Faith and the Church of JREF 9/11 Debunking

[Homeland Insurgency]

Claiming the FBI or anyone else for that matter has evidence identifying the four flights on 9/11 without actually seeing that evidence is faith not debunking.

Asserting that individuals who are claimed to have hijacked planes on 9/11 were positively identified without any DNA match done to family members in the same manner the 9/11 victims were identified is faith not debunking.

Proclaiming there is hard evidence against Bin Laden for his involvement in 9/11 without being able to cite that evidence is faith not debunking.

Preaching that the WTC fires were hot enough to compromise steel just because NIST says so without providing any tests to demonstrate that assertion is faith not debunking.

Believing that some liars told the truth for the first time in history when it came to 9/11 is having faith in miracles not debunking.

Quoting from a book like it is gospel where the very authors of that book now claim the book was a product of an obstructed investigation is not even faith. It’s denial.

Having to show up to church here everyday coming up with all kinds of elaborate excuses to explain away all of the first time in history events to keep your faith in miracles alive is just plain sad.

But if your dogma gives you piece of mind… who am I to put it down?

[Corsair 115]

Now if only you applied the same rigorous demands for absolute proof from those preaching that 9/11 was a conspiracy committed by the U.S. government/NWO/whomever.

I doubt, however, that you will.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Claiming the FBI or anyone else for that matter has evidence identifying the four flights on 9/11 without actually seeing that evidence is faith not debunking.

Asserting that individuals who are claimed to have hijacked planes on 9/11 were positively identified without any DNA match done to family members in the same manner the 9/11 victims were identified is faith not debunking.

Proclaiming there is hard evidence against Bin Laden for his involvement in 9/11 without being able to cite that evidence is faith not debunking.

Preaching that the WTC fires were hot enough to compromise steel just because NIST says so without providing any tests to demonstrate that assertion is faith not debunking.

Believing that some liars told the truth for the first time in history when it came to 9/11 is having faith in miracles not debunking.

Quoting from a book like it is gospel where the very authors of that book now claim the book was a product of an obstructed investigation is not even faith. It’s denial.

Having to show up to church here everyday coming up with all kinds of elaborate excuses to explain away all of the first time in history events to keep your faith in miracles alive is just plain sad.

But if your dogma gives you piece of mind… who am I to put it down?

Hmmmm... better get back under the bridge - Big Billy Goat Gruff will be along soon.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Now if only you applied the same rigorous demands for absolute proof from those preaching that 9/11 was a conspiracy committed by the U.S. government/NWO/whomever.

I doubt, however, that you will.

I didn't say I knew that to be true either. Your conspiracy theory isn't better then any other one.

[Redtail]

I didn't say I knew that to be true either. Your conspiracy theory isn't better then any other one.

Other than all of that pesky evidence.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Other than all of that pesky evidence.

I gave you a list. Point it out.

[mrbaracuda]

There's a church? Why am I not the leader yet? Screw you, NWO!

[Redtail]

I gave you a list. Point it out.I find this to be a pretty comprehensive gathering of evidence.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home?authtoken=7cc4bb0a34f9b3beb19a513be64903cdf94 03d9e#Main%20links%20section

[Homeland Insurgency]

There's a church? Why am I not the leader yet? Screw you, NWO!

You're in it right now. Please remove your hat and refrain from any other obscenities.

[WildCat]

This is what the truth movement is reduced to nowadays - mindless trolling.

[Homeland Insurgency]

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home?authtoken=7cc4bb0a34f9b3beb19a513be64903cdf94 03d9e#Main%20links%20section

Oh please. Asserting what eyewitnesses really meant when they said what they said is just so evangelical.

[Homeland Insurgency]

This is what the truth movement is reduced to nowadays - mindless trolling.

Point by point anytime you like debunker. Or are you just trolling?

[Redtail]

Oh please. Asserting what eyewitnesses really meant when they said what they said is just so evangelical.

Wow... you really didn't look at that page did you?

[Pardalis]

I didn't say I knew that to be true either. Your conspiracy theory isn't better then any other one.

Then what are you doing here?

[mrbaracuda]

You're in it right now. Please remove your hat and refrain from any other obscenities.

Doesn't feel like a church. :mad:
I want mah church of debunkahs now!

