It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 Conspiracies nonsense? I think not

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Vushta
To investigate that would be like reinventing the wheel.

I see what you're getting at and I agree. Next topic?

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:04 PM
Good idea.

How about...oh, I don't know....maybe..How were the building rigged with no one noticing?

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 11:11 AM
Firstly I’d like to apologise for not having been able to respond the last few days – I intended to participate in a discussion here but I’ve been a bit snowed under with moving house - duty calls I’m afraid

Please allow me to make it plain in summary what my original assertions were, since the comment has been made that my posts tend to wax somewhat “verbose” – incidentally, I type as I think, so if this offends the sensibilities of anyone here sufficiently sorely, please feel free to read posts from members of a literary persuasion more to your own tastes and ignore mine altogether, but I like to state my POSITION and my CASE in no uncertain terms when I participate in civilized discussion. This I believe is a somewhat neglected necessity on the part of some members when they participate in discussions such as these.

The assertions I believed I had made in my original post were, in summary, the following:

1 – I quote from my first post, because I simply cannot make it plainer on this point – this time I’ve bolded the words and phrases that I feel are key:

Originally posted by Fulcanelli

It is my view that the abundance of physical and historical evidence about 9/11 that is available and verifiable is more than enough in summation for any reasonable person to suspect that certain cabals of individuals within government were at least guilty of criminal negligence or at most of high treason and crimes against humanity. Certainly it is enough to DEMAND a truly transparent and independant public enquiry without impedance from the state.

2 – In the absence of a full set of data with which to formulate a complete and comprehensive quantitative scientific model of a specific system (mechanical, thermodynamic, or otherwise) no statement about the events pertaining to that system can be made with absolute certainty to prove or disprove any argument ON THE BASIS OF SCIENCE ALONE. This is simply a restatement of the scientific method, and applies to BOTH general parties in our discussion of whether or not 911 conspiracies are “nonsense.”

Note – the official story of the events, until it is proven (which it is FAR from being), is and will remain a “THEORY” that a “CONSPIRACY” between 19 Arab hijackers and a terrorist mastermind (who happens to have family members who have long done business with the Bush family, and whose organization was a creation of the CIA/MI6 in the late 70’s) controlling events from a cave deep in the mountains of Afghanistan. Hence to use the epithet “conspiracy theory/theorist” in a defamatory sense against those who postulate alternative “theories” for the events of 9/11 demonstrates an ignorance of the language we have all agreed upon here. Just a thought.

3 – Therefore, in the absence of the information required to produce a collectively agreed upon, DEFINITIVE scientific model (if such a thing is possible) to prove or disprove any assertion about 9/11, endless quibbling over infinitesimal details is counterproductive.

4 – Therefore, it would be the most logical course of action for both parties in the argument for and against conspiracy within the US government on 9/11 to discuss the other known data concerning the incident AND IT’S CONTEXT in a holistic sense, using the known scientific principles that most flagrantly deny/support validity of the official story to augment their arguments.
To illustrate, a couple of examples (by no means exhaustive) of arguments other than just the scientific I would present in the case of my own opinions would be the following:

  • Prior knowledge (numerous indications that several intelligence sources were aware of the coming attacks in varying levels of detail, including some governments who communicated their concerns to the US)

  • Pre-existing geopolitical agendas and affiliates of these agendas known to be involved (eg. PNAC – which was signed by many in the administration and continues to be dogma for the so-called neo-conservatives, and which, I might add, counts among its signatories people in the US administration who were caught stealing military secrets and givng them to Israel, to this date never having been punished for their treason)

  • Historical precedent for such false flag operations being used by governments to further political agendas (including the US)

  • Behaviour of key individuals in authority pre- and post-9/11 and the carious indications implicating them variously in impeding investigation of suspects, impeding response to the attacks, profiteering from the events, deliberate political leveraging of the events to both curtail civil freedoms domestically and wage wars of aggression abroad - again in line with known pre-existing agendas adhered to by key individuals. (An example here is the juxtaposition of the highly suspicious anthrax attacks shortly following 9/11, as is presidential directive W199-I which hampered investigation of key suspects by security services agents prior to the attacks on pain of imprisonment, as is the immediate destruction of the ground zero evidence that would have removed the need for this debate to a large degree – there are many other examples.)

