I actually have done some research. That's why I can say I don't agree with it.
I know who I am. I have a right to post here as much as anyone else and not get flamed for it. Or did I miss something and you're actually the owner of this forum, entrusted with ensuring only certain people with 5 million posts to their names get to post here? Is there some initiation rite that I'm missing? Yeah, 5 posts. So what? You were never at 5 posts in your exciting career?
Way to go. You countered my opinion by attacking my character and resorting to expletives. Very intelligent.
The only people who I have seen deny the Holocaust is racists. So you believe that they were the first 3 steel buildings to collapse due to fire? You joined months ago and only have 6 posts now.
Apparently proven? He has not apparently proven anything. He has offered a hypothesis -- a hypothesis that is not even accepted by his own colleagues at his own university, particularly those from the college of structural engineering. The Professor Emeritus of BYU's Civil Engineering school said the following:
"I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable. Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing."
Ok, well first of all, his other theories don't matter, this is the case in point. Scientists can be wrong on one thing and right on another. Or maybe he is right or wrong on both. However, in the NIST report it does admit they found sulphur in the steal which could not be explained. Sulphur could only get into the steal by fission, which implies explosives. The EPA also reported high levels of air contaminants that are indicative of explosive pulverization.
The evidence that explosives were used in the WTC buildings is enormous. It's difficult not to believe that explosives were used. All the videos of Prof. Jones I have seen indicate to me that he didn't want to believe either.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Im gonna have to agree...if all you do is post links that means all your doing is subsituting "reality" for another persons "reality" try thinking for yourself... I bet we can find contridictions between those sights...which one is your exact belief? Do you see what people are getting at? I can go create my own website too and call it "the truth"
I say it's perfectly appropriate to pass on information or any source one sees fit.
If someone wants to call out a contradiction and confront her with it, fine.
If you want to call it "substituting 'reality' for another persons 'reality" you're entitled to your assessment. At the same time, other people and their complex motivations are not realistically defined by such assessments.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You make the views of those who are able to be published on fringe web sites clear, still not sure of yours. Not an insult, just seems to be the case.
if there's something specific you would like to know, i've found a real good way of finding out...YOU ASK. can you point to anything where our views were shrouded in mystery? where you've asked us what our world view is and got no reply? what was asked that you never received a reply to?
i looked up just 'wtc7' and found 11 threads i replied in. that doesn't seem like it's any divine secret knowledge.
you can keep saying no one answers questions you never ask instead of debating the topic all you want. it seems to be your tactic; bring up personal matters instead of debating the topic.
and btw, a list like this was requested before
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I post my opinion almost everyday here. I also read and share info. If you're not sure of my views you haven't been reading.
I know your "views," I was just speaking in terms of specifics. What, in terms of specifics, would you do to respond to militant islamic groups? What in specific, would you do to improve surveillence while at the same time protecting civil liberties? These are the specific questions I'm referring to when I say it's like "pulling teeth."
But I obviously have missed a lot and admit that I haven't read all of your posts, so if you ever have directly addressed these questions, I appologize (no sarcasm )
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Im gonna have to agree...if all you do is post links that means all your doing is subsituting "reality" for another persons "reality" try thinking for yourself... I bet we can find contridictions between those sights...which one is your exact belief? Do you see what people are getting at? I can go create my own website too and call it "the truth"
For the last time....I was asked for sources. I don't know why I bother sometimes.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ok, well first of all, his other theories don't matter, this is the case in point.
I agree Ahnimus. Because one's colleagues disagree, or because one also holds other theories people might find implausible does not address or in anyway disprove the points in question in this case.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I know your "views," I was just speaking in terms of specifics. What, in terms of specifics, would you do to respond to militant islamic groups? What in specific, would you do to improve surveillence while at the same time protecting civil liberties? These are the specific questions I'm referring to when I say it's like "pulling teeth."
But I obviously have missed a lot and admit that I haven't read all of your posts, so if you ever have directly addressed these questions, I appologize (no sarcasm )
I have stated before that our foreign policy causes the tension we hold with these groups. I think we should quit funding and encouraging the violence in the area if we really want it to stop. But I think that's the last thing our govt actually wants, there's simply no money in it. Once again, all this has already been stated before.
I don't think we need more surveilence. They are watching us (especially dissenters) not the supposed muslim boogeymen.
Good enough for ya? Anything I may have left out. Should I restate every point I've point I've ever posted here? Over 5,000 post with nothing but links and articles, I guess.
My favorite color is green.
I know shit about you expect for your flare for starting petty fights. So how about, you let's all hear your 'world views'.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I agree Ahnimus. Because one's colleagues disagree, or because one also holds other theories people might find implausible does not address or in anyway disprove the points in question in this case.
lol, I just thought of something. I might have to agree with Bush some day, if he ever actually says anything I agree with.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I know your "views," I was just speaking in terms of specifics. What, in terms of specifics, would you do to respond to militant islamic groups? What in specific, would you do to improve surveillence while at the same time protecting civil liberties? These are the specific questions I'm referring to when I say it's like "pulling teeth."
But I obviously have missed a lot and admit that I haven't read all of your posts, so if you ever have directly addressed these questions, I appologize (no sarcasm )
hmmm...i must've missed the posts where you laid bare all your world views and your thoughts on surveilence...<sigh> why must i have to like decipher your world view, man? :rolleyes:
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Ok, well first of all, his other theories don't matter, this is the case in point.
