It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

My sudden change of heart

page: 12
45
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 

So let me get this straight, when I'm quoting 'mainstream media' and the PANYNJ, they're lying sucmabgs. But when you do it, they're fine and swell?


Originally posted by Chinesis
reply to post by roboe
 

And just HOW long did it take for any part of the Windsor building to collapse?
Did its collapse take longer than 9/11? Why and how?
Where is the entire collapse pulverising the concrete of the Windsor tower?

Hell, show me ANY high rise to have collapsed in the SAME manner as
any of the 3 on 9/11

I'm sure you can't but avoiding my post is:
Tacit agreement you're FOS

As mentioned by another poster, show me any building subjected to the identical situation of the WTC buildings and then we can start making comparisons.




posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 


Okay, I'm beginning to see this is pointless. However, the baking a cake was meant to to demonstrate compartmentalization, not compare it to 9/11.



1 person to get the sugar
1 person to get the eggs
1 person to bake it
1 person to put frosting on it
and 1 person to "oversee" the procedure.


It's not some person to get the sugar or the eggs, rather it is one person to get some sugar, where each person doesn't have nearly enough to realize such an amount could ever be used for baking. All they know, is that they got a few grains of sugar.


of the 5 people have no idea what the final outcome is, but they know its baking related and they know its "top secret and very important." They are simply instructed to do something.


They don't know it's baking related, all they know is that they got some sugar. Furthermore, they don't know how important it is and in fact, almost everything they do seems to be equally as important. The government is so rife with red tape and by the book procedure. Furthermore, if you have a security clearance and you are working on classified projects, most of your work would be mundane, to where you have no idea why it is classified.

People who work on classified projects don't think to themselves that they are doing something nefarious or something involving a conspiracy.


After the cake is baked, it is shown to the entire world over television.
Its a "super secret cake" that nobody knew about but now its out in public. Hey, just like the cake that those 4 people made.


First of all, the four people didn't bake the cake. One person got a spoonful of sugar and he deals with sugar on a daily basis. That sugar could have been for a cup of coffee or even to make beer. It could have been a simple training job to see how fast or how quality his sugar his. There could be a million reasons why he sent sugar off. This guy has no idea about the other people or even that there are other people, as with the rest of them. There are a million different uses for sugar and for him to make that connection would be absurd. Furthermore, this guy who got the spoonful of sugar isn't allowed to tell anyone that he works with sugar or that he even gave a spoonful of sugar to anyone. He has no idea why his sugar getting task is classified, but it is and he isn't privileged with knowing why. All he knows that the government classifies the silliest things (though it only seems that way due to compartmentalization. Other of his mundane tasks are classified too, not just the spoonful of sugar. It would be preposterous to think that his spoonful of sugar had anything to do with that cake being baked, anymore than the guy who made a shirt for one of the passengers on flight 11 knew that his shirt flew into the North Tower.

It isn;t like in the movies, where you get a security clearance and all of the sudden you are working with the nations deepest, darkest secrets and you are entrusted with some hot projects. That's Hollywood, not reality.


Except now, this cake ends the lives of 3000 people. You think our cake makers would just sit there idly going "well uh it seemed like i was making a cake but whatever, i doubt it..."


See above. There are a million different uses for that sugar and the guy who gets it, gets sugar every day for those various uses. Like the other seemingly mundane tasks of his that are classified, so was getting that sugar.


It sounds really silly, but it is if you compare it to a freaking cake!


It's only silly because you are watching too many movies, don't understand reality or can't comprehend the logic. Are you honestly suggesting that you don't understand compartmentalization, even when it was explained to you? I do realize that your whole OP was based on flawed logic but this was clearly explained to you.


Imagine a company is hired to put explosives inside a high-rise skyscraper. Then a week later that skyscraper gets hit by an airplane and the explosives are detonated.

Are you serious, you think that is how it would happen? You have got to be kidding me. Yeah, I'm sure the government hired the local construction company to rig the buildings with demo. LOL! First of all, Marvin Bush, Bush's brother, was head of a security company called Securacom, that was contracted to do security in the years leading up to the attacks. This company had to install its security system, which required core access to the building. This demo could have either been clandestinely installed by foreign agents or even intelligence agents, or it could have been covertly installed by real genuine workers who would all have security clearances and just the nature of the job would require it to be compartmentalized. It could have been "sensors" for fire or damage, that wasn't sensors at all. However, it could have just been clandestine too, where a team of agents installed it, under the guise of installing the new system.