The list goes on, but I’ll stop there in the interests of concision.

(continued innext post...)

[edit on 8-7-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 8-7-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 8-7-2006 by fulcanelli]

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 11:13 AM
(continued from last post...)

Anyway, with that out of the way and clear to everyone (with any luck ), I can get on with the task of responding to the comments that have been directed my way over the last short while. To address your comments one by one then…

Originally posted by Vushta

I glazed when it was inplied the the shape of the collapse should be a part of the investigation.

Why do you think the items you brought up were NOT addressed?
Can you point out any flaws in the investigative methodology?

I have made bold the relevant parts I will address. Firstly, if it is honestly your opinion that the gross morphology of the collapse (the symmetry, initiation, distribution and speed) are so irrelevant that you “glaze” over when someone implies that these things may somehow be of importance when trying to model the situation scientifically, I suggest you re-learn whatever it is you think you know of physics and scientific phenomenology in general – such a statement shows that your understanding here is sadly lacking, my friend.

In answer to the two questions above, I am indeed implying that the items I brought up have not been addressed completely and exhaustively in the rather padded NIST report, and I will qualify that statement shortly.
Let me first redirect you to take another look at the second of my original assertions on this thread (summarized at the top of this post as point number 2) – the original intent of this sole assertion was to state that in the absence of AT LEAST A COMPLETE SET OF THE DATA LISTED, no conclusive scientific model could be formulated and therefore SCIENCE ALONE CANNOT SUFFICE TO PROVE EITHER ARGUMENT. I won’t state this again – if you haven’t understood this by now I won’t waste any more time making it plain.

So then, on to the fabled FEMA/NIST report. The report, I am afraid, is riddled with inadequacies in my view, and is almost as far from being a complete and thorough scientific model of the situation as the discussion we are having here – although to be fair, the report itself admits that the presented mechanism of thermally induced collapses is of a very low probability of being correct (surely you knew this?). Also, consider the fact that the NIST team fairly admit the following of their report:

“does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

This is quite disabling to anyone'spurpose in invoking the NIST report to augment any argument against CD, since almost all the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition (Harris 2000) and by sheer common sense. If this to you does not constitute a MAJOR FLAW IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY OF NIST, I shudder to think what would!

This, given the point summarized above as assertion 2 of the original post, I believe should explain why I feel that the NIST report (to be KIND to it) CANNOT be considered a full scientific treatment, let alone the fact that its conclusions are presented as speculation on an incomplete dataset (which it itself admits). And yes, the specific scientific data for accurate modelling that I pointed out was NOT DECLARED by NIST – all I read was hundreds of pages of frankly weak and obviously skewed interpretations of data that is referred to in many cases in a misleading and fragmentary manner – I see no scientific model in the NIST report that would stand up to truly rigorous challenges from any sane engineer or scientist. Simply because it comes from NIST should be no reason why anyone should accept it on face value.

Once again – please feel free to scan the NIST report and point out any conclusive scientific argument for a SPONTANEOUS, RADIALLY SYMMETRICAL collapse of building 7 – in my assessment (and believe me I have read through the whole thing – I don’t dismiss ANY scientific model without first examining it in its entirety, unlike NIST who have somehow managed to avoid ANY DISCUSSION of the possibility of controlled demolition) there is no such conclusive argument. Not even the faintest hint of one that wouldn’t topple like a house of cards at a few comments by a rational scientist.

I am of course aware of the ongoing “investigation” into building 7 – however, judging by the (in my own view) rather pathetic excuse for an investigation that NIST/FEMA has conducted so far and its highly untenable conclusions, I won’t hold my breath, as my confidence in the scientific impartiality and repute of NIST as an institution has much recovery to do before I consider it a reliable source of information, I’m afraid. It is far more likely to be simply an extension of the original non-explanation we are discussing which will attempt to gloss over the holes in its original incarnation with more speculation (for THAT is what the original report is – it is categorically NOT a comprehensive scientific model, and makes no claim to be, in its defence). I sincerely HOPE that it is a genuine scientific treatment, believe me, but as I say I won’t hold my breath.

(continued in next post...)

[edit on 8-7-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 8-7-2006 by fulcanelli]

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 11:15 AM
(continued from last post...)