Certainly the validity of one theory has no bearing on the validity of another unrelated theory. However, it sheds much light on the man proposing the theories. To suggest that Christ appeared in S America following the resurrection is fine, but one must then demostrate that a) Christ was resurrected and then b) Christ had the means to travel to America (not too tough if you can prove a.). The fact that such "minor details" are not touched on sheds much light into Jones's approach as a scientist: a hearty mix of faith and fact.
His 9/11 theories suffer in a likewise fashion. They require someone to plant the explosives, of course. For that, there is no evidence. They require the explosive itself, for which there is very little evidence. Traditional demolition explosives would not have taken down the WTC in the fashion we all witnessed. Thermite would have been used and the evidence of its use would likely have been witnessed by every TV camera and person on the ground.
Again, plausible does not mean actual.
Scientists can be wrong on one thing and right on another. Or maybe he is right or wrong on both. However, in the NIST report it does admit they found sulphur in the steal which could not be explained. Sulphur could only get into the steal by fission, which implies explosives. The EPA also reported high levels of air contaminants that are indicative of explosive pulverization.
Wow. See, this is the silliness that these sites are spreading.
Sulfur is commonly found in gunpowers and explosives. This is a big deal to your consipiracy spreaders. This, they say, is proof and then they highlight the NIST's "inability" to explain it.
However, those same conspiracy theorists ignore some important facts:
1) Sulfur explosives could not be used alone to bring down the WTC towers without using so much equipment as to completely blow up the building. Controlled demolitions of steel skyscrapers are done with thermite or similar compounds that "cut", rather than explode. Certainly sulfur is evident as part of these reactions, but the use of thermite creates additional byproducts not measured on 9/11.
2) Sulfur is contained in every living cell. Your body is full of the stuff. Much of the sulfur measured at WTC is likely from the 2,000 burning bodies killed on that day.
Furthermore, the single FEMA report so often "quoted" simply highlights the existence as an oddity and offers possible explanations:
"It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."
The evidence that explosives were used in the WTC buildings is enormous. It's difficult not to believe that explosives were used. All the videos of Prof. Jones I have seen indicate to me that he didn't want to believe either.
It is not "enormous". It is non-existent. Not a single explosive can be pointed to. Not a single explosive planter can be named. Not a single definitive sign of explosive use can be highlighted.
It is not that I "don't want to believe". I could care less whether 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists or the government. Most people here would attest that I see little difference between terrorists and the government.
hmmm...i must've missed the posts where you laid bare all your world views and your thoughts on surveilence...<sigh> why must i have to like decipher your world view, man? :rolleyes:
i have to admit, that's a pretty good reply
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Certainly the validity of one theory has no bearing on the validity of another unrelated theory. However, it sheds much light on the man proposing the theories. To suggest that Christ appeared in S America following the resurrection is fine, but one must then demostrate that a) Christ was resurrected and then b) Christ had the means to travel to America (not too tough if you can prove a.). The fact that such "minor details" are not touched on sheds much light into Jones's approach as a scientist: a hearty mix of faith and fact.
His 9/11 theories suffer in a likewise fashion. They require someone to plant the explosives, of course. For that, there is no evidence. They require the explosive itself, for which there is very little evidence. Traditional demolition explosives would not have taken down the WTC in the fashion we all witnessed. Thermite would have been used and the evidence of its use would likely have been witnessed by every TV camera and person on the ground.
Again, plausible does not mean actual.
Wow. See, this is the silliness that these sites are spreading.
Sulfur is commonly found in gunpowers and explosives. This is a big deal to your consipiracy spreaders. This, they say, is proof and then they highlight the NIST's "inability" to explain it.
However, those same conspiracy theorists ignore some important facts:
1) Sulfur explosives could not be used alone to bring down the WTC towers without using so much equipment as to completely blow up the building. Controlled demolitions of steel skyscrapers are done with thermite or similar compounds that "cut", rather than explode. Certainly sulfur is evident as part of these reactions, but the use of thermite creates additional byproducts not measured on 9/11.
2) Sulfur is contained in every living cell. Your body is full of the stuff. Much of the sulfur measured at WTC is likely from the 2,000 burning bodies killed on that day.
Furthermore, the single FEMA report so often "quoted" simply highlights the existence as an oddity and offers possible explanations:
"It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."
It is not "enormous". It is non-existent. Not a single explosive can be pointed to. Not a single explosive planter can be named. Not a single definitive sign of explosive use can be highlighted.
It is not that I "don't want to believe". I could care less whether 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists or the government. Most people here would attest that I see little difference between terrorists and the government.
Yea, actually the explosive theory is equally as solid as the fire theory. But at least the explosive theory is closer to real physics than fire. Sulphur from burning bodies can not get into the steal. Look up sulphurization of steal. I did because I wanted to know how it would get in there, and on a physics website (totally unrelated to 9/11) it explained how the sulphur would have to be forced into it by a lot of energy.
Thermite, isn't exactly what Jones says was used. He says thermate was used which is thermite spiked with sulphur as thermite doesn't have sulphur in it, and if it does, it's called thermate. Thermate has a lot hotter and larger explosion.
Thermate isn't the only theory either. The EPA and NIST reported Tritium in the air at ground zero. Tritium isn't used in many things, not to produce detectable levels, let alone high levels. Some watches use Tritium particulary Gaseous Tritium watches that cost roughly $500 ea. not too many people have them. Weapon laser sights can use tritium and some signs and hand railings. However neither organization can account for the sulphur or the tritium without wide speculation. They have provided absolutely zero evidence of their origins. Oh, I should add tritium is used in FGNs (Fourth Generation Nukes). Don't think of FGNs as the traditional nuclear bomb, they are completely different in radioactivity and explosive power. Tritium is radioactive but is relatively harmless to humans and it's half-life is merely 12.5 days.