[Homeland Insurgency]

Wow... you really didn't look at that page did you?

No I don't click on links. I know how it can be used. I see googlepages and I think Gravy. In any case I asked you not googlepages to go point by point.

wow

[enrique]

Claiming the FBI or anyone else for that matter has evidence identifying the four flights on 9/11 without actually seeing that evidence is faith not debunking.

Asserting that individuals who are claimed to have hijacked planes on 9/11 were positively identified without any DNA match done to family members in the same manner the 9/11 victims were identified is faith not debunking.


HI. With all due respect. Isn't it true that if you say that the "9/11 victims were identified" you're also saying that there is evidence of the flights? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Then what are you doing here?

Looking for someone to point out just how they know the truth about 9/11.

Thats all.

[Homeland Insurgency]

HI. With all due respect. Isn't it true that if you say that the "9/11 victims were identified" you're also saying that there is evidence of the flights? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you.

Oh certainly. I believe that the victims existed. I don't believe anyone anywhere has identified what crashed where and how.

[Pardalis]

Looking for someone to point out just how they know the truth about 9/11.

Thats all.

But that is not all is it?

If none of the hypothesis are better than the other, then why do you favor one over the other, which you clearly do?

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh look, there are twits on the internet who demand things be proven to them because they make unrealistic demands in order to maintain their religion.

Unless the FBI, the NTSB, the CIA, and everyone else involved comes to my home and presents evidence that I can touch, it does not meet my criteria. Yes I know all this stuff was used in a court of law and held up, but I wasn't invited to the trials so unless my demands are met, my baseless theories become correct.

And we wonder why people like Homeland Insurgency do nothing but type on the internet and are pretty much unknown to the media or authorities....

[enrique]

Claiming the FBI or anyone else for that matter has evidence identifying the four flights on 9/11 without actually seeing that evidence is faith not debunking.

Asserting that individuals who are claimed to have hijacked planes on 9/11 were positively identified without any DNA match done to family members in the same manner the 9/11 victims were identified is faith not debunking.


HI. With all due respect. Isn't it true that if you say that the "9/11 victims were identified" you're also saying that there is evidence of the flights? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you.

[beachnut]

I gave you a list. Point it out.
Short and sweet. You got nothing.

All your ideas have been debunked. You are as fact less as you are evidence free. Therefore your ideas on 9/11 are baseless.
After 6 years, if you are going to present something, stop presenting the same old lies and fantasies. Become an individual thinker and find something new, even if you have to make it up like all the old fantasies you have on 9/11.

Understanding 9/11 truth ideas are lies or a fantasies takes individual thinking. Your problem is everyone here is a skeptic of your ideas, and have proven your ideas false a long time ago.

This is a place to exercise your skepticism, but you use blindly accept lies and fantasies of 9/11 truth and have no clue you are wrong. Examine your evidence, you don't have any.

[Civilized Worm]

Believing that some liars told the truth for the first time in history when it came to 9/11 is having faith in miracles not debunking.


So the US government are a race of Bizarro creatures who always say the opposite of what they mean? Wow.

[uk_dave]

Point by point anytime you like debunker. Or are you just trolling?
Why?

What does it matter what you do or don't think?

The world is turning and life goes on. The 'truth' movement is one comprehensive fail in the grand scheme of things.

There once was a time where they raised some interesting points, to do with eyewitness testimony and un-corroborated news reports in far flung newspapers, but each and every 'ruther' fantasy has been shown to have a more plausible real world explanation.

Everything from.....

Can 'truthers' provide 100% proof that the wtc towers couldn't have collapsed through impact and fire damage from the plane crashes?

Can 'truthers' provide 100% proof that a handful of eyewitnesses accurately recollect what they saw at the pentagon when compared to the majority of witness reports and forensic evidence?

Can 'truthers' provide 100% proof that a 42 storey building left on fire for a period of time far exceeding any certification of fireproofing material should not have collapsed?

Can 'truthers' provide 100% proof that islamic terrorists who have carried out attacks on US embassies in africa, a warship off the coast of yemen and a truck bomb in new york, and who have provided video confessions of their involvement and incitement to carry out furth atrocities, are non-existent?