This also could have been done at any point or over any amount of time. There was constantly work being done on the buildings so it wasn't uncommon to see construction crews, as is the case with most big buildings. Again, it could have either been done covertly (where the installers didn't know) or clandestinely (where the workers were agents and knew but are implicated). We know that the Bushs' have extensive ties with the CIA and it does seem like a huge coincidence that a security company boarded by Bush's brother installed a new security system just before attacks, relatively speaking.


Your telling me that the company who put the explosives in, even if they had no idea why they where hired for the job, would just sit there and allow the government to get away with it?


As mentioned above, they either didn't know they were explosives, or they were operatives putting the explosives in, under the guise of normal work. We do know that agents have often broke the law for nefarious purposes, and those are only the cases that have been blown open. Think Iran/Contra, Narcotics testing on the population, Gulf of Tonkin, various lies to the American people. Shoot, it wasn't too long ago that a CIA aircraft crashed with tones of coc aine on board.

So again, it could have either been installed with the workers not knowing they were installing demos (instead thinking the were installing sensors of security equipment) or it could have been agents, under the guise of normal work (such as, but not limited to installing the security system).

The government wouldn't just hire a company to install explosives and it is foolish of you to think that this is how they would do it, though foolishness, false facts and flawed logic seem to be the theme here. It's hardly surprising anymore.


Not ONE person has come out saying they put explosives anywhere around the WTC towers.

First of all, if anyone did come out and say that, they would quickly be arrested and probably lose their freedom. Putting explosives in a building is illegal, you know and if you do it intentionally, then you know what they are going to be used for.
If it was done covertly, such as the contractors not knowing exactly what they were installing and instead thought they were installing sensors for security equipment, then they couldn't exactly come out either, as I'm sure that they signed non-disclosure documents (as such work would require), making it a crime to do so. That's even if they connected it. For all they could have known, they just installed wires for the security system (or whatever small component they installed).

I happen to think that the actual explosives or demo themselves, if there were any (though I don't really doubt it at all for BLDG7), were probably installed by agents (either foreign or not, though the lines are now blurred anyway), under the guise of installing the new security system that Securacom, a company boarded by Marvin Bush, put in. The logistics could have easily been kept secret through compartmentalization, seeing how the security of the building is a national security issues, thus would require security measures.



Nobody was on lunch break during the incident and managed to escape. The government is so diabolical and perfect that it was the perfect crime.


The government has been able to keep many things a secret, some even much bigger and intricate than 9/11. Think how they kept the Manhattan project secret, the stealth project, the Gulf of Tonkin, the plethora of other things that are secret in which you don't know about because they are secret.

I think your ability to rationally parse information is severely limited, as is evident with your failed logic and false facts in the OP, as well as your suggestion that if the government were to place explosives in a building to bring it down, they would hire the local construction company and just kill them afterword, as if this is a Hollywood movie.


Apparently because some scientists did a blind study of some of the rock found off of the walls of the concentration camp there where no traces of gas. This means that Auschwitz never had gas chambers. Its PROOF i tell ya! PRoof!


The problem with your comparison, is that this particular study wasn't peer-reviewed, thus wasn't checked by a panel of top experts in the field, while the study on thermite was. Furthermore, there are scientists who object to that study, when there aren't any who object to the thermite study, at least in a viable way. To date, every scientists who has looked for evidence of explosives in the WTC dust, have found evidence of explosives in the WTC dust. Scientists on the truster side, generally those with a government connection (either through funding or employment), admittedly refuse to even consider that explosives could have been used. Also, this "Scientist" in the study you cite, isn't an internationally renowned scientist, much less a consensus of scientists, nor is there a mountain of other evidence to back up such a claim.

Again, seriously flawed logic, though I guess that is a requirment for the whoole OS, so not surprising in the least.


After reading that they find Aluminum and Iron on the microscopic level. Wait... your telling me that the rubble of a collapsed skyscraper contains microscopic amounts of Aluminum and Iron?


Well actually, according to their study and forensic analysis that was checked, then approved by the leading experts in that particular field, the particulates can't be anything other than nano-engineered thermitic material.