Originally posted by vushta

NIST doesn't explain the pancaking?

The very idea of “pancaking” seems both to myself and several of my colleagues who have worked similarly in the physical sciences, to be completely ridiculous and an obvious fabrication to support an already rather weak theory for the collapses.

If you have read the NIST report and think it DOES explain the “pancaking”, I guess no amount of physics or mechanics will remove your ignorance – let me give you a quick question on this to illustrate: given the near free-fall speed of the collapses, and the number of floors beneath the aircraft impact points (even granted the INCREDIBLE assumption that the steel substructure had reached a thermodynamic equilibrium at a temperature that sufficiently weakened it – almost IMPOSSIBLE given the size of heatsink this structure represented and the timespan and fuel energy of the fires, AND IGNORING the fact that given what is known about its original design tolerances the building could hold against several times the stresses it encountered EVEN THEN), see if you can calculate the approximate time necessary for EACH individual floor to “pancake”. Does that seem reasonable to you?
Now consider that the pancaking of EVERY FLOOR must have occurred WITH RADIAL SYMMERTY. Still seem likely?
I could go on – NONE of these aspects of the pancake “theory” (and it is an incredibly flimsy one imho) are satisfactorily explained by the NIST report nor by any of the commentaries on it I have read.

Originally posted by vushta

How about...oh, I don't know....maybe..How were the building rigged with no one noticing?

Come on, vushta – can you really be unaware of the power-downs that occurred (the first of their kind in the history of the WTC) shortly prior to 9/11? This along with many other suspicious concatentions of events could have given all the access necessary to plant the minimum 5000lb of RDX/thermate or any other incendiary or explosive required for a CD. Please google Scott Forbes and have a good read - there also are many other aspects to the management and security of the WTC that would have made the planting of such devices eminently possible, and this has been discussed in many threads and on many sites. The problem of access into the buildings in my view is not a hurdle at all to the theory of CD.

Moving on…


Many of your comments I have answered above in my replies to Vushta. Again, these are my opinions – I never stated them as gospel truth. However, as I say. I invite you to fault their logic. I unlike others here am willing to concede any point if it has been rationally argued to my satisfaction.

Originally posted by leftbehind

How can you demand more rigorous scientific data, yet be convinced that it was a demolition by the "non-scientific" evidence which you seem to think has "massive signifigance."

Oh dear, yet another person who has either deliberately or unintentionally misunderstood me. Please read the clarification at the top of this post about what my original assertions were, and have the decency to quote me when you represent my ideas in your replies, as the above quote CLEARLY misrepresents me. Read my original assertions and this should become clear to you.
What I referred to as “non scientific data” was clearly a reference to the data I have listed above in my reply to vushta such as indications of prior knowledge, pre-existing geopolitical agendas etc.
If you feel that the historical, political, sociological, economic, psychological and other landscapes (pre- and post-9/11) and the specifics of each of these pertaining to key individuals are NOT important in getting an overall picture of the event (so that we can reliably answer the question “are all 9/11 conspiracies nonsense?”), then you are blinding yourself to MUCH OF THE RELEVANT FACTS and making the frankly ridiculous claim that such a question can be answered definitively by science alone. This was not an event that happened in isolation as a scientific experiment somewhere – this was a defining event with massive geopolitical, economic and sociological implications, and any fully exhaustive investigation MUST take the data relevant to these aspects of the incident fully into account. I would have thought that this was simply common sense – you seem to believe that only the scientific data has merit here. WHY, in God’s name?!?!

(continued in next post...)

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 11:16 AM
(continued from last post...)

Originally posted by leftbehind

How about this idea?

Why don't you hold the demolition theory to the same standard you demand from the "official" story?

Where is the model showing exactly where they placed the charges on every floor. Show us how the where the planted thermite happened to initiate and/or helped the collapse. Since no scientific model exists for demolition that meet your standards, should we assume that you are basing your opinion on the "non-scientific" evidence, which is all that seems to exist to back up the CD argument?

