9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The point is that just because there are areas where information is missing it doesn't give anyone license to fill in the gaps with answers they're manufacturing themselves.

Manufacturing themselves? Dave please demonstrated where they Manufacturing answers?
Second line.



Oh, I'd be happy to- the hijackers were all cavemen, no interceptors were scrambled, Cheney issued a stand down order, all the bomb dogs were withdrawn from WTC, all the Jews working in the WTC stayed home on 9/11, no arab names were on the passenger manifests, noone saw what hit the Pentagon, the Pentagon had anti-aircraft defenses, the planes didn't have any airphones, WTC 7 only had insignificant fires, the list of accusations they're making up to give themselves false credibility goes on and on.

That doesn't include the outright falsification of the hard evidence such as deliberately snipping the collapse of the penthouse from the WTC 7 collapse video to embellish the "controlled demolitions" claims, quote mining James Quintere and snipping off "becuase I think there wasn't enough fire proofing" from his "I don't agree with NIST" quote to falely make it look like he supports these conspiracies, showing photos of WTC support beams cut by acetylene torch and passing it off as proof of controlled demolitions, and the like. I've even seen one guy photoshop a dirt berm in front of the Pentagon to make it look like noone could have seen what hit the Pentagon, even though the dirt berm would have been right in the middle of the highway at the location he placed it.

Keep in mind these aren't simply the paranoid rantings of the ill-informed people posting here. These are stunts the main shakers and movers behind the conspiracy movement are pulling I.E. Morgan Reynolds, Richard Gage, Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, and the like.




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I don't think that is the issue Dave, the issue whether you are going to search for more and more ludicrous physical explanations just because the idea that Bush lied is implausible or whether you are going to search for more and more implausible political explanations just because the idea that 9/11 is uniquely resistant to explanation in terms of the scientific method is ludicrous.

I don't find find the idea that Bush lied implausible, at all.
I do find the idea that 9/11 is uniquely resistant to explanation in terms of the scientific method highly implausible indeed.


The scientific method necessarily means that a hypothesis should be tested under controlled conditions to see whether the hypothesis can be replicated. Just how do you intend to replicate the collapse of the WTC under laboratory conditions? I think it's safe to say there's no way anyone is going to squander millions of dollars rebuilding a true to scale model of the towers alogn with a true to scale passenger jet to see what effect the impact and the fires had on that specific architectural design, and I guarantee noone is going to attempt to replicate sneaking secret controlled demolitions into an occupied building to see if they can blow it up without any of the occupants noticing. All you've ended up saying is that since the scientific method cannot be used, it must mean *nothing* destroyed the towers.

FYI I don't find the idea that Bush lied implausible at all either. The difference is that we have opposing ideas of what he was lying about.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Oh, I'd be happy to- the hijackers were all cavemen, no interceptors were scrambled, Cheney issued a stand down order, all the bomb dogs were withdrawn from WTC, all the Jews working in the WTC stayed home on 9/11, no arab names were on the passenger manifests, noone saw what hit the Pentagon, the Pentagon had anti-aircraft defenses, the planes didn't have any airphones, WTC 7 only had insignificant fires, the list of accusations they're making up to give themselves false credibility goes on and on.


I'll agree these 'explanations' to try to fill in the blanks are unimpressive. However the lecture that this thread is about gave no backing to these 'explanations', only mentioned them in relation to the whole 911 history and debate about exactly what happened.

Can I ask you Dave if you can agree with the following and feel free to add an explanation if you do or don't.

1. The Bush administration did not want an investigation into the attacks on 911.

2. There were secondary explosions not associated with the airplanes hitting buildings.

3. The anthrax attacks were initially linked to Iraq and/or Saddam Hussien.

4. You didn't really watch the lecture in it's entirety.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I have finally managed to listen to the whole thing. He never really says anything interesting or unusual as far as I am concerned. The way historians look at an incident like this is peculiar to me. It is all about documentation and who said what. Physics does not conform to what people say and what people write.

How does a 1360 foot building come down in less than 30 seconds when it has to be strong enough to hold itself up? I did not notice his use of the word physics in the entire video.

psik



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
He never really says anything interesting or unusual as far as I am concerned. The way historians look at an incident like this is peculiar to me. It is all about documentation and who said what. Physics does not conform to what people say and what people write.


This is the beauty of this video. There is nothing to argue about. He says some well and not that well known facts, no fancy CT. But somehow after the lecture you are left with feeling that the government is hiding something and the investigation is not complete. This is the way to win people minds and make them think!



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Watched it, I like it a lot. Great presentation, educated, on-point quick analysis of the main factors surrounding 9/11. This is a great vid to wake up people/sheep, because its presented clean and intelligently.

(Not saying the vids out there aren't, its just they are too hardcore too soon for people living in the matrix)






top topics
 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join