It's like questioning the tactics of finding a suspect by his fingerprints, "wait, you're telling me that a person has fingerprints".

The forensic process proves that the particulates came from nano-engineered material, advanced nano-engineeered thermitic materials. Don't be foolish and quit reading those darned official conspiracy websites.

Logic and reason, it should be a requirement.


Did you actually READ the link you posted? Or did you just assume it as fact because some Steven Jones is 100% qualified?


I have read it, several times actually and it isn't just Stephen Jones. That link is to a paper that was published through the peer-review process and when you get out of high-school and go into community college, you will know the rigour of publishing through the peer-review process.

Just because you can't understand it or just because it may seem like the proverbial "greek" to you, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. However, I do sympathize with with your handicap, seeing how you apparently believe that each floor of a high-rise building can only support the weight of the floor above it.

If you apparently trust your critical self thought to the media and government (hence, the OS), then I don't see why you won't trust expertise to the experts. If this study was so flawed or easily "debunked", why hasn't it yet been opposed? Where are the published studies disproving it? Why is Bantam still a respected scientific journal?

Again, failed logic.


I really dont want to sound as harsh as i am right now, but your demeanor leaves me no choice. If you are going to go about this in a condescending way calling your links facts and me a "paid disinfo agent" i see no other choice..


Well, there you go with your "false facts" again. I have never once called you or anyone else a paid disinfo agent. Furhermore, that link is to a factual scientific paper. That paper is accepted science, with clear and logical research that has not yet been disproven or viably countered with other scientific research. To publish a paper through the peer-review process is basically proving a theory as much as possible. It means that you have met all of the rigerous standards and criteria, and the science holds water, according to the experts in that particular field. If the science, logic or reasoning is flawed, it doesn't get published. It really is as simple as that. Where is the peer-reviewed research for any assertions made by the truster side? Oh wait, that's right _________.


I should have just not responded to your first post like i told myself before hand because i knew exactly where this was gonna go.


What, just about every one of your claims being debunked and your logic deflated? As I said before, I don't have any issues with people who want to believe in the OS, though I find it absurd when they claim others are wrong, then base their assertions on false facts and flawed logic. If you are going to claim that I'm wrong and you're right, your facts better be in order and you'd better have sound logic, otherwise you are going to be debunked. You can't claim someone is wrong, while citing false facts and using flawed logic, then expect that you won't be debunked.

Again, if you are going to claim others are wrong and you are right, then you'd better at least do a little research to make sure that your claims are based on facts or at least common-sense and that your logic can stand on its own two feet.


--airspoon



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   
let me sum up that giant wall of text for everyone:

"5 paragraphs analyzing my cake example."

then

"3 paragraphs of "no facts and flawed logic" rabble"

then

"2 paragraphs dedicated to trying to explain what a peer reviewed journal is and what a scientific study means."
Here are those paragraphs:

"I have read it, several times actually and it isn't just Stephen Jones. That link is to a paper that was published through the peer-review process and when you get out of high-school and go into community college, you will know the rigour of publishing through the peer-review process.

Just because you can't understand it or just because it may seem like the proverbial "greek" to you, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. However, I do sympathize with with your handicap, seeing how you apparently believe that each floor of a high-rise building can only support the weight of the floor above it."

peer review:
en.wikipedia.org...

"Peer review is a generic term that is used to describe a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals with the related field."

This isnt a professional peer review or a scholarly peer review. Peer review alone could either stand for a group of professionals agreeing on something or you and your science buddies agreeing on something. Its not like Steven Jones has to include anyone who he debated in his "peer reviewed" paper.

Why isnt his "peer reviewed" paper "PROFESSIONALLY" Peer reviewed? By construction workers? By demolition crews?

Because they wont peer review it. Let me guess, they are scared of losing their job(s).

Now come 5 more paragraphs of "you have no facts and are using flawed logic" robot speech.

Im done arguing with you because you are either mentally unstable or just a total Dbag. Either way, im done responding to you.


edit on 22-11-2010 by demonseed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Oh and PS:

"the government has been able to keep many things a secret, some even much bigger and intricate than 9/11. Think how they kept the Manhattan project secret"

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
But yet anwar al-awlaki can dine at the pentagon months after 9-11. The Fed still won't tell where trillions of dollars went. There are just tooooo many issues. YOU DAMN RIGHT OUR GOV HAD ALOT TO DO WITH 9-11.
We must have a new investigation, I think we can all agree on that, then we will go from there! But either you are cronie troll or a complete coward. But men from caves did all this, even though they arent profiled by TSA. Underwear bomber? was that all true as well. Just because your heart froze for America doesn't mean ours will!