Yet another example, leftbehind, of your misunderstanding me. I refer you to my first post. Perhaps this time you’ll READ it:

Originally posted by fulcanelli

My argument rests on the scientific method. It is an evaluation that a truly comprehensive set of thermodynamic and mechanical data is required before any scientific model that can make any explanation of the events can be said to have been formulated. Such a set of data is not yet to my knowledge inarguably available to any of us. Until such data is available and the analysis conduted upon it is subjected to peer review, as I stated clearly in my post, anyone proposing that science ALONE has PROVEN their point of view regarding 9/11 is mistaken, whether they are for or against the official story. ESPECIALLY anyone that makes such an assertion based upon specific, particular and highly specialised details of the incident rather than looking at ALL available data, scientific and otherwise.

Let me translate it again, for your benefit – NEITHER those who believe the official account to be conclusive NOR those who believe controlled demolition was involved can CONCLUSIVELY PROVE their explanations using SCIENCE ALONE. As I stated in my original assertions (and have expanded upon in this post), this means that the available scientific data ALONE can only provide a basis for INFORMED SPECULATION at this point. The NIST report, in its defence, actually admits that it is not a completely rigorous model and that its conclusion of thermally induced collapse is of low probability and REQUIRES MORE DATA for further investigation. Thus proving in its own words that it CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS A CONCLUSIVE EXPOSITION OF THE COLLAPSES.

If you wish a very good scientific treatise on the collapses which does not limit itself by discounting the obvious possibility of the involvement of explosives or incendiary devices as the NIST report does, I am sure you are aware of the work of Professor Steven E. Jones, whose tentative conclusions I largely agree with:

My position that the available scientific and other evidence (by now you should understand what I mean by this with any luck) presents more of an indication of CD than of thermally induced collapse is arrived at on the basis of the arguments listed above and many others exponded upon at length by many others elsewhere. Centrally, if you wish one or two specifics on the scientific aspect of my argument ALONE, it makes use of the fact that the collapses were SPONTANEOUS, RADIALLY SYMMETRICAL and occurred at NEAR FREE-FALL. As a lifetime academician in the physical sciences on the basis of my own training and knowledge, I can honestly say that I have yet to read a convincing scientific explanation for these collapses PURELY on the basis of asymmetrical aircraft impacts/fuel fires. This includes the NIST report, and I invite you to summarise why YOU think it adequately explains the collapses, it would be interesting reading, I’m sure, not least of which for the scientists at NIST themselves, for they make no such claim of a comprehensive explanation.

Your oblique implication that I am in my interpretation of the available evidence biased rests, as you can see, on very uncertain foundations given the above, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR WHEN YOU READ MY FIRST POST.
In fact, having made that assertion, you have reciprocally placed yourself in the category of people who (having accepted the official NIST report as conclusive) believe that it is possible to discount the theory of controlled demolition WITHOUT ONCE MAKING REFERENCE TO EVEN ITS POSSIBILITY, LET ALONE THE DATA AND OBSERVATIONS THAT WOULD SEEM TO SUPPORT IT, since this is precisely what the NIST report does. That, I would submit again, requires some serious doublethink on your part, wouldn’t you agree? You probably won’t, but of course that is your right as much as it is mine.

(continued in next post...)

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 11:17 AM
(continued from last post...)


My, I was wondering when that ol’ chestnut would surface. I hate to be the one to tell you this, keyhole, but the PM article is a complete “hit-piece”. I usually qualify my statements with “seems to be” or “appears to me to be”, but in this case I have no qualms in stating that this article has NO WEIGHT AT ALL as a defence of the NIST report or a “debunk” of the CD theory. My thoughts on this I have stated elsewhere (see this post id: 2309878) but to summarise, please see the counter-argument to the rubbish presented in PM here, which I believe to be conclusive:

If you truly believe that such a sensationalist article with all its obvious flaws, placed as it was between features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing, is a truly reliable and impartial “debunk” of ANYTHING, it is to the detriment of YOUR argument, not mine.

Here’s a question for those of you who feel that “all 9/11 conspiracies are nonsense” – does that mean that the “conspiracy theory” between the 19 hijackers (several of whom, btw, have been confirmed as being alive and well) and Osama is also nonsense?

I guess the debate over the original question involves whether you believe the lie sold by governments to every generation or not – “Such things were done in history, but not now”. If after looking at not only the scientific analysis of 9/11, but also the actions of key individuals and specific orgnisations pre and post-9/11, and the historical precedent, you still feel that the official story holds water ON ITS OWN, then no amount of reason will change your mind, in my opinion. I have carefully considered all the data I have read on 9/11 over a span of 5 years now, including in my analysis the science and the politics, history, individuals etc., and I have simply come to the conclusion that a conspiracy OTHER than the officially theorized one is likely to have been at work. Is that really so nonsensical? If it is, why debate it at all?