Can 'truthers' provide 100% proof that a plane didn't crash in shanksville, including an explanation for how relatives of the passengers were fooled into beleiving that those relative were on that plane

Can 'truthers' provide 100% proof that they are not delusional and inclined to believe that contrails are some weird chemical plot, that all jews are not to be trusted, that any time anyone anywhere says "explosion" it means a bomb, that people are fantastic at estimating height, speed and direction after a traumatic event but are terrible at remembering whether a plane actually hit a building.

etc etc

[Homeland Insurgency]

So the US government are a race of Bizarro creatures who always say the opposite of what they mean? Wow.

No I don't believe the government is superman. Maybe there a superhero forum here for you somewhere?

[Jonnyclueless]

Claiming the FBI or anyone else for that matter has evidence identifying the four flights on 9/11 without actually seeing that evidence is faith not debunking.

We have seen the evidence and it HAS been pointed out. Taking an issue about the documentation of the METHODS is being dishonest. As to be expected from someone promoting "truth".

Asserting that individuals who are claimed to have hijacked planes on 9/11 were positively identified without any DNA match done to family members in the same manner the 9/11 victims were identified is faith not debunking.

Why don't you go check the family members DNA? No one is stopping you. But perhaps you could tell us what testing family members DNA would even do? Also, to sit here and pretend that the DNA is the only evidence connecting the hijackers to the crime is again dishonest. As to be expected from you.

Proclaiming there is hard evidence against Bin Laden for his involvement in 9/11 without being able to cite that evidence is faith not debunking.

The evidence HAS been cited. It's hard facts. To sit there and pretend some mystery people who you cannot name and whom you can provide no evidence to incriminate is faith.

Preaching that the WTC fires were hot enough to compromise steel just because NIST says so without providing any tests to demonstrate that assertion is faith not debunking.

Are you high? Just because they say so? Just because 10,000 page report detailing all the testing and evidence and mathematics for all to see is just faith? Are you on dope? The fact that you claim there were no tests would classify you in the same category as the loony bin.

Believing that some liars told the truth for the first time in history when it came to 9/11 is having faith in miracles not debunking.

Ah, the usual mindless rhetoric. Please prove these were lies. And please explain how that proves your baseless fantasies.

Quoting from a book like it is gospel where the very authors of that book now claim the book was a product of an obstructed investigation is not even faith. It’s denial.

Once again with the mindless rhetoric and propaganda. How shameless and dishonest a liar you are. You are showing the perfect example of faith, that's for sure. And your bible is ae911truth.org, prisonplanet, etc etc.

Having to show up to church here everyday coming up with all kinds of elaborate excuses to explain away all of the first time in history events to keep your faith in miracles alive is just plain sad.

Coming up with idiotic arguments of rhetoric like this shows you are just a sore looser that can't back his claims and religious 9/11 cult beliefs up.

But if your dogma gives you piece of mind… who am I to put it down?

You are only putting yourself down and pretty much outlining the entire fraud and dishonesty of your own cult.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Why?

What does it matter what you do or don't think?

The world is turning and life goes on. The 'truth' movement is one comprehensive fail in the grand scheme of things.

There once was a time where they raised some interesting points, to do with eyewitness testimony and un-corroborated news reports in far flung newspapers, but each and every 'ruther' fantasy has been shown to have a more plausible real world explanation.

Everything from.....

Can 'truthers' provide 100% proof that the wtc towers could have collapsed through impact and fire damage from the plane crashes?

Can 'truthers' provide 100% proof that a handful of eyewitnesses accurately recollect what they saw at the pentagon when compared to the majority of witness reports and forensic evidence?

Can 'truthers' provide 100% proof that a 42 storey building left on fire for a period of time far exceeding any certification of fireproofing material should not have collapsed?

Can 'truthers' provide 100% proof that islamic terrorists who have carried out attacks on US embassies in africa, a warship off the coast of yemen and a truck bomb in new york, and who have provided video confessions of their involvement and incitement to carry out furth atrocities, are non-existent?

Can 'truthers' provide 100% proof that a plane didn't crash in shanksville, including an explanation for how relatives of the passengers were fooled into beleiving that those relative were on that plane

Can 'truthers' provide 100% proof that they are not delusional and inclined to believe that contrails are some weird chemical plot, that all jews are not to be trusted, that any time anyone anywhere says "explosion" it means a bomb, that people are fantastic at estimating height, speed and direction after a traumatic event but are terrible at remembering whether a plane actually hit a building.

etc etc

No and neither can you. That's why a real investigation was needed. At least one that's not obstructed or relies on far reaching speculation. Maybe it's too late now but that doesn't mean the only one you got to date is the truth.

