Buddhists for 9/11 Truth

reply to post by GoodOlDave


You said

one religious philosophy professor is pretending to be a materials engineer

He is not posing as a materials engineer, he is stating the overall contradictions within the official story. There are plenty of material engineers that also doubt the official story. Typically people like to point out that David Ray Griffin is a religious philosopher as if that automatically disqualifies him from having an opinion. You may have not called him unintelligent simply for being a theologian but you did refer to him as a quote unquote "expert" in an attempt to discredit what he might say.

Why not stick to the facts and not worrying about if someone is expert worthy or not? That seems just like a distraction away from the events and instead onto the person.

reply to post by exponent


by reports do you mean the NIST report, which suppressed all evidence pertaining to explosions, and who stalled for 8 years to give a report on building 7, only to give critics one week to respond? You're right about people in the government having self-interests, and NIST is certainly one of them.

Originally posted by exponent
The government doesn't tell the whole truth ever, because they have lots of self serving interests.

That's putting it mildly.

Originally posted by exponent
However, the 'official story' is not something dictated by the government and accepted without question. It's produced by engineering groups, and while they may be government funded, they put their names on these reports and the facts they cite can be backed up.

You mean like Exponent Failure Analysis Associates?

Originally posted by exponent
I've read the whole NIST report and their draft reports, well over 12,000 pages I would estimate. I've consulted engineers that I have worked with, investigated the source material, contacted various companies and NIST directly (never got a response

) and I am very confident that there is more than enough evidence to show that the 'official story' is currently much more plausible than any controlled demolition alternative that exists.

Such confidence! And how interesting that a Brit would read 12,000 pages of NIST reports and even consult various companies and engineers that you work with.

Do you still make the claim that, "as far as I know have never done work for this firm [Exponent] in any capacity?"

As far as you know? Interesting choice of words.

Originally posted by filosophia
by reports do you mean the NIST report, which suppressed all evidence pertaining to explosions, and who stalled for 8 years to give a report on building 7, only to give critics one week to respond? You're right about people in the government having self-interests, and NIST is certainly one of them.

Exactly, you're already trying to poison the well. Except no matter how much you distrust the people behind the NIST report, you can't actually explain anything better than they can. That's the key problem here. Just because you don't trust them doesn't make what they conclude untrue.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Such confidence! And how interesting that a Brit would read 12,000 pages of NIST reports and even consult various companies and engineers that you work with.

Do you still make the claim that, "as far as I know have never done work for this firm [Exponent] in any capacity?"

As far as you know? Interesting choice of words.

Of course I still 'make the claim'. I have no knowledge of anything I've ever done coming into contact with the company Exponent in any way.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You said one religious philosophy professor is pretending to be a materials engineer

He is not posing as a materials engineer, he is stating the overall contradictions within the official story. There are plenty of material engineers that also doubt the official story. Typically people like to point out that David Ray Griffin is a religious philosopher as if that automatically disqualifies him from having an opinion. You may have not called him unintelligent simply for being a theologian but you did refer to him as a quote unquote "expert" in an attempt to discredit what he might say.

Give me an example of a so-called contradiction, please. I've read some of his work and his "contradictions" are based 100% on either falsehoods (I.E. there were missile batteries around the Pentagon, all the steel was removed and shipped overseas, there were no muslim names on the flight manifests), claims that can never be proven (I.E. Bin Laden being in a hospital in Dubai for Kidney issues), and outright red herrings (I.E. Operation Northwoods, whether air force one had fighter cover when it left Florida), all of which can be proven in a simple 30 second Google search so I won't repeat it here. This isn't meant to be a serious research piece. It's a hack job meant to get you to think there's a conspiracy going on without actually coming out and saying it. What turned me away from Griffin is his idiotic claim that "becuase WTC 7 was evacuated it made no sense for them to look for survivors after the collapse". There were police and fire fighter in the area too, not just building tenents, and a lot of them *were* trapped in the wreckage throughout the area.