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chinesis
Are you trying to tell me that an ordinary fire wouldn't have collapsed the buildings but
BECAUSE of the planes hitting the buildings? THIS somehow warrants your mind
to now think the Jets hitting the buildings + Jet fuel coupled to the fires=near free fall
collapse and pulverisation?


Yes, pretty much. By the way, near free-fall is not free-fall at all. If the collapse was going slower, there wouldn't have been enough momentum to keep it destroying itself, and we would have a much less tragic event, though still severely terrible.

I mean, you can't just say "fire can't bring down buildings" whilst ignoring structural damage. Structural damage is one of the BIGGEST things people should focus on. The fires were a secondary result that just allowed the structural damage to take effect. The buildings were, in fact, built quite well for withstanding damage, but not for the fires that were unable to be fought. I guarantee you that if somebody had flown a plane into any of these chinese flaming buildings, that they would have surely at least partially collapsed (considering they weren't built as a huge unit square, naturally a collapse like 9/11 couldn't happen. I mean, the structure is entirely different).

Then you'll probably bring up WTC 7, saying, "but it wasn't hit by a plane." But, it was hit by debris from WTC 1, however much you may want to deny it. There is picture evidence of much of the damage, and unfortunately for us, the damage started a lot of fires and obscured the majority of the South face of WTC 7, so we can't see what was described by firefighters around the center/base of the building. If you think about it, with all the damage around the base of the building, it's only natural that it would have a couple seconds (around 18 floors, which is about how high the damage stretched from the base) of free-fall.
edit on 22-11-2010 by Varemia because: typo



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
What about eye and ear witnesses and video evidence of bombs being detonated. And why are the firefighters being denied health benefits after they were told the air was safe to breathe. MUST HAVE A NEW INVESTIGATION AT THE VERY LEAST. Why won't they allow an independent investigation, they wont even have to pay for it. Even though they spent millions more on a blow job in the White house! But mercury is healthy, militias are evil, Bohemian Grove is a lie, Al-CIAda is real, Codex Alimentarius is great, Patriot Act protects us, Federal Reserve is Federal, Voting isn't fraud, we spread democracy, Depleted Uranium is good, Opium needs to be guarded by our troops, don't buy silver or gold, TSA back-scatter machines are harmless, 2ND amendment is evil, permits aren't needed for petitions, open borders are good, NAU is a lie, world gov is bullshiv, killing our currency is an accident and Zbigniew Brzezinski never said it is easier to kill a million people today then to control them when a hundred years ago it was easier to control them. A lie told often enough becomes the truth.(Lenin). But everything is great and 9-11 wasn't the beginning of our free fall into tyranny, and blowing 9-11 wide open wouldn't blow the lid off of the corrupt evil controlling our every move. 9-11 holds the key!



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 



peer review:
en.wikipedia.org...

"Peer review is a generic term that is used to describe a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals with the related field."


LOL, you have got to be kidding me, again you are confused. This latest incident seems to be only but a microcosm of your overall problem. Yes, that is the general idea of peer-review, however their is something valled scholarly peer-review, which is defined on the same webpage, had you only took 10 minutes to read, instead of being complacent with whatever fits your pre-concieved world-view.


Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Although generally considered essential to academic quality, and used in most important scientific publications, peer review has been criticized as ineffective, slow, and misunderstood (see anonymous peer review and open peer review). Recently there have been some experiments with wiki-style, signed, peer reviews, for example in an issue of the Shakespeare Quarterly.



Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...


This isnt a professional peer review or a scholarly peer review. Peer review alone could either stand for a group of professionals agreeing on something or you and your science buddies agreeing on something. Its not like Steven Jones has to include anyone who he debated in his "peer reviewed" paper.


Wrong again, as it went through the scholarly peer-review process. When discussing scientific research and the peer-review process, "scholarly peer-review" is implied. Furthermore, the peer-review process always has the field experts anonymous, that way an objective and free from influence finding can be made. Also, Bantam publishing and their journals are widely respected and cited by universities such as Yale, Wake Forest, Georgetown, Princeton and Oxford, to name just a few.