(Note - all edits on above multi-part post for grammar and BBCode - I apologise if I've missed any errors, but as I say, Igenerally type as I think!)

[edit on 8-7-2006 by fulcanelli]

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 01:29 PM
What a pile.

You really shouldn't have wasted your really you shouldn't have. Unpacking your boxes would have been much more productive.

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:08 PM

originally posted by vushta

What a pile.

You really shouldn't have wasted your really you shouldn't have. Unpacking your boxes would have been much more productive.

My sincere thanks for here demonstrating your inability to speak to the facts and present rational argument against my own. We only have to civilly disagree, my friend, there's no need at all for such personal playground tactics, and they certainly do nothing at all constructive for your credibility.

My further thanks for being so unable to restrain your sense of ego at an honest challenge to your paradigm that you have resorted to such a childish measure in response. Please continue to respond - I hear the shovel hitting the soil with every reply.

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by fulcanelli

Come on, vushta – can you really be unaware of the power-downs that occurred (the first of their kind in the history of the WTC) shortly prior to 9/11? This along with many other suspicious concatentions of events could have given all the access necessary to plant the minimum 5000lb of RDX/thermate or any other incendiary or explosive required for a CD. Please google Scott Forbes and have a good read -

And can you really be unaware that Forbes story does not meet even the most basic standards for evidence? We are supposed to believe that this massive powerdown occured in buildings that size and only one guy remembers it?

If, as you say, it was the first power down in history of the WTC, don't you think more than one guy could back up the story.

It boggles the mind. His story could be true, but not one single person has corroborated it. And even if it was true, how do you explain the second tower? There are no reported power-downs for the second tower.

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:47 PM
Sorry but thats all of a reply worthy of the verbage you unloaded.

You spent the entire allotted keystrokes of 5 posts to state the exact same thing thats been repeated over and over by people who can more efficiently communicate.

Here is what your points were.

1. It looked funny to me..if someone doesn't start a new investigation I declare a fraud.

2. PNCA..Operation Northwoods..Powerdown..squid..etc.

3. Biased investigators/bad methods.

4....4....well there was no 4

Same EXACT crap only badly communicated.

As I'm reading your "analysis" I couldn't help but visualize a French dandy in full regalia..powdered wig..tight little shoes..fruity fluffy shirt...going on and on only pausing to pull a hankey out of his ruffled cuff and wave it dramaticly for effect before delicatly wiping each corner of his mouth and resuming the diatribe.

(Moderators please note that the above was simply a creative expression and in no way was meant to insult the poster.)

Why the response I made in the previous post?

Simple. I believe that responses like Fucans are meant only to discourage any valid discussion and the method used is to overwhelm the this case 5 posts with so much verbage that any response is discouraged and a poster who would reply is faced with the task of cutting/pasting/quoting excessive "tidbits" of things gone over and over and responded to many times before in replies to other much more efficiently articulate posters. The end result of the method of communicating ideas or points in this manner is an enormous amount of time spent only to have the responses most likely handwaved away and another huge heap doled out with a response expected and when people just get tired of the bull and stop responding the "Worthy One" wait..I mean "Wordy One"..smugly declares victory.....not goin' there.

I've seen the technique before...tons of words and no new information or insight or points that haven't already been made numerous times.

So My reply was .."what a pile"

But maybe I missed something...did you bring up anything besides the ""looked funny/demand investigation..political history/PNAC/Op Nor. etc..power downs..etc?

My further thanks for being so unable to restrain your sense of ego

Uh huh.

[edit on 8-7-2006 by Vushta]

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 05:10 AM

Having just sat down at my breakfast and read your replies this morning I must thank you again for infusing what for me promised to be yet another drab, grey day in London with great mirth and amusement at your continued exercise in self-humiliation.

Clearly you don't realise what a complete PLUM you're making of yourself, vushta. Was there a rational counter-argument buried somewhere among the feeble personal attacks and blatant misrepresentations of my words you so laughably consider your last rebuttal? No, I see there isn't.