I do need to withdraw my statement, though. It wasn't David Ray Griffin I was referring to, it was Morgan Reynolds and his support for Judy Wood's crackpot lasers-from-outer-space claims. Therefore what I should have said was that "an economist was pretending to be a materials engineer". Thanks for pointing that out...though the original point still stands that the 9/11 truther movement is made up of a lot of phonies.

Doesn't it strike you odd that despite all your so-called research, that I know your own conspiracy stories better than you do?

reply to post by exponent

Except no matter how much you distrust the people behind the NIST report, you can't actually explain anything better than they can.

Oh, but I think I can. The towers came down through controlled demolition, which explains their free fall collapse, which also explains the molten metal, and the unreacted nano thermite. Isn't that a much better explanation than saying "falling debris and trivial fires weakened one key beam which caused a systematic collapse with little to no resistance?"

There's a reason why people distrust NIST, because they hide the evidence of controlled demolition!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Cheney's testimony of when he was in the white house bunker, time discrepancies involving NORAD and the FAA, including NORAD going against standard operating procedure. I'd say those are some glaring contradictions.

Originally posted by filosophia
Oh, but I think I can. The towers came down through controlled demolition, which explains their free fall collapse

But they didn't collapse at free fall, that was debunked many years ago and many studies have now shown this.

which also explains the molten metal, and the unreacted nano thermite.

How does it? If the demolition charges used nano thermite because it's supposed to be explosive, why would large amounts of molten metal be produced? Normal demolition explosives don't create large amounts of it.

Isn't that a much better explanation than saying "falling debris and trivial fires weakened one key beam which caused a systematic collapse with little to no resistance?"

That's not the official story.

There's a reason why people distrust NIST, because they hide the evidence of controlled demolition!

So you don't trust NIST because their answers disagree with yours. That's hardly an objective measurement for value now is it?

The reports cover thousands and thousands of pages, they document many things that aren't well explained by any alternate theory. For example, why were the walls on both towers bowing inward significantly before collapse? How were these demolition charges not detonated by the fire in on the floors they were placed on?

There are many questions, adding demolition charges only raises more.

reply to post by exponent




The only fallacy is saying the buildings didn't fall at free fall speed.

Fact: there was molten metal. The plausible answer is that both thermite and nano thermite were used, is that so hard to understand? Considering that nano thermite is a military grade explosive, how do you know it would not create molten metal? Dust samples revealed nano thermite, and visual evidence of controlled explosives in the building indicate normal demolition charges, so it would have to be both taking place at the same time.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Cheney's testimony of when he was in the white house bunker, time discrepancies involving NORAD and the FAA, including NORAD going against standard operating procedure. I'd say those are some glaring contradictions.

First off, I can't see how knowing the exact moment in time that Cheney was in the White House bunker proves anything one way or the other. My position has always been that the administration was slipping on banana peels and stumbling into walls all throughout the 9/11 attack so I doubt very much anyone thought of checking their watches and documenting what they were doing and when they were doing it. Second, the 9/11 commission report already documented many of the failures leading up to and during the 9/11 attack so we already know there was a break down in procedures....and with an administration that can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without fudging it up, I know full well there has to be more breakdowns than they're admitting to. Griffin insinuating this is due to some sinister design rather than incompetence or panic is absurdity in the extreme.

Third, none of that contradicts any of the mountain of other sources showing it was a terrorist attack, from Mohammed Atta's girlfriend reporting how Atta was an accomplished pilot as well as how sociopathic he was, to the airphone calls out from the planes reporting their planes were hijacked, to the interview with Bin Laden reporting that he sent fighters to Somalia to fight the west's anti-famine relief effort, to NYPD helicopter pilots reporting the support beams in the WTC were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were going to collapse. It's patently obvious that Griffin is being horribly fast and loose with the information he's providing, and the fact that he's pulling a "everything you know is false and I'll tell you the 'real' truth if you give me your money" game makes his motives suspect right there.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, as Robert A. Heinlein once said. Doesn't Budhhism take into account that there are more incompetent people in the world than there are overtly malicious people?