Why isnt his "peer reviewed" paper "PROFESSIONALLY" Peer reviewed? By construction workers? By demolition crews?


Well, considering that it is science, particularly chemical physics, it was "scholarly" peer-reviewed in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is the scientific field of his research. Because it was dealing with chemical physics and not construction, it was peer-reviewed by experts in the chemical-physics field.

Wow, I can't believe that I have to break that down, but then again, you would have known that, had you only read the paper.


Because they wont peer review it. Let me guess, they are scared of losing their job(s).


No, again it is dealing with physics, not construction or demolition. Demolition experts aren't well versed in nano-sized particulates. If his paper was about how the nano-thermitic material was used, then it would be an issue of demolitions, but it was actually about the substance itself. It was analyzing the particulates found in the dust sample, therefore it went to physicists, which Jones himself is a physicist.


Now come 5 more paragraphs of "you have no facts and are using flawed logic" robot speech.


That is pretty much implied now.


Im done arguing with you because you are either mentally unstable or just a total Dbag. Either way, im done responding to you.

No, it's that your logic doesn;t stand up and your so-called "facts" all turn out to be wrong, but what's worse, is that 10 minutes of research would have easily saved you the time. Again, you can't claim someone is wrong, then base that claim on all failed logic and false facts, which are easily debunked, while expecting others not to quickly refute your claims and put your credibility where in the obvious context.

Oh yeah and as far as the "paid disinfo agent" remark, don't flatter yourself as I don't think anyone in their right mind would think that. If there is such a thing, then you surely wouldn't be it. I have seen "truthers" make better arguments to debunk certain claims concerning 9/11.

I don't think you have made one valid or viable claim yet in this entire thread, which unusual, as many trusters do make at least some valid and arguably on-point arguments.


--airspoon



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Yes, pretty much. By the way, near free-fall is not free-fall at all. If the collapse was going slower, there wouldn't have been enough momentum to keep it destroying itself, and we would have a much less tragic event, though still severely terrible.


Please, answer these simple questions:

*Do you know how hot jet fuel burns?
*Does Jet fuel combined with the compositional elements that comprise office materials
combined with the buildings structural composition elevate those Jet fuel temps?

If so, what is the number?

*What kind of steel was used to build WTC 1 and 2?
*What fireproofing (if any) was done and what were those rated at to withstand fire?

*What temperature is needed to MELT THIS STEEL?
*What temperature is needed to WEAKEN THIS STEEL?

*Does this weakened steel crumble with weight/gravity?


Originally posted by nightbringrI mean, you can't just say "fire can't bring down buildings" whilst ignoring structural damage. Structural damage is one of the BIGGEST things people should focus on. The fires were a secondary result that just allowed the structural damage to take effect. The buildings were, in fact, built quite well for withstanding damage, but not for the fires that were unable to be fought. I guarantee you that if somebody had flown a plane into any of these chinese flaming buildings, that they would have surely at least partially collapsed (considering they weren't built as a huge unit square, naturally a collapse like 9/11 couldn't happen. I mean, the structure is entirely different).


What are you saying here?
You just said the fires were a SECONDARY result.
Then you said the fires were unable to be fought. Where is your source for this?

Are you trying to tell me/us that the Plane was the catalyst for the building crashing down as it did?
Do you know what the make up of a 767 jet?
Do you know how the WTC towers 1 and 2 were built?




Originally posted by nightbringrThen you'll probably bring up WTC 7, saying, "but it wasn't hit by a plane." But, it was hit by debris from WTC 1, however much you may want to deny it. There is picture evidence of much of the damage, and unfortunately for us, the damage started a lot of fires and obscured the majority of the South face of WTC 7, so we can't see what was described by firefighters around the center/base of the building. If you think about it, with all the damage around the base of the building, it's only natural that it would have a couple seconds (around 18 floors, which is about how high the damage stretched from the base) of free-fall.
edit on 22-11-2010 by Varemia because: typo


Um, Debris CANNOT bring down a building at freefall speed.
The very word "structure" comes to mind.
It wasn't built out of wooden toothpicks sir.

