|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 126)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Magnetonium |
| 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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| ^^ LOL, I can't believe you said that.:D |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
^^ LOL, I can't believe you said that.:D |
huh? which bit?
theyre really not similar!! no, really! :p |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
huh? which bit?
theyre really not similar!! no, really! :p |
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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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 :) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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
|
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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 ty 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? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| oops, double post... |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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 ty 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.) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
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.
"It's a myth," Fetzer said of the generally accepted view that Islamic terrorists were behind the attacks. "The American government has been practicing terrorism on its own people."
Barrett told the crowd that the Bush administration orchestrated the attacks to justify invading Iraq. He said the purpose to the war was to take control of oil and other resources in the Middle East.
"The 9-11 images were designed to make us stupid, little children," he said.
Nass has called on UW-Madison's chancellor, John Wiley, to fire Barrett, arguing that it is unacceptable for Barrett to use the university to add credibility to "outlandish claims."
Green, who is running for governor, has said that no public funding should be used to support Barrett's teaching.
Mark Graul, a spokesman for Green, said "that he's being paid to teach this garbage is putting a black eye on the whole state. There is no merit to his theory. All you had to have was a TV to know what happened on 9-11."
But many of those who attended Sunday's gathering disagreed.
John Boly, a literature professor at Marquette University, said Barrett should be able to share his theories in the classroom.
Maryann Stubbs, a computer programmer at UW-Madison, agreed. "I think that all viewpoints should be covered," she said.
Rick Goyett, a 21-year-old auto mechanic from Whitefish Bay, was convinced by the presentations.
"All you need is common sense to believe that 9-11 was an inside job," he said.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=459505 |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