[Grizzly Bear]

................................... :\ (http://kevinchiu.org/emote/facepalm.jpg)

Nothing like seeing some things intentionally downplayed and others over emphasized...

[Pardalis]

Who is best qualified to investigate AQ than the secret service?

Who is best qualified to investigate the collapses than NIST?

Who is best qualified to analyze DNA fragments than the state pathologists?

[Homeland Insurgency]

We have seen the evidence and it HAS been pointed out. Taking an issue about the documentation of the METHODS is being dishonest. As to be expected from someone promoting "truth".


Why don't you go check the family members DNA? No one is stopping you. But perhaps you could tell us what testing family members DNA would even do? Also, to sit here and pretend that the DNA is the only evidence connecting the hijackers to the crime is again dishonest. As to be expected from you.



The evidence HAS been cited. It's hard facts. To sit there and pretend some mystery people who you cannot name and whom you can provide no evidence to incriminate is faith.



Are you high? Just because they say so? Just because 10,000 page report detailing all the testing and evidence and mathematics for all to see is just faith? Are you on dope? The fact that you claim there were no tests would classify you in the same category as the loony bin.



Ah, the usual mindless rhetoric. Please prove these were lies. And please explain how that proves your baseless fantasies.



Once again with the mindless rhetoric and propaganda. How shameless and dishonest a liar you are. You are showing the perfect example of faith, that's for sure. And your bible is ae911truth.org, prisonplanet, etc etc.



Coming up with idiotic arguments of rhetoric like this shows you are just a sore looser that can't back his claims and religious 9/11 cult beliefs up.



You are only putting yourself down and pretty much outlining the entire fraud and dishonesty of your own cult.

You and your post there are the poster boy for this thread. Congratulations.

[Homeland Insurgency]

................................... :\ (http://kevinchiu.org/emote/facepalm.jpg)

Nothing like seeing some things intentionally downplayed and others over emphasized...

Like what? What gives you faith?

[mrbaracuda]

................................... :\ (http://kevinchiu.org/emote/facepalm.jpg)

Woah, dude, why waste a double-palm on HI? Seriously. Know your standards.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Who is best qualified to investigate AQ than the secret service?

Who is best qualified to investigate the collapses than NIST?

Who is best qualified to analyze DNA fragments than the state pathologists?

Ok. So where is it? The evidence? Point by point.

[Redtail]

No I don't click on links. I know how it can be used. I see googlepages and I think Gravy. In any case I asked you not googlepages to go point by point.

wow

Ok... since you don't click on links and therefore there isn't any point in citing any refutation of the points you made, and I doubt you'll just take our word for it, what is the point?

BTW: What's wrong with Gravy? He just put together a list of articles, studies, debunking sites, etc... to refute the idiocy of CTers.

[Pardalis]

Ok.

So we agree that the people who worked on the investigations are the proper authorities on the matter.

Good.

What is your beef again?

ETA: I'd also like to see you answer Enrique's question.

[e^n]

I gave you a list. Point it out.

Ok, lets start with the most obvious one
Preaching that the WTC fires were hot enough to compromise steel just because NIST says so without providing any tests to demonstrate that assertion is faith not debunking.
NIST provided tests to demonstrate this. Therefore you are wrong.

a couple of others to make this post more substantive:

Believing that some liars told the truth for the first time in history when it came to 9/11 is having faith in miracles not debunking.
Doesn't even make sense, who could possibly tell only lies?

Proclaiming there is hard evidence against Bin Laden for his involvement in 9/11 without being able to cite that evidence is faith not debunking.
Videos, confessions and interviews with third parties are not enough for you? I can cite all of these. Can you cite anything that would contradict them, or are you just going to argue 'fatty bin laden'?

[8den]

Looking for someone to point out just how they know the truth about 9/11.

Thats all.