The main thing here, is that people can't be convinced that kerosene brought the buildings down. We know kerosene burns at 1000 degrees less than the temperature steel melts at. And that's untreated steel, the steel used in WTC were fire proofed. They went a bit further and said the plane knocked the fire-proofing off. They also said that a massive fire ball flew down the elevator shaft and exploded in the lobby when they were questioned about the damage to the lobby reported by fire-fighters. The official theory is nothing but speculation. I downloaded a video from the NIST website of their burning steel test and none of their videos showed melting steel, it would seem their tests failed. NIST was trying to prove that fire caused the collapse, they ignored all other theories in their investigation, and even though there investigation was not conclusive they sold it to you anyway.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yea, actually the explosive theory is equally as solid as the fire theory.
In terms of theoretical possibility, sure. In terms of the evidence we have from the events of 9/11, not even close.
But at least the explosive theory is closer to real physics than fire.
Both are very much dependent on "real physics".
Sulphur from burning bodies can not get into the steal. Look up sulphurization of steal. I did because I wanted to know how it would get in there, and on a physics website (totally unrelated to 9/11) it explained how the sulphur would have to be forced into it by a lot of energy.
A "lot of energy", huh? What do you think you get when a 110 story structure collapses on itself?
Thermite, isn't exactly what Jones says was used. He says thermate was used which is thermite spiked with sulphur as thermite doesn't have sulphur in it, and if it does, it's called thermate. Thermate has a lot hotter and larger explosion.
Now imagine enough of that to eat through 50 steel columns. And imagine the evidence that type of burn leaves behind. We're talking about clear-cuts through steel, not bent and molten steel
Thermate isn't the only theory either. The EPA and NIST reported Tritium in the air at ground zero. Tritium isn't used in many things, not to produce detectable levels, let alone high levels. Some watches use Tritium particulary Gaseous Tritium watches that cost roughly $500 ea. not too many people have them. Weapon laser sights can use tritium and some signs and hand railings. However neither organization can account for the sulphur or the tritium without wide speculation. They have provided absolutely zero evidence of their origins. Oh, I should add tritium is used in FGNs (Fourth Generation Nukes). Don't think of FGNs as the traditional nuclear bomb, they are completely different in radioactivity and explosive power. Tritium is radioactive but is relatively harmless to humans and it's half-life is merely 12.5 days.
This one I've never heard. Tritium is often found in the atmosphere and it's created (I believe) as a product of sunlight and certain gasses. If you're proposing a nuclear device at WTC, you're going to have to explain a whole lot of other things, however. Can you point to the Tritium measurements as a start?
The main thing here, is that people can't be convinced that kerosene brought the buildings down.
No one is trying to convince them of that. Kerosene is not jet fuel, friend. Your conspiracy theorists forgot that jet fuel and kerosene are not the same.
We know kerosene burns at 1000 degrees less than the temperature steel melts at. And that's untreated steel, the steel used in WTC were fire proofed. They went a bit further and said the plane knocked the fire-proofing off. They also said that a massive fire ball flew down the elevator shaft and exploded in the lobby when they were questioned about the damage to the lobby reported by fire-fighters. The official theory is nothing but speculation.
That's true. The official theory is nothing but speculation since so much information is unavailable. However, the official theory uses quite a bit of the available information to come to conclusions, rather than just piecemeal measurements used to back pre-existing conclusions.
I downloaded a video from the NIST website of their burning steel test and none of their videos showed melting steel, it would seem their tests failed.
Did their tests include a 110-story building falling on top of said steel?
NIST was trying to prove that fire caused the collapse, they ignored all other theories in their investigation, and even though there investigation was not conclusive they sold it to you anyway.
Hehe...they didn't "sell it to me". They simply presented a case that is far more conclusive than anything else out there.
Here's the problem....a lot of people seem to suffer from Intelligent Designism on this issue. They think that if they could just disprove one theory, somehow that will prove another. If, tomorrow, we find out that Darwin was wrong it doesn't make the ID people right. The same holds true on 9/11.
If by this what you're saying is that there are different ways the same facts can be interpreted, I agree wholeheartedly.
Actually, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are different ways facts can be ignored. Furthermore, I'm saying that disproving one theory cannot prove another.
Intelligent Design and 9/11 conspiracy theories are perfectly fine in the context of theory. Pretty much everything posited by both is plausible. But that doesn't mean it's true. The same goes for the "official" 9/11 story. However, that story takes many steps past theory that the others do not.
I could tell you that moon men took down the WTC and, again, it would be completely plausible. However, it's highly unlikely that my moon men and other's NWO and still other's Al Qaeda all happened to play a direct role in the events. Furthermore, if I disprove both the NWO and Al Qaeda stories, I do nothing to back up my case for moon men.
There is one right answer to what happened on that day. And I doubt it involved moon men or thermate.
When it comes down to theories, a theory is a theory. You may have one preference, another person may have a different preference.
Sure. People can prefer whatever theory they choose. But when it comes to conclusions and persuasion, preferences matter not in the face of facts.
Actually, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are different ways facts can be ignored.