Pity, for a second there I thought you'd actually present something of substance - but then I always start my mornings with a shade too much optimism.

Having so been unable to discuss any REASON you may have to fault my argument, AGAIN you have resorted to attacking me in the only way such a cornered intellect knows how - personally. Let me reiterate for you again, vushta, and this time I'll make sure you understand by spelling it out in big, clear, non-cursive crayon letters for you; IF MY STYLE OF WRITING BOTHERS YOU SO MUCH, THE IGNORE BUTTON IS ON THE LEFT. If on the other hand you have a POINT you wish to discuss with me in a civilised manner, then please present it.

I've found it a constant source of amusement in the short time I've been on this forum that it's only when someone cannot present a reasoned, civil argument against me and starts to foam at the mouth that they resort to comments about my writing style. Many others have complimented me on it - see for yourself. Still more others engage in civilised discussion and never feel the need to make mention of it. Ultimately, though, what does my writing style have to do with the price of tea in China? I smell equal parts BS and panic in this tactic of yours, vushta - say it ain't so.

The subject here is not my writing style my friend, as you well know, and to imply that somehow it is ME that is attempting to derail this thread is below contempt - it is pitiful. Especially considering that I WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THIS THREAD !

Clearly you are sitting there hoping against hope that others will be as cavalier and as selective in their reading of this thread as you have been, and will simply believe the rabid drivel you have presented as being an accurate representation of what I have stated. I assure you that we are not all so stunted in our argumentative abilities or so inadequate in our ability to read.

All one has to do to get your true measure (as if your last reply wasn't a conclusive illustration in and of itself) is read your contributions elsewhere, vushta - I'm pretty sure almost everyone here has your number by now, and those who don't are being educated with every post you make on this thread and others. Conversely, all one has to do is to take a look at my own contributions on this forum to compare, and I invite anyone to do so.

I don't blame you for getting personal, vushta, it must hurt humiliating yourself on so many threads at once and being revealed in so many ways for the blind, unquestioning dogmatist you make of yourself.
I hope for your sake that all this effort and humiliation is being rewarded with a nice fat paycheck (although given your track record of "debunking", the paycheck may not be quite so hefty) - if not I despair of the sad, limited life you must lead.

Now then, I unlike some have more pressing things to attend to than slandering others anonymously on a screen, so I'll look forward to your entertaining me further when I get back later on.
Again, thanks for the mirth and please keep up the good work!

[edit on 9-7-2006 by fulcanelli]

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:18 AM
Glad you enjoyed my thoughts!

What were your favorite parts?

Like I mentioned, the communication style you seem to use is simply commentary and devoid of any new information..the kind of expression exhibited by one who likes to hear themselves talk.

And thats all I'll say about that because its obvious you'd like to waste peoples time engaging them in a personal 'touche'..'tit-for-tat'..hankey waving match and like I stated----not goin'there.

But more on point, certainly you will admit to the accuracy of my statements?

5 pages and not one new perspective..not one new revelation and certainly no facts included.

I ended my last post to you with a question to see if I missed some information buried in the neglected to address it so let me refresh your memory.

In 5 pages of words, did you make ANY point or observation that haven't been stated
numerous times before in far fewer words?
The lenght of posts doesn't bother me at at, in fact when actual insight or information is included that actually addresses something, I find them very interesting. But your 5 pages simply contained the same disinformation and "robot-thought" that all true CTs must possess in order to believe such crap as 'controlled demo" etc.

Anyway, if my guess about your style is correct you will want to respond to this with some 'tight shoed' 'ruffled cuff'..hankey wave and I won't respond to that.

I am done with any personal bickering. I just had to comment 1 time on your verbose style.

I don't use the "ignore" function on any board...I just don't get the point of it. It seems childish.

So what say we get back on topic 'ol chap?

Do you have any evidence to back up your claims........I think you made some claims buried in all that somewhere.

[edit on 9-7-2006 by Vushta]

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Vushta
In 5 pages of words, did you make ANY point or observation that haven't been stated numerous times before in far fewer words?

