to you if you walked up to them and said that there never was a plane. They would laugh in your face, punch you, or just turn around and leave.
Edit: Who quotes internet web sites anyways? Internet sources are like saying you got information from the tooth fairy on economic inflation. |
|
|
| dcougar99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by weymouth
People who think things like this are a conspiracy are retarded to me. Imagine what the families of the victims would say to you if you walked up to them and said that there never was a plane. They would laugh in your face, punch you, or just turn around and leave.
Edit: Who quotes internet web sites anyways? Internet sources are like saying you got information from the tooth fairy on economic inflation. |
Zogby poll... nuf said.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
Released: August 30, 2004
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals...
And i take it you found your info on CNN... FOX... CBS... etc. I trust everything they say thats for sure:haha: |
|
|
| weymouth |
Thank you for posting a pollster site, that accomplishes nothing and makes you look more like an idiot for believing a poll. Furthermore if you actually read the scope questions you would realize that the inference made on the headline and the one you quoted wasnt even asked by the pollster but was created for the article unless it was number 4 which says "the question of complicity" which is vague enough to mean anything.
Also if you read at the bottom 808 adults were chosen randomly for the poll. 808 people are not representative of the opinion of the United States. Beyond that the questions were asked in New York, a predominately liberal state, to quite a bit of minorities that usually vote Democrat anyways. If all that wasnt enough the poll was taken the day before the RNC.
Never take polls as fact. Pollster's jobs are to create polls for a client to create the outcome that they want.
I wasnt replying to the question of "did we have adequate knowledge to prevent the attack?" but of the conspiracy that no plane hit the pentagon. |
|
|
| idoru |
I love how people who believe that the government is bad will come up with each and every little thing to blame something on them everytime something bad happens.
| quote: | Originally posted by dcougar99
Zogby poll... nuf said.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
Released: August 30, 2004
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals...
And i take it you found your info on CNN... FOX... CBS... etc. I trust everything they say thats for sure:haha: |
Maybe I was dreaming, but I remember each and every news station talking about that at one point. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| dcougar99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by weymouth
Thank you for posting a pollster site, that accomplishes nothing and makes you look more like an idiot for believing a poll. Furthermore if you actually read the scope questions you would realize that the inference made on the headline and the one you quoted wasnt even asked by the pollster but was created for the article unless it was number 4 which says "the question of complicity" which is vague enough to mean anything.
Also if you read at the bottom 808 adults were chosen randomly for the poll. 808 people are not representative of the opinion of the United States. Beyond that the questions were asked in New York, a predominately liberal state, to quite a bit of minorities that usually vote Democrat anyways. If all that wasnt enough the poll was taken the day before the RNC.
Never take polls as fact. Pollster's jobs are to create polls for a client to create the outcome that they want.
I wasnt replying to the question of "did we have adequate knowledge to prevent the attack?" but of the conspiracy that no plane hit the pentagon. |
I dont take everything i read as truth... I put it in perspective to all the info (some crap some good) that I have read, both sides. i cant post all the info in this forum... so thats all ill say, I respect all opinions and am sorry to say it looks like we have diff ones. :toocool: no sweat
hey let me know where you get your info... and ill add it to my list of regular sources. thanks |
|
|
| dcougar99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
I love how people who believe that the government is bad will come up with each and every little thing to blame something on them everytime something bad happens. |
I dont think the government is bad... the elite are to blame (power hungry elitist). who stands to gain from the decisions that are being made. I tooke another look from a different angle thats all.
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
Maybe I was dreaming, but I remember each and every news station talking about that at one point. :rolleyes: |
true... this was covered but nothing ever came from it. well ok... the whitewash 911 commision report. yea good stuff |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by dcougar99
ok this could go on forever... I have been researching this for some time now and this page has some good info. You cant trust any one page but if you spend a lota time looking at all the pieces... well they make a picture that is much more clear then the mainstream media paints... I dont want to believe me thats for sure. Go find out the info for yourself... but make sure you go at it from both sides as I did... as you may have also
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
8. Seismic Spikes
The idea that seismic spikes preceded the collapses of the towers is the subject of the page, ERROR: Seismic Spikes Preceded Collapses. Unfortunately a number of web sites seized upon this idea without critically evaluating it. The article takes advantage of this red-herring by pointing out that PrisonPlanet.com and WhatReallyHappened.com support it, while ignoring the much larger bodies of valid evidence of demolition that these sites present. |
Ummm right, so your own source says that the seismic spike claim is crap that is not supported by any science whatsoever:
| quote: |
To the contrary, there was nothing strange about the seismic spikes recorded by the Palisades station. As the video and photographic evidence shows, the towers exploded into expanding clouds of rubble that were about 400 feet from top to bottom by the time they reached the ground. Those rubble clouds contained virtually all of the mass of towers -- thousands of tons of rubble falling from as high as 1000 feet. That could certainly be expected to produce pronounced seismic waves.
In fact the seismic evidence from the Palisades station comports well with the sequence of destruction evident in photographs and videos: each tower was consumed by a wave of destruction that started near the crash zone and moved downward as it generated an expanding cloud of rubble. It took about ten seconds for the bottom of this cloud to reach the ground and another eight seconds for its top to reach the ground. Likewise the seismic records show small disturbances lasting for about ten seconds, followed by large spikes lasting for about eight seconds.
There appears to be no basis for the claim that the large spikes preceded the collapses, nor that the energy indicated by those spikes was more than could be accounted for by the approximately 110 megawatt-hours of gravitational energy stored in the elevated mass of each tower.
|
What's your point? |
|
|
| dcougar99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Ummm right, so your own source says that the seismic spike claim is crap that is not supported by any science whatsoever:
What's your point? |
Correct... this is why i say i dont take anyone ONE sites info as 100% true... no one person is going to be 100% correct. aggregate the info to get the big picture. |
|
|
|
|