Intelligent Design and 9/11 conspiracy theories are perfectly fine in the context of theory. Pretty much everything posited by both is plausible. But that doesn't mean it's true.
I could tell you that moon men took down the WTC and, again, it would be completely plausible. However, it's highly unlikely that my moon men and other's NWO and still other's Al Qaeda all happened to play a direct role in the events.
There is one right answer to what happened on that day. And I doubt it involved moon men or thermate.
Sure. People can prefer whatever theory they choose. But when it comes to conclusions and persuasion, preference matter not in the face of facts.
My issue is with the fact that scientists are just as susceptible to bias as others -- people believe what they want to believe. Scientists have been known to distort information due to inner filters in place that will cause them to not accept the obvious due to bias. With an issue that is this huge, most people have huge preconceptions going in. Scientists try to deny bias or emotional slant, so that concerns me a whole lot in any case, because denial is denial. I certainly don't know one way or the other. Obviously the truth is the truth, but again, because you side with the scientists who have the most support, or because you compare this scenario with intelligent design is quite irrelevent to the facts and the truth in the framing of said facts.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Actually, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are different ways facts can be ignored. Furthermore, I'm saying that disproving one theory cannot prove another.
Let's not forget the relevence of disproving any incorrect theory.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Or is it because you cant explain that the wtc was the first 3 steel buildings to collapse due to fire?
Yeah, I can, and you say 'collapse due to fire' as if there was no other damage to the buildings that day. I seem to remember two fully fueled jumbo jets slammed into these buildings also and the third sustained major damage due to debris from the other two.
Maybe you should go on Roxdogs radio show and there wouldnt be all these threads.
Roxdog had his chance to debate right here and he refused.
Yeah, I can, and you say 'collapse due to fire' as if there was no other damage to the buildings that day. I seem to remember two fully fueled jumbo jets slammed into these buildings also and the third sustained major damage due to debris from the other two.
Roxdog had his chance to debate right here and he refused.
No, he did debate. But you were too much of a pussy to debate with many people listening to you. One plane flew into each. If it was to fall from that it wouldnt have fell like that. Each of floors wouldnt have gave way like a controlled demolition. What was the fire shooting out of the windows from each floor from when it was falling?
How do you know that someone just decided 9/11 was an inside job and then just went digging for info to make it true? Just because it's something you may not choose to believe doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened or that people who do believe just want to make it true somehow. I know that I personally didn't want to believe it at first myself...it was just too scary of a thought for me to deal with. I took the stance that although some of the stuff didn't add up, it was all proabably explainable. Then I started to read more and more and couldn't ignore it, I had too many questions, there were obvious lies and when there are lies I can no longer give benefit of the doubt as I had before. Even at this point I was still to weary of posting info here because of all the bashing that goes on, the looney comments, and refusal of people to look into it and take it seriously. So I would just allow others for the most part to post and try to discuss these things because of my thin skin and worry of what others here may think of me (I don't want to be called crazy or ridiculous, just as no one else does). Now I 'm just seeing too much info and well thought out work and studies coming out...the evidence it getting way too overwhelming for me to not put my neck on the line and stand behind what I believe. I don't want to think I'm crazy or easily led...I know that I'm not, so when I decide to believe something even if it's only a small group who are behind it...I'm gonna support it and trust in myself that I am standing up for what I believe to be true no matter what treatment i may recieve because of it...it's important and deserves attention. You can think what you will but I also think it says a lot when someone completely dismisses all facts in order to keep their current view of the world intact. What is it really saying when no matter how much evidence is presented, one still just looks over it and goes for the easy insult of another's intellegence or sanity?
Yes!!!! Longwinded, but YES!!! It's not an easy position to take, and although I was recently surprised when I overheard 3 of my co-workers express their support for what we call '9/11 Truth', its generally not you bring up voluntarily in public. Even from the safety of an internet message board, its not fun being attacked verbally. Its really really not fun living with the idea that your government doesn't give a shit if you live or die, and will do anything to stay in power. So I very much understand why people don't want to accept it.
Of course you and I found many reasons to be against Bush before this 9/11 theory came about. Honestly, the first time I heard the man speak one sentence, I could tell he was full of shit, just by his mannerisms and tone of voice. Later during his campaign for President, it was the argument put against him by Ralph Nader, not Al Gore, that highlighted just what a nasty son of a bitch he was... not to mention his murdering, theiving friends in corporate and government offices (which are basically one in the same). And thanks also to Ralph for showing how the Clintons and many other high-profile Democrats were no better, except I guess for being in favor of upping the minimum wage from shit... to shit with sprinkles on top.
So I admit, I thought the Bush administration was up to no good when they took office. Excuse me for paying attention. But when those towers came down, the thought never entered my head that the government might be involved in some way. Honestly. OK, yes I did think that they had helped fan the flames of Islamic-based terrorism, but that's it. And there's no doubt many radical Muslims are happy about 9/11. But I've seen too much to think that the story of 9/11 is as simple as a small group of fanatics thinking that blowing up some buildings will bring justice.
Here's one website a person could spend a whole day mulling over:
It does make sense, and would be a brilliant move on the part of the conspirators, that they would propagate false theories regarding their own conspiracy, which they could then shoot down and make it appear that all of the theories about their conspiracy seem foolish.
Or to put it another way: "Lots of conspiracy theories are bogus, but rejecting them all just because of how they're framed is not wise. The way it is today, a gang of conspirators could get away with anything: they just need to start an Internet rumor of what they just did, framing it as a conspiracy theory, and anyone who tries to talk about it will be ignored." Source
Of all the theorists, I think Michael Ruppert and David Ray Griffin are the most sensible.