"Third, none of that contradicts any of the mountain of other sources showing it was a terrorist attack, from Mohammed Atta's girlfriend reporting how Atta was an accomplished pilot as well as how sociopathic he was"

My girlfriend thinks I am a sociopathic liar and a great pilot (it's amazing what you can convince people of when you are a sociopath), so does that make me guilty of being a 9/11 terrorist?

"to the airphone calls out from the planes reporting their planes were hijacked"

Are you talking about the cell phone calls which were impossible to make from the planes or the phony call reported by that lying Olson character or the call where the guy called his mother and identified himself by both his first and last names?

"to the interview with Bin Laden reporting that he sent fighters to Somalia to fight the west's anti-famine relief effort"

Yep, this little gem of irrelevant information surely proves that Osama Been Hiding was behind the 9/11 attacks.

"to NYPD helicopter pilots reporting the support beams in the WTC were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were going to collapse."

Are you talking about those beams which were glowing red from oxygen starved office fires which couldn't even sustain a 4th of July BBQ?

"It's patently obvious that Griffin is being horribly fast and loose with the information he's providing, and the fact that he's pulling a "everything you know is false and I'll tell you the 'real' truth if you give me your money" game makes his motives suspect right there."

If you have such a hard on for the guy, why don't you just give him a call and ask him out. I hear opposites attract.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
My girlfriend thinks I am a sociopathic liar and a great pilot (it's amazing what you can convince people of when you are a sociopath), so does that make me guilty of being a 9/11 terrorist?

It depends. Did you ever show your girlfriend your pilot's licenses from other countries, and did you dismenber her kittens after an argument? You conspiracy people are keen to quote her on Atta's drug usage as evidence of something not being right, so if you consider her as being a credible source for one thing then you'll necessarily have to consider her as a credible source for everything.

Are you talking about the cell phone calls which were impossible to make from the planes or the phony call reported by that lying Olson character or the call where the guy called his mother and identified himself by both his first and last names?

No, I'm referring to the airphones that model of aircraft had at the time, which most certainly had the range, which made more calls than the cell phone callers did, nd which corroborated the cell phone calls as to what the callers were reporting. The "Lying Olson character" bit is nothing but arrogant character assassination based upon nothing but your own jaded personal opinions, and I will disregard it as such.

Yep, this little gem of irrelevant information surely proves that Osama Been Hiding was behind the 9/11 attacks.

It proves that Al Qaeda is rabidly pursuing an Islamic fundamentalist agenda and is going international with their movement, making them a prime suspect in any Islamic fundamentalist attack. It also proves they're a genuine terrorist movement and not some CIA manufactured fantasia. I shouldn't need to point that out.

Are you talking about those beams which were glowing red from oxygen starved office fires which couldn't even sustain a 4th of July BBQ?

Now you're starting to be ridiculous. Are you seriously suggesting that the New York Police Department are involved in this supposed conspiracy of yours, as well? Accusing passengers who died aboard the hijacked planes of being liars was bad enough, but THIS goes beyond the pale. Please rephrase your statement.

Originally posted by filosophia
The only fallacy is saying the buildings didn't fall at free fall speed.

So prove it. If you want to read about the work that's been done on tracing the descent rate, you can read it here I believe. I don't have the specific thread at the moment.

Fact: there was molten metal. The plausible answer is that both thermite and nano thermite were used, is that so hard to understand?

Why use both? The point of some of these theories is that they are hard to detect and so it's ok that you don't present a huge amount of evidence for them. Using both defeats that.

Considering that nano thermite is a military grade explosive, how do you know it would not create molten metal?