Wow really?
Fire melts concrete and steel that was made to withstand fire?
Even had the fire weakened the steel...the steel offers resistance and there wasn't ANY
resistance in any of the tower's collapsing...how do you explain this?
edit on 22-11-2010 by Chinesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Chinesis
 



Do you know how the WTC towers 1 and 2 were built?


I do , but it is apparent from your posts , that you don't .Humor me for a moment , and tell me what type of steel the towers were constructed of . Tell me how thick that steel was , at the points of impact . Please explain to me what type of floor supports were in place . Go all out , and describe how those floor supports were designed and how they were fastened to the building .

Explain to me how each floor was supported , as well as how each column in the building was supported , and what their relation was to each other .

I KNOW how the towers were designed and constructed . Prove to all of us how much you actually know about it . Otherwise , stop scoffing at those who are more educated than yourself . It looks ridiculous .



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
"So let me get this straight, when I'm quoting 'mainstream media' and the PANYNJ, they're lying sucmabgs. But when you do it, they're fine and swell?"

I came back at you with valid points about the four issues you pathetically attempted to debunk and this is the best that you can do? A one sentence hit-and-run reply which completely ignores the issues? Please save those little games for people who have "mentally challenged moron" written on their foreheads. Keep up the good work mate, and when you have something of substance to provide please let me know.

And yes, since nobody in the mainstream media has bothered to seriously investigate the 9/11 official fairy tale, they are a bunch of lying scumbags who are working together to cover up the truth. When the media bangs the drums and lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq to involve the USA in an illegal and unjust war, yes, then they are a bunch of lying scumbags. Need anymore examples?

And by the way, where did I say that the media lies 100% of the time, as inferred by your irrelevant response? It's kind of difficult to brainwash even the braindead if you lie 100% of the time, so the media will mix in lies with the truth in order to keep up the grand illusion of credibility and freedom of press.

When you figure out how brainwashing of the masses works and how to decipher the lies from the truth, feel free to get back to me; even if your response consists of one sentence and completely avoids the issues you were so anxious to previously discuss.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 


Okay demonseed, so why did you spend something 1,000 words addressing.one point and just ignore the rest? Lets try this one more time.

1. President Bush said he saw the first plane going into the first tower on TV in his limo. Obviously this means he was in on it! Everyone who was an adult at the time knows exactly what they heard the news and so does Bush.
Source: President George W Bush's own mouth.

2. Silverstein conveniently avoided going to the WTC on that morning. You say that isn't relevant. Of course its relevant. Silverstiein was the most obvious benefactor of the event. And there he is conveniently avoiding the incident.
Source: Larry Silverstein's own mouth;. online.wsj.com...

3. The steel from the World Trade Center was quickly shipped off to China instead of being saved or analyzed as evidence. At least 50,000 of 168,000+ tons were sent to China. About 70,000 tons were sent to India. Of course its not so much quantity as quality that matters.
Source: www.china.org.cn...
Second: www.ban.org...

4. There was molten concrete found throughout the World Trade Center site.
Source 1: tyrannyalert.com...
Source 2: www.liveleak.com...

An ordinary office fire does not come even close to melting concrete. See: www.ehow.com... and portal.uah.es... showing a melting point of concrete greater than 800C.

It would however make sense for thermite or something similar to have been able to do such a thing.

5. Traces of undetonated explosive were found in the WTC debris. The material is not paint chips as paint chips do not explode.
www.bentham.org.../2008/00000002/00000

demonseed, are these five points evidence or are they not evidence?
edit on 22-11-2010 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chinesis

Let's if you can do some simple math...

The 9/11 attacks were carried out by 19 hijackers...(some of which are STILL alive today) k.
Within minutes...(not days) Osama Bin Laden (who never claimed responsibility) is the prime suspect
YET his entire family was allowed to be ushered out of the U.S. while all other planes were grounded.


a.) If you actually followed up on your "evidence" you would realize that the hijackers you think are alive based on some random BBC news story have been debunked as dead and that there were cases of mistaken identity.

b.) Okay, that's not math either so I don't really know what you are trying to do. Math involves numbers usually and despite having three numbers in it, 9/11 is not math.

On point, let's ignore the fact that Bin Laden has anything to do with the attacks, how does any of that make sense as to it NOT being a terrorist attack? Even if it was not Bin Laden, what evidence points against the fact of a terrorist attack?