Alex Jones, however, is a nut. A raving Christian fundamentalist lunatic, a shameless self-promoter, with a hard-edged libertarian agenda. That said, some of what he says does make sense, but overall its hard to take what he says seriously. His site, infowars.com, was actually my first exposure to the 9/11 conspiracy theory, so I credit him with that, but the 9/11 truth movement is not going to gain much credit with leaders like him.
Were you reading the same thread I was? He refused to debate in here. He wanted me to go on his Art Bell/Alex Jones wannabe show.
Nice. Show me one person I didn't debate in that thread.
I was talking about his show. I was reading the 69charger thread. The one were you ignored all the questions you coulnt answer. Or insulted the people instead of answering
My issue is with the fact that scientists are just as susceptible to bias as others -- people believe what they want to believe. Scientists have been known to distort information due to inner filters in place that will cause them to not accept the obvious due to bias. With an issue that is this huge, most people have huge preconceptions going in. Scientists try to deny bias or emotional slant, so that concerns me a whole lot in any case, because denial is denial. I certainly don't know one way or the other. Obviously the truth is the truth, but again, because you side with the scientists who have the most support, or because you compare this scenario with intelligent design is quite irrelevent to the facts and the truth in the framing of said facts.
Ok. How is this any more relevant to my posts than another's? Or is that only some scientists are "susceptible to bias" while those who promote alternative theories are not???
Ok. How is this comment any more applicable to my posts than another's?
You were the only person who said: "...I'm saying that disproving one theory cannot prove another."
And you were the only person who said: "Here's the problem....a lot of people seem to suffer from Intelligent Designism on this issue. They think that if they could just disprove one theory, somehow that will prove another. If, tomorrow, we find out that Darwin was wrong it doesn't make the ID people right. The same holds true on 9/11."
What it looks like to me is that you are trying to associate "conspiracy" theories on 911 with intelligent design so that the theory you oppose will have two negative connotations to it--one being the "conspiracy" part and the other being the "irrational" intelligent design slant. And really, what I hear with your argument, besides that it is still irrelevant to the facts, is that it doesn't hold up because there is relevence to proving an incorrect theory incorrect.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You were the only person who said: "...I'm saying that disproving one theory cannot prove another."
Do you disagree with this? Do you think disproving one theory can prove another?
Certainly disproving a theory is relevant to that theory's merits. But it is irrelevant to the merits of another based on different premises.
And you were the only person who said: "Here's the problem....a lot of people seem to suffer from Intelligent Designism on this issue. They think that if they could just disprove one theory, somehow that will prove another. If, tomorrow, we find out that Darwin was wrong it doesn't make the ID people right. The same holds true on 9/11."
Do you disagree with this? If Darwin is proven wrong tomorrow, does ID suddenly become right?
What it looks like to me is that you are trying to associate "conspiracy" theories on 911 with intelligent design so that the theory you oppose will have two negative connotations to it--one being the "conspiracy" part and the other being the "irrational" intelligent design slant. And really, what I hear with your argument, besides that it is still irrelevant to the facts, is that it doesn't hold up because there is relevence to proving an incorrect theory incorrect.
Angelica, the official 9/11 story is a "conspiracy theory" in that the theory revolves around the conspiracy of 19 Arab hijackers and their associates. Just because something is a "conpiracy theory" doesn't make it wrong.
Intelligent design is not "irrational" in its core beliefs. It is irrational in its methods. Disproving Darwin cannot prove Intelligent Design. Disproving the "official" 9/11 story cannot prove an alternative case.
Regardless, little here disproves the official case. It is perfectly fine and valid to ask questions -- there are many unanswered questions from that day. But to frame a question in the form of a conclusion is completely backwards.
Ok. How is this any more relevant to my posts than another's? Or is that only some scientists are "susceptible to bias" while those who promote alternative theories are not???
This is relevent to your post because you are slipping in the "majority rules" framework on your argument. It looks like you are saying in effect that if you point to that Ahnimus' backing source is not accepted by colleagues that it makes his points (Ahnimus' and his source's points) less relevent. Technically, while a "majority rules" type of socially ostracising method works by undermining the validity of a particular views social acceptance, it has little to do with the facts or the "whodunnit" in the matter.
Considering the "majority rules" arguments are....well....the majority here and in life, I think its a good idea to recognise that social ostracisation associated with theories can actually prolongue real understanding (edit: I mean lack of understanding) of the truth. And I think it's a good idea for us to not get lost in the smokescreen effects.
Both sides have underlying premises which may or may not be true. If we are going by the logic built on top of our respective premises, how is it that we are going to come to see the truth? Isn't it rather that either side is going to come to see their own perception of what they believe is the truth? And if that's the case, more power to everyone.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
This is relevent to your post because you are slipping in the "majority rules" framework on your argument. It looks like you are saying in effect that if you point to that Ahnimus' backing source is not accepted by colleagues that it makes his points (Ahnimus' and his source's points) less relevent. Technically, while a "majority rules" type of socially ostracising method works by undermining the validity of a particular views social acceptance, it has little to do with the facts or the "whodunnit" in the matter.
I don't care about the opinion of some vague "majority". I care about the opinions of those who are knowledgeable of the science involved in the case. Steven Jones is not a structural engineer. That doesn't make him wrong, but it does mean much in the face of Ahnimus's "apparently proven" language when his colleagues knowledgeable in the applicable sciences have reviewed the work and unanimously rejected it.