Where did you count 5 pages? We're still on page 2 last time I checked; I know you really meant 5 posts though

Anyways, as Fulcanelli is the thread starter, I think he is entitled to post as often as he likes in whatever style he is comfortable with

At least he doesn't go around hijacking 9/11 threads with veiled personal insults, deliberate misunderstanding, pedantry, unnecessary argumentative attitude and little or no debate, which seems to be your favourite hobby

Originally posted by Vushta
Like I mentioned, the communication style you seem to use is simply commentary and devoid of any new information...

Well done, you finally realised the point of this thread... it is a commentry

Go back to Page 1 and start again. I'll give you a hand:

Originally posted by fulcanelli

Therefore it is my opinion that endless debate of phenomenological details that seems to erupt whenever adherents of the official story butt heads with its opponents here is not only counterproductive but also ignores the arguments that can be made fruitfully concerning the physics of 9/11, including the integration of other non-scientific data about the incidents into a conclusive argument for a truly independant enquiry to be conducted with full public transparency.

I'm sure it's not just me that tires of all this incessant quibbling over details. When looking at all the data (scientific and non-scientiic) holistically, you'd have to be excercising some serious doublethink at this stage of the game to have any further doubt that it wasn't simply fires plus-or-minus aircraft impacts that caused these collapses. Either that or just plain ignorant/deluded of the broader questions of physics that hang over the events.

I hope Dr. Fetzer's appearance the guest speakers forum will go some way to making a more holistic argument incorporating both the scientific and historical data of 9/11, and maybe highlight the most important areas we should be looking at with the scientific data in order to avoid needless circular discussions on tiny details.

Hopefully you are able to read that edit in one sitting?

Then you'll see that Fulcanelli is not making any fresh claims - he is summarising, commenting and offering his opinion in a literary style that you seem to take objection to

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 10:05 AM

Anyways, as Fulcanelli is the thread starter, I think he is entitled to post as often as he likes in whatever style he is comfortable with

I agree. I just pointed out that its good to actually include something new...its so much more interesting for the reader that way.

At least he doesn't go around hijacking 9/11 threads with veiled personal insults, deliberate misunderstanding, pedantry, unnecessary argumentative attitude and little or no debate, need to re-read his posts.

Well done, you finally realised the point of this thread... it is a commentry

Well then I misunderstood.
I didn't realize the thread was simply a soapbox for one poster and others were only meant to consume it.

Then you'll see that Fulcanelli is not making any fresh claims - he is summarising, commenting and offering his opinion in a literary style that you seem to take objection to

Again..sorry I did not realize this was the point.
...sort of like a sermon proving the existence of the devil?

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 04:49 PM
Applause to fulcanelli for exhibiting patience I only wish I had.

For people who already have their minds made up, why waste time with others that already have theirs already made up?

Why continue to post in theads you are completely against? Do you feel it is your duty to let us all know that you disagree again?

I stay out of topics that contain these individuals as they only turn into a pissing contests.

Oh, and a Way Above to fulcanelli from yours truly.

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:05 AM

It seems once again you are trying to portray me in a false light vushta. And your attempted smear of me as a devil/doom-proselytising sermoniser is just priceless.

It would tickle me pink, vushta, if you could explain exactly have I done that you would categorise as "sermonising"? Oh, and I think its safe to say that if your reply revolves around my writing style, it will be discarded as your final fig leaf to be torn away by the laughter of all here, leaving the true ugliness and impotence of what you have pathetically referred to as your "argument" naked for all to see.

(Did you like that? Hey if you cast aspersions at me with religious symbology then I can respond in kind

And please, for the benefit of all here demonstrate how anything ANYONE says here that purports to be an exposition of his/her opinions with logical argument and specific points of fact (in one post or in a hundred) on an issue of a possible political conspiracy can be anything other than COMMENTARY by its very definition?
Go look up the word commentary in your lexicon and be prepared to once again ineffectually defend your ignorance with more of your mediocre semantic fencing, or to ignore this latest demonstration of the sheer speciousness of your arguments. Either suits me

In my original post I merely presented my personal case as to why statements such as "all 9/11 conspiracies are nonsense" are fallacious, and why a more holistic approach to argument would be beneficial rather than the fragmentation of discussion on 9/11, especially scientific ones, into debate on tiny details.
I invite you to point me to where I have done otherwise (except of course for where my involvement on this thread has been maliciously redirected into responding to personal attacks from yourself).