Originally posted by Chinesis

So to recap:

9/11 attacks + Osama Bin Laden= Iraq, Saddam, and W's of MD (that were never found)

Yep, you're right!
Air tight Logic with an abundance of light

I think your cookies weren't cleared by prop 19 pal...


Again my ordered list:

a.) I like Prop 19 and the people who voted against it are clearly not informed of the issue and stuck up in their own dangerous morality.

b.) Again that is not math.

c.) What is your point? I never said anything about Bin Laden or Iraq or WMDs or anything else, I implied the official story of planes hitting the buildings and bringing them down is the truth of 9/11 and I have long forum posts here that are much better than your a + b = c arguments backing my point which I shall direct you to if you wish to proceed further with whatever "argument" you have.



Originally posted by Chinesis

In conclusion:
You don't seem to have street smarts (which can detect BS) from within hidden extensions...
Book smarts means you are a "good boy" and simply are able to repeat (like a broken record or a parrot)
and be happy you got an A....I should know, I used to believe everything my Gov't and University told me.


I hate to tell you this but the "street smarts > book smarts" argument is just a load of BS in its own right.

"Street smarts" is some inane term coined by some prole who thought that not reading classic literature or not going to college was "cool" and hence doing everything by experience helped to distinguish that person from people who actually engage in active learning.

Yes, some "street smarts" are good practically, but people who only have street smarts lack the meta-knowledge (epistemology) of their own reasoning methods and evidentiary criteria and thus lack the foresight to know they know nothing based on nothing.

There is a reason most academics dismiss 9/11 truther arguments; they don't hold up under rigorous scrutiny and the scientific method of theorizing.

Your immediate generalization of the world into two types of people shows that you do not think favorably on critical thinking and are thus the same type of person you claim to speak out against, only on the outlandish side of the opinion.


Originally posted by Chinesis

This is the CORE fundamental reason why you and everyone else who simply beLIEves
9/11 was carried out by a 6ft 5 Afghan who isn't wanted by any of our Gov't Agencies...


I don't simply believe it. I was originally a truther, but then I went to college and I believe I matured out of that "phase" and discovered that under rigorous evidentiary criteria, most truther theories do not hold water.


Originally posted by Chinesis

The better you were at a mind depraved education the more you rely
on what to think. As you stood there in awe while these attacks were carried out
you patiently waited for your daddy, the U.S. Gov't to tell you what happened.
edit on 21-11-2010 by Chinesis because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2010 by Chinesis because: (no reason given)


While it is nice that you believe you are some unique butterfly that knows so much more than the thousands of "sheeple" engineers, scientists, academics, and intellectuals in the world, I strongly doubt that is the truth. But it's pleasing to see the "Law of Truther Generalization" apply where everyone who doesn't buy into your theory is brainwashed, dumb, or blissfully ignorant. Such airtight, black-and-white logic you have there. Again, I was once a truther and replied the same to people, so it is through the lens of experience that I see the logical failings in such a mephitic paradigm.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Just to expose this for what it is:

www.bentham.org...

Does NOT do SCHOLARLY reviews.

Bentham.org not bentham.edu is it?

Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5, Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

1 Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young UniversityProvo, UT 84602, USA
3 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
4 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
5 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7 International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA

Just research those people and where they work and ill leave it up to you guys to decide whose full of it.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 


Steven Jones has his hand in all 9/11 CT musings.

He is one of the few people truthers admire due to his credentials (which are quite impressive considering most of his peers revile his illogical views now).

But further evidence of his wackiness, he has been known to interpret archaeological evidence as supporting Jesus Christ's visiting of America. He taught at a religious institution and seems to be a Mormon or at least a strong theist.

Hmmm...see where this is going? Two of the most notable 9/11 truthers have a very known Christian side (not just normal Christian either, borderline evangelical). Guess Wikipedia was right about the connection between radical Christianity (and eschatology) and conspiracy theories.

And these are the people so many tout as experts.

edit on 22-11-2010 by Evanescence because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I dont think you understand what I was saying.

Gravity is the most likely cause of its acceleration, not its weight. 2 falling objects of different weights will accelerate at the same speed. Gravity. Its very simple.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
One BIG disinformation thread demonseed....thats my take on this tripe......