Considering the "majority rules" arguments are....well....the majority here and in life, I think its a good idea to recognise that social ostracisation associated with theories can actually prolongue real understanding of the truth. And I think it's a good idea for us to not get lost in the smokescreen effects.
Honestly I don't care about "social ostracisation". People are free to offer theories and others are free to reject them based on the merits of those theories. I have no inherent obligation to embrace poor theory just because the man who posits it wishes to be "accepted".
Both sides have underlying premises which may or may not be true. If we are going by the logic built on top of our respective premises, how is it that we are going to come to see the truth? Isn't it rather that either side is going to come to see their own perception of what they believe is the truth? And if that's the case, more power to everyone.
More power to everyone??? Agreed! I respect anyone's right here to offer theories. And I'll hold those theories to the same standards. That's equal power to everyone.
Comments
Ok, well first of all, his other theories don't matter, this is the case in point. Scientists can be wrong on one thing and right on another. Or maybe he is right or wrong on both. However, in the NIST report it does admit they found sulphur in the steal which could not be explained. Sulphur could only get into the steal by fission, which implies explosives. The EPA also reported high levels of air contaminants that are indicative of explosive pulverization.
The evidence that explosives were used in the WTC buildings is enormous. It's difficult not to believe that explosives were used. All the videos of Prof. Jones I have seen indicate to me that he didn't want to believe either.
I say it's perfectly appropriate to pass on information or any source one sees fit.
If someone wants to call out a contradiction and confront her with it, fine.
If you want to call it "substituting 'reality' for another persons 'reality" you're entitled to your assessment. At the same time, other people and their complex motivations are not realistically defined by such assessments.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
if there's something specific you would like to know, i've found a real good way of finding out...YOU ASK. can you point to anything where our views were shrouded in mystery? where you've asked us what our world view is and got no reply? what was asked that you never received a reply to?
i looked up just 'wtc7' and found 11 threads i replied in. that doesn't seem like it's any divine secret knowledge.
you can keep saying no one answers questions you never ask instead of debating the topic all you want. it seems to be your tactic; bring up personal matters instead of debating the topic.
and btw, a list like this was requested before
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I know your "views," I was just speaking in terms of specifics. What, in terms of specifics, would you do to respond to militant islamic groups? What in specific, would you do to improve surveillence while at the same time protecting civil liberties? These are the specific questions I'm referring to when I say it's like "pulling teeth."
But I obviously have missed a lot and admit that I haven't read all of your posts, so if you ever have directly addressed these questions, I appologize (no sarcasm
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
For the last time....I was asked for sources. I don't know why I bother sometimes.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I have stated before that our foreign policy causes the tension we hold with these groups. I think we should quit funding and encouraging the violence in the area if we really want it to stop. But I think that's the last thing our govt actually wants, there's simply no money in it. Once again, all this has already been stated before.
I don't think we need more surveilence. They are watching us (especially dissenters) not the supposed muslim boogeymen.
Good enough for ya? Anything I may have left out. Should I restate every point I've point I've ever posted here? Over 5,000 post with nothing but links and articles, I guess.
My favorite color is green.
I know shit about you expect for your flare for starting petty fights. So how about, you let's all hear your 'world views'.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
lol, I just thought of something. I might have to agree with Bush some day, if he ever actually says anything I agree with.
hmmm...i must've missed the posts where you laid bare all your world views and your thoughts on surveilence...<sigh> why must i have to like decipher your world view, man? :rolleyes:
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Certainly the validity of one theory has no bearing on the validity of another unrelated theory. However, it sheds much light on the man proposing the theories. To suggest that Christ appeared in S America following the resurrection is fine, but one must then demostrate that a) Christ was resurrected and then b) Christ had the means to travel to America (not too tough if you can prove a.). The fact that such "minor details" are not touched on sheds much light into Jones's approach as a scientist: a hearty mix of faith and fact.
His 9/11 theories suffer in a likewise fashion. They require someone to plant the explosives, of course. For that, there is no evidence. They require the explosive itself, for which there is very little evidence. Traditional demolition explosives would not have taken down the WTC in the fashion we all witnessed. Thermite would have been used and the evidence of its use would likely have been witnessed by every TV camera and person on the ground.
Again, plausible does not mean actual.
Wow. See, this is the silliness that these sites are spreading.
Sulfur is commonly found in gunpowers and explosives. This is a big deal to your consipiracy spreaders. This, they say, is proof and then they highlight the NIST's "inability" to explain it.
However, those same conspiracy theorists ignore some important facts:
1) Sulfur explosives could not be used alone to bring down the WTC towers without using so much equipment as to completely blow up the building. Controlled demolitions of steel skyscrapers are done with thermite or similar compounds that "cut", rather than explode. Certainly sulfur is evident as part of these reactions, but the use of thermite creates additional byproducts not measured on 9/11.
2) Sulfur is contained in every living cell. Your body is full of the stuff. Much of the sulfur measured at WTC is likely from the 2,000 burning bodies killed on that day.
Furthermore, the single FEMA report so often "quoted" simply highlights the existence as an oddity and offers possible explanations:
"It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."
It is not "enormous". It is non-existent. Not a single explosive can be pointed to. Not a single explosive planter can be named. Not a single definitive sign of explosive use can be highlighted.