In presenting my case I made sure to state my position and my arguments clearly and define them precisely - have you done this in ANY of your posts, on this thread or otherwise? Not that I've seen, vushta, and judging by the comments made about you in numerous places by many others here, not that anyone else has seen

No, your modus operandi is far more vague and directionless, and is all the more insidious and dishonest for all that - as many here are starting to see. You merely personally attack those with opinions contradicting yours, claim to "debunk" their arguments by presenting circular and obviously empty and fallacious ones, and refusing point blank to even ACKNOWLEDGE when a person has presented facts to back up their argument, claiming in turn that the weight of facts (that you rarely present in a structured manner) are on your side.

The fact that in my first reply on this thread the post stretched rather long is due to the fact that I had been away from the thread for a few days since my original post and wanted to respond to each person who had directed comment toward me within that time, as is my responsibility as the person who started this thread. But of course, I mentioned this IN THAT POST didn't I?

I made my intention, my position and my case perfectly clear in my first post and have had to reclarify them again and again for you - the fact that you still insist on misrepresenting it at this late stage is not worthy of any dignification by way of my replying to it, your wilful ignorance and pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face and your underhand tactics at subverting honest discussion are plain. You serve only to make them painfully more apparent to all here with each successive effort.

Go ahead and have the last word, vushta - I know you you won't rest here until you feel you have had it, (it's the pattern you transparently exhibit on every thread you involve yourself with where you abut those with contrary opinions).
Suffice it to say that you have succinctly and comprehensively defined yourself as the sort of person to whom rational contrary argument cannot be fruitfully addressed, and I begin to bore of giving unneeded help to such a master at the art of self-humiliation.

I reserve, however (as I've said before) that in the unlikely event that your reasoning faculties cobble together a civil and rational statement that you can address to me by way of continuing the discussion you have tried so feebly to derail (one that I have not addressed in detail already), I will restrain my sense of mirth enough to make a reply to you in kind.

Until then, consider your comments about or toward me most gratefully received for they will no doubt bring many a chuckle to my lips and continue to entertain me greatly, but please don't hold your breath for an answer.

Alienanderson and Fm258

Sincerest thanks to both of you for keeping it sane here and for your supportive comments, and for the vote, fm258 - its much appreciated.

You're right, its pointless to argue with such types. However when you go to the trouble of expressing your arguments on an important issue, and making sure to construct them in as comprehensive and logical a way as you can, and someone tries to undo the discussion you're hoping for using underhand tactics such as these, it is my personal pleasure to give them as much rope as they need to efficiently strangle themselves as they twist and turn.

We need open and unimpeded debate - and that includes from people with ALL VIEWS. The only thing that can be asked of members is that they engage in CIVIL, RATIONAL and ORDERED debate. Not too much to ask, you'd think. But no, some seem able to argue incredibly specious and transparently absurd points WITH A SUSPICIOUS LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE. I leave it up to you whether this indicates an underlying agenda or simply blind dogmatism. NEITHER has any place here, imho. And I certainly won't stand for it on a thread that I took the time to start.

My apologies if the original discussion has been diverted, I hope it's all sorted now. And thanks again for the support

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Vushta
how were the building rigged with no one noticing?


They had control of the managament company that had control over security, access and maintenance.

That comes to mind.

Are you aware of SECURACOM?

I like how you throw this lame duck argument into almost every thread. It is cute and mildly amusing. IT very much shows the weakness of your arguments... if you can call them that.

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:20 AM
..can't even quote your post to reply as you sucked up all 6500 allotted characters.

Can't you be a bit more concise?

Anyway..its not your writing STYLE thats annoying..its WHAT you write. So very many words that say so very little. Its like trying to find nutrients in junk food.

Theres nothing to address in the rest of your post. Just patting yourself on the back.
What say we get back to the topic 'ol chap?

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Vushta
..can't even quote your post to reply as you sucked up all 6500 allotted characters.

Can't you be a bit more concise?

Anyway..its not your writing STYLE thats annoying..its WHAT you write. So very many words that say so very little. Its like trying to find nutrients in junk food.

Theres nothing to address in the rest of your post. Just patting yourself on the back.
What say we get back to the topic 'ol chap?

Another post by Vushta that says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Suprise, Suprise.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in