'nano thermite' is not a 'military grade explosive'. It exists only in tiny quantities in labs at this point, and is nowhere near explosives like RDX. When you say things like this it's obvious you are just believing what you are told without any investigation or question.

Besides, you failed to address the rest of my post.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


The time discrepancy is important because if Cheney was there earlier, he was in charge when the pentagon was struck, and if he was not there in time, he was not in charge. The 9/11 commission has Cheney there later, so that he was not in charge when the pentagon was struck.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Mohammed Atta's girlfriend reporting how Atta was an accomplished pilot

Are you serious? Can you seriously tell me that you take this as an indication of someone's accomplished piloting? Knowing full well that the flight instructor (in the USA) that tested Atta said he was a horrible pilot. I really can't believe you would take Atta's girlfriend's remarks as any indication of his piloting skills. This statement just simply amazes me.

reply to post by exponent


I just love how whenever anyone mentions that the buildings fell in free fall speed, the OSers come out of the wood work and say it is a blatant lie, when in fact the video I showed you has NIST admitting free fall speed (but I appreciate you at least giving me a link and not just your opinion). So let's put this in perspective, according to NIST's graphs, the building did fall for a period at free fall speed. Perhaps it did not fall at free fall speed the entire time, which would explain why some debris fell faster (and not to mention the explosive discharge would send smaller particles to the ground faster), but it did fall for a time at free fall speed, so whenever you say that free fall speed is a lie, you are the one lying, since you are ignoring that the towers did fall for free fall for a short amount of time. Either way, any person with eyes not paid for by the government could easily see that the building fell near free fall speed, so near in fact that it is not even worth debating.

"Believing what I'm told?" If by "believing what I'm told," you mean reading the research paper on nano thermite, then yes. Does that constitute doing my own research? And how do you accuse someone else of believing what they're told when you are parroting the official story?

'nano thermite' is not a 'military grade explosive'. It exists only in tiny quantities in labs at this point, and is nowhere near explosives like RDX.

Oh, well thanks for clearing that up. Do you have a link backing up this claim or should I just assume that whatever you say is the truth? From now on, I am not responding to any comment unless there is a link provided

www.opednews.com...

Originally posted by filosophia
I just love how whenever anyone mentions that the buildings fell in free fall speed, the OSers come out of the wood work and say it is a blatant lie, when in fact the video I showed you has NIST admitting free fall speed (but I appreciate you at least giving me a link and not just your opinion). So let's put this in perspective, according to NIST's graphs, the building did fall for a period at free fall speed. Perhaps it did not fall at free fall speed the entire time, which would explain why some debris fell faster (and not to mention the explosive discharge would send smaller particles to the ground faster), but it did fall for a time at free fall speed, so whenever you say that free fall speed is a lie, you are the one lying, since you are ignoring that the towers did fall for free fall for a short amount of time. Either way, any person with eyes not paid for by the government could easily see that the building fell near free fall speed, so near in fact that it is not even worth debating.

You've forgotten that you said the towers. It's true that WTC7 did accelerate at close to g for around 2 seconds, but the other towers did not, and this does not support your point. Also explosives don't send 'smaller particles to the ground faster'. I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

"Believing what I'm told?" If by "believing what I'm told," you mean reading the research paper on nano thermite, then yes. Does that constitute doing my own research? And how do you accuse someone else of believing what they're told when you are parroting the official story?

I wonder, did you read a research paper on nano thermite, or did you read only one paper, the one supporting the use of it in the WTC?

I wonder why.

Oh, well thanks for clearing that up. Do you have a link backing up this claim or should I just assume that whatever you say is the truth? From now on, I am not responding to any comment unless there is a link provided

I don't have a link to hand but you'll find that the burn rate of nano thermite is something like 10% of that of high explosives. Plus 'military grade' refers to a specific formulation where there is typically also a 'civilian grade' available. Instead of being aggressive towards me, perhaps you should wonder where you got the idea that nano-thermite is 'military grade'. Try clicking here and finding the reference that's not a truther site.