It is not that I "don't want to believe". I could care less whether 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists or the government. Most people here would attest that I see little difference between terrorists and the government.
i have to admit, that's a pretty good reply
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Yea, actually the explosive theory is equally as solid as the fire theory. But at least the explosive theory is closer to real physics than fire. Sulphur from burning bodies can not get into the steal. Look up sulphurization of steal. I did because I wanted to know how it would get in there, and on a physics website (totally unrelated to 9/11) it explained how the sulphur would have to be forced into it by a lot of energy.
Thermite, isn't exactly what Jones says was used. He says thermate was used which is thermite spiked with sulphur as thermite doesn't have sulphur in it, and if it does, it's called thermate. Thermate has a lot hotter and larger explosion.
Thermate isn't the only theory either. The EPA and NIST reported Tritium in the air at ground zero. Tritium isn't used in many things, not to produce detectable levels, let alone high levels. Some watches use Tritium particulary Gaseous Tritium watches that cost roughly $500 ea. not too many people have them. Weapon laser sights can use tritium and some signs and hand railings. However neither organization can account for the sulphur or the tritium without wide speculation. They have provided absolutely zero evidence of their origins. Oh, I should add tritium is used in FGNs (Fourth Generation Nukes). Don't think of FGNs as the traditional nuclear bomb, they are completely different in radioactivity and explosive power. Tritium is radioactive but is relatively harmless to humans and it's half-life is merely 12.5 days.
The main thing here, is that people can't be convinced that kerosene brought the buildings down. We know kerosene burns at 1000 degrees less than the temperature steel melts at. And that's untreated steel, the steel used in WTC were fire proofed. They went a bit further and said the plane knocked the fire-proofing off. They also said that a massive fire ball flew down the elevator shaft and exploded in the lobby when they were questioned about the damage to the lobby reported by fire-fighters. The official theory is nothing but speculation. I downloaded a video from the NIST website of their burning steel test and none of their videos showed melting steel, it would seem their tests failed. NIST was trying to prove that fire caused the collapse, they ignored all other theories in their investigation, and even though there investigation was not conclusive they sold it to you anyway.
In terms of theoretical possibility, sure. In terms of the evidence we have from the events of 9/11, not even close.
Both are very much dependent on "real physics".
A "lot of energy", huh? What do you think you get when a 110 story structure collapses on itself?
Ever see thermite burn?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OotM5Z4ZHRc&search=thermate
Now imagine enough of that to eat through 50 steel columns. And imagine the evidence that type of burn leaves behind. We're talking about clear-cuts through steel, not bent and molten steel
This one I've never heard. Tritium is often found in the atmosphere and it's created (I believe) as a product of sunlight and certain gasses. If you're proposing a nuclear device at WTC, you're going to have to explain a whole lot of other things, however. Can you point to the Tritium measurements as a start?
No one is trying to convince them of that. Kerosene is not jet fuel, friend. Your conspiracy theorists forgot that jet fuel and kerosene are not the same.
That's true. The official theory is nothing but speculation since so much information is unavailable. However, the official theory uses quite a bit of the available information to come to conclusions, rather than just piecemeal measurements used to back pre-existing conclusions.
Did their tests include a 110-story building falling on top of said steel?
Hehe...they didn't "sell it to me". They simply presented a case that is far more conclusive than anything else out there.
Here's the problem....a lot of people seem to suffer from Intelligent Designism on this issue. They think that if they could just disprove one theory, somehow that will prove another. If, tomorrow, we find out that Darwin was wrong it doesn't make the ID people right. The same holds true on 9/11.
If by this what you're saying is that there are different ways the same facts can be interpreted, I agree wholeheartedly.
When it comes down to theories, a theory is a theory. You may have one preference, another person may have a different preference.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Actually, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are different ways facts can be ignored. Furthermore, I'm saying that disproving one theory cannot prove another.
Intelligent Design and 9/11 conspiracy theories are perfectly fine in the context of theory. Pretty much everything posited by both is plausible. But that doesn't mean it's true. The same goes for the "official" 9/11 story. However, that story takes many steps past theory that the others do not.
I could tell you that moon men took down the WTC and, again, it would be completely plausible. However, it's highly unlikely that my moon men and other's NWO and still other's Al Qaeda all happened to play a direct role in the events. Furthermore, if I disprove both the NWO and Al Qaeda stories, I do nothing to back up my case for moon men.
There is one right answer to what happened on that day. And I doubt it involved moon men or thermate.
Sure. People can prefer whatever theory they choose. But when it comes to conclusions and persuasion, preferences matter not in the face of facts.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yeah, I can, and you say 'collapse due to fire' as if there was no other damage to the buildings that day. I seem to remember two fully fueled jumbo jets slammed into these buildings also and the third sustained major damage due to debris from the other two.
Roxdog had his chance to debate right here and he refused.
Were you reading the same thread I was? He refused to debate in here. He wanted me to go on his Art Bell/Alex Jones wannabe show.
Nice. Show me one person I didn't debate in that thread.
Yes!!!! Longwinded, but YES!!! It's not an easy position to take, and although I was recently surprised when I overheard 3 of my co-workers express their support for what we call '9/11 Truth', its generally not you bring up voluntarily in public. Even from the safety of an internet message board, its not fun being attacked verbally. Its really really not fun living with the idea that your government doesn't give a shit if you live or die, and will do anything to stay in power. So I very much understand why people don't want to accept it.