Recently, on another thread demonseed, you said.....

"......I've been saying UFOs/Aliens attacked us on 9/11 for a while but no1 took me seriously......"


So, you seem to have gone from believing the OS, then changing your mind to become a "truther" then decided aliens were to blame then you changed again back to your Official Fairytale position....


Certainly an interesting rollercoaster of ideas regarding 9 /11


Glad you have swopped sides again(and again and again..) demonseed....

You'll have a way better time with dave and Co in the disinfo division...afterall, youve earned your stipes with this thread mate...

Do you have the same problem choosing your breakfast cereal or which colour of socks to wear every morning??

That might make interesting reading too....for those who care how unsure you are when it comes to making a decision and sticking to it...

Not for me thanks....

edit on 22-11-2010 by benoni because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
One BIG disinformation thread demonseed....thats my take on this tripe......

Recently, on another thread demonseed, you said.....

"......I've been saying UFOs/Aliens attacked us on 9/11 for a while but no1 took me seriously......"


So, you seem to have gone from believing the OS, then changing your mind to become a "truther" then decided aliens were to blame then you changed again back to your Official Fairytale position....


Certainly an interesting rollercoaster of ideas regarding 9 /11


Glad you have swopped sides again(and again and again..) demonseed....

You'll have a way better time with dave and Co in the disinfo division...afterall, youve earned your stipes with this thread mate...

Do you have the same problem choosing your breakfast cereal or which colour of socks to wear every morning??

That might make interesting reading too....for those who care how unsure you are when it comes to making a decision and sticking to it...

Not for me thanks....

edit on 22-11-2010 by benoni because: (no reason given)


lol i was joking.

I usually wear white socks. But sometimes i see those black socks lying around my drawer and i do feel like putting them on because they look sharp =D

Interesting you mention socks though. With the recent economy hit, the CIA and FBI has been paying me with socks instead of money for spreading this disinfo.

And im only responding to this post because its so funny, otherwise i would just ignore you.

Here is how truthers see it:
"Prove that it wasnt a demolition through youtube video/audio and ill believe the OS."

By that account:
"Prove that energy beams werent used through a youtube video/audio and ill believe the OS."
edit on 22-11-2010 by demonseed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Yeah...know what you mean man.....

I couldnt resist dropping by given the hilarity of your OP either...haha..quite the comedian then eh!

However, jokes aside, you also posted only 3 weeks ago

"In 2001 if you told me the US committed 911, i woulda laughed. Today , if you told me they used microwave lasers to take down the towers and alien hologram vehicles to strike the towers, i would consider it a possibility."

To be honest, the towers collapsing do not look like a controlled demolition. They look like a complete disintegration. "

You really, really had a "change of heart" didnt you???

Sticking by my sentiments though..... you arent the first person to hilariously have an epiphany regarding 9/11...they took the same approach as you just did too....first a doubter then, upon much research you too had your epiphany, causing your "change of heart..."

What BS.....!!

Changing ones heart suddenly....on a public forum and attempting to tell everyone when in fact they dont give a sh*t?

Priceless!!



edit on 22-11-2010 by benoni because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   



Changing ones heart suddenly....on a public forum and attempting to tell everyone when in fact they dont give a sh*t?



Well considering how big this thread has gotten apparently enough people give a #. I didnt do this thread for me though. I know what i believe. I did it to give people some common sense to go on. If you want the truth, go look for it. Dont watch loose change and some Dbags making money off of 3000 peoples lost lives and assume it to be fact. You can clearly see, with airspoon's comments up above, just how caught up in conspiracies you can get. "The government was able to hide the atom bomb. Because of this, they can easily hide 911." Aside from the fact that the Russians found out about the atom bomb through a spy(the link is a few posts back), that logic is a fallacy in and of itself. Even if thye hid the atom bomb 911 is something completely different. Nobody knew about the atom bomb until it happened. When the atom bomb happened everybody knew what the full story was. its not like the government dropped the atom bomb and said, "oh.. that wasnt us.."

And congrats on posting my ex-truther beliefs. Considering i had a change of heart, its shocking to find that i used to believe in 911 conspiracy theories. So shocking..... because i clearly did not make it obvious enough that i used to believe in 911 conspiracy theories.

But please continue stalking my posts and my profile. I am flattered.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join