Does it not bother you that the source for all of your arguments are truther sites?

]Originally posted by exponent


I was referring to building 7, but as I said, any eye not being paid by the government can see that even towers 1 and 2 came down near free fall speed, so near in fact that it is pointless to argue this fact.

It bothers me that you generalize websites as being 'truther' and then what? Dismiss them? Yes, that does bother me, it shows you are prejudiced in your thinking.

You accused me of believing what I heard, which is a lie, I did not hear it, I read it, from a research paper, and yes, it is pro-active thermite in the dust, seeing as how that's the name of the paper. Now, I will read an opposing view point, however, you can't give me a link to an opposing view point, only to Google. So, whenever you want to post a link showing me where you are getting your information from concerning nano thermite, I'm all "ears" (pun intended, since I will be really all eyes).

edit: here is your exact quote

it's obvious you are just believing what you are told without any investigation or question.

I was not told this, I read it. That constitutes my investigation. And how do you know what I question or not? So it seems like if I read a paper that you do not like, that is not considered research? Well, then, in your infinite wisdom, can you please give me a link that is an "oser" site? So that my research may be complete?

Originally posted by filosophia
I was referring to building 7, but as I said, any eye not being paid by the government can see that even towers 1 and 2 came down near free fall speed, so near in fact that it is pointless to argue this fact.

I love when people make this sort of argument. You claim you were talking about one tower, in order to make it appear you were correct in the previous argument, and then go on to say it actually still applies to all 3 towers. The simple fact is that WTC1 and WTC2 did not fall at freefall, and WTC7 only accelerated close to g for 2 seconds of its collapse. This isn't what you claimed, and it doesn't support your controlled demolition claim.

It bothers me that you generalize websites as being 'truther' and then what? Dismiss them? Yes, that does bother me, it shows you are prejudiced in your thinking.

I didn't say I dismissed them. I was actually using it to illustrate your bias. If you were unbiased, then why would all of the facts you cite come exclusively from truther websites? If you were researching properly, you would not just be parroting off claims like 'military grade nano thermite' when such a thing does not exist. The only references for it exist on truther sites, so you must be reading these sites and accepting material without question.

Deny Ignorance.

You accused me of believing what I heard, which is a lie, I did not hear it, I read it, from a research paper, and yes, it is pro-active thermite in the dust, seeing as how that's the name of the paper. Now, I will read an opposing view point, however, you can't give me a link to an opposing view point, only to Google. So, whenever you want to post a link showing me where you are getting your information from concerning nano thermite

I read papers on it from any journals I have access to. Earlier today I read this if it helps. It's called evaluating the evidence impartially, not reading the opinions of people who were already convinced and had been promoting this theory even before they had their apparent proof of it.

Honestly, I hear people make claims about how suspicious the government is all the time, and how 'trusters' or whatever just accept the government story without question. Then they proceed to repeat verbatim arguments that have no factual backing, they don't do their own checks, and they behave exactly as they claim others are.

Originally posted by exponent


I believe all three buildings came down at free fall or near free fall speed, since you can time the collapse of the towers. As I said, it's so close that it can be said to be free fall speed, the main distinction being that it collapsed like a controlled demolition, with little to no resistance. So if you want to argue the exact science of it, first of all physics is never 100 percent exact, and second of all, having NIST do a report on building 7 for 8 years and then come out with a cover up is not scientific.

There you go again, judging websites you don't like as "truther" websites. That's apriori judgment which is prejudiced. And I said military grade because the antrax was military grade, and the nano thermite came from the Mossad, so that is also military. Now excuse me while I go down to the 7-11 and buy some over-the-counter nano thermite.

You say I'm acting as others are? Well gee, and no one can say that about you, huh? Osama Bin Laden, 19 hijackers, jet fuel?