Of course you and I found many reasons to be against Bush before this 9/11 theory came about. Honestly, the first time I heard the man speak one sentence, I could tell he was full of shit, just by his mannerisms and tone of voice. Later during his campaign for President, it was the argument put against him by Ralph Nader, not Al Gore, that highlighted just what a nasty son of a bitch he was... not to mention his murdering, theiving friends in corporate and government offices (which are basically one in the same). And thanks also to Ralph for showing how the Clintons and many other high-profile Democrats were no better, except I guess for being in favor of upping the minimum wage from shit... to shit with sprinkles on top.
So I admit, I thought the Bush administration was up to no good when they took office. Excuse me for paying attention. But when those towers came down, the thought never entered my head that the government might be involved in some way. Honestly. OK, yes I did think that they had helped fan the flames of Islamic-based terrorism, but that's it. And there's no doubt many radical Muslims are happy about 9/11. But I've seen too much to think that the story of 9/11 is as simple as a small group of fanatics thinking that blowing up some buildings will bring justice.
Here's one website a person could spend a whole day mulling over:
http://www.oilempire.us/state.html
It does make sense, and would be a brilliant move on the part of the conspirators, that they would propagate false theories regarding their own conspiracy, which they could then shoot down and make it appear that all of the theories about their conspiracy seem foolish.
Or to put it another way: "Lots of conspiracy theories are bogus, but rejecting them all just because of how they're framed is not wise. The way it is today, a gang of conspirators could get away with anything: they just need to start an Internet rumor of what they just did, framing it as a conspiracy theory, and anyone who tries to talk about it will be ignored." Source
Of all the theorists, I think Michael Ruppert and David Ray Griffin are the most sensible.
Alex Jones, however, is a nut. A raving Christian fundamentalist lunatic, a shameless self-promoter, with a hard-edged libertarian agenda. That said, some of what he says does make sense, but overall its hard to take what he says seriously. His site, infowars.com, was actually my first exposure to the 9/11 conspiracy theory, so I credit him with that, but the 9/11 truth movement is not going to gain much credit with leaders like him.
Where? I've answered pretty much every question thrown my way. There are other threads out there. Have you learned how to use the search function yet?
Ok. How is this comment any more applicable to my posts than another's? Or is there only "relevance of disproving any official theory"?
Ok. How is this any more relevant to my posts than another's? Or is that only some scientists are "susceptible to bias" while those who promote alternative theories are not???
You were the only person who said: "...I'm saying that disproving one theory cannot prove another."
And you were the only person who said: "Here's the problem....a lot of people seem to suffer from Intelligent Designism on this issue. They think that if they could just disprove one theory, somehow that will prove another. If, tomorrow, we find out that Darwin was wrong it doesn't make the ID people right. The same holds true on 9/11."
What it looks like to me is that you are trying to associate "conspiracy" theories on 911 with intelligent design so that the theory you oppose will have two negative connotations to it--one being the "conspiracy" part and the other being the "irrational" intelligent design slant. And really, what I hear with your argument, besides that it is still irrelevant to the facts, is that it doesn't hold up because there is relevence to proving an incorrect theory incorrect.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Do you disagree with this? Do you think disproving one theory can prove another?
Certainly disproving a theory is relevant to that theory's merits. But it is irrelevant to the merits of another based on different premises.
Do you disagree with this? If Darwin is proven wrong tomorrow, does ID suddenly become right?
Angelica, the official 9/11 story is a "conspiracy theory" in that the theory revolves around the conspiracy of 19 Arab hijackers and their associates. Just because something is a "conpiracy theory" doesn't make it wrong.
Intelligent design is not "irrational" in its core beliefs. It is irrational in its methods. Disproving Darwin cannot prove Intelligent Design. Disproving the "official" 9/11 story cannot prove an alternative case.
Regardless, little here disproves the official case. It is perfectly fine and valid to ask questions -- there are many unanswered questions from that day. But to frame a question in the form of a conclusion is completely backwards.
This is relevent to your post because you are slipping in the "majority rules" framework on your argument. It looks like you are saying in effect that if you point to that Ahnimus' backing source is not accepted by colleagues that it makes his points (Ahnimus' and his source's points) less relevent. Technically, while a "majority rules" type of socially ostracising method works by undermining the validity of a particular views social acceptance, it has little to do with the facts or the "whodunnit" in the matter.
Considering the "majority rules" arguments are....well....the majority here and in life, I think its a good idea to recognise that social ostracisation associated with theories can actually prolongue real understanding (edit: I mean lack of understanding) of the truth. And I think it's a good idea for us to not get lost in the smokescreen effects.
Both sides have underlying premises which may or may not be true. If we are going by the logic built on top of our respective premises, how is it that we are going to come to see the truth? Isn't it rather that either side is going to come to see their own perception of what they believe is the truth? And if that's the case, more power to everyone.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I don't care about the opinion of some vague "majority". I care about the opinions of those who are knowledgeable of the science involved in the case. Steven Jones is not a structural engineer. That doesn't make him wrong, but it does mean much in the face of Ahnimus's "apparently proven" language when his colleagues knowledgeable in the applicable sciences have reviewed the work and unanimously rejected it.
Honestly I don't care about "social ostracisation". People are free to offer theories and others are free to reject them based on the merits of those theories. I have no inherent obligation to embrace poor theory just because the man who posits it wishes to be "accepted".
More power to everyone??? Agreed! I respect anyone's right here to offer theories. And I'll hold those theories to the same standards. That's equal power to everyone.