A terrorist organisation called Al Qaeda has existed since the 90s. The evidence of their idealogical lead attacks are extensive. They have attempted to destroy the WTC in 1993. Ramzi Youef who organised the attack is a relative of Bin Laden's right hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri. The evidence of Al Qaeda's existence is overwhelming. They weren't funded by the CIA, they were financed by wealthy Saudis. I'd recommended Jason Burke's "Al Qaeda" as a primer for a history of the organisation.

On September 11th Planes hit the pentagon, the WTC and crashed into a field near Shanksville. The evidence from eyewitnesses and video, is irrefutable, to anyone but the most deluded idiots.

As to claims the WTC or WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition in the better part of a decade that has occured since 9/11, not a single theory has been put forward that is accepted (and by accepted I'm not talking about .001%) of the architects, civil engineers, demolition experts, or even the FDNY around the world.

For two years now, I've been expecting something coherent from the "alternative theorists" a rational logical clearly laid out explanation of how they think things went down that awful day.


So H.I. are you going to "man up" and provide an alternative theory you support or are you just JAQing off*




*Hey by the threads cropping up at the moment we're going old school with the same tedious BS, I figure we too can go back to old
catchphrases.

[Grizzly Bear]

Like what? What gives you faith?

What faith? What faith are you implying I have? I'm athiest.

Woah, dude, why waste a double-palm on HI? Seriously. Know your standards.
You're right, that was giving him too much credit. :o

[mrbaracuda]

You're right, that was giving him too much credit. :o

That out of the way, here, use the single-palm (http://c.imagehost.org/0025/picard-no-facepalm.jpg). :)

[Confuseling]

If you're not interested in following links, answer this simple question:

Why don't nations hostile to American power's engineers, intelligence services, universities and so forth speak out? What is stopping China, or Iran, for example, from pointing out the lack of evidence that 9/11 was committed by Al Qaeda? The irregularities in the investigation? The evidence of a cover up? What would they possibly lose, when they have so much to gain?

ETA: crossposted with 8den asking much the same thing. But really HI, is there a rational explanation?

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm

[johnny karate]

I'd like to reiterate the question put to HI by Confuseling and 8den. If our "religion" is so blatantly faith-based, why isn't there a single professional investigator or law enforcement official anywhere on the planet that has pointed this out? Why haven't any of them discerned and/or revealed that 9/11 was an inside job?

[stateofgrace]

I didn't say I knew that to be true either. Your conspiracy theory isn't better then any other one.

And your theory is..........................................?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Ok... since you don't click on links and therefore there isn't any point in citing any refutation of the points you made, and I doubt you'll just take our word for it, what is the point?

BTW: What's wrong with Gravy? He just put together a list of articles, studies, debunking sites, etc... to refute the idiocy of CTers.


I gave a list and I'm asking you or anyone else who wants to respond with what you know to be the truth based on what. I'm not asking gravy unless he wants to show up or googlepages I'm asking you. Did Gravy or googlepages do the official version or do they only cite the official version?

[Homeland Insurgency]

And your theory is..........................................?

Why do I need one?

[stateofgrace]

Why do I need one?

Do I need one?

[Homeland Insurgency]

I'd like to reiterate the question put to HI by Confuseling and 8den. If our "religion" is so blatantly faith-based, why isn't there a single professional investigator or law enforcement official anywhere on the planet that has pointed this out? Why haven't any of them discerned and/or revealed that 9/11 was an inside job?

You need to do more research and when you find some you need to do more then just claim they are crazy based on you and your faith.

[Homeland Insurgency]

If you're not interested in following links, answer this simple question:

Why don't nations hostile to American power's engineers, intelligence services, universities and so forth speak out? What is stopping China, or Iran, for example, from pointing out the lack of evidence that 9/11 was committed by Al Qaeda? The irregularities in the investigation? The evidence of a cover up? What would they possibly lose, when they have so much to gain?

ETA: crossposted with 8den asking much the same thing. But really HI, is there a rational explanation?

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm

You need to do more research. Just claiming something hasn't happened when plenty here including you have witnessed as much is just more denial. And if it is pointed out to you or you find it on your own you need to do more then just dismiss it based on your faith.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Ok, lets start with the most obvious one

NIST provided tests to demonstrate this. Therefore you are wrong.

No they did not you are wrong unless you can....

Doesn't even make sense, who could possibly tell only lies?

Show something they've been questioned on where they told the absolute truth.


Videos, confessions and interviews with third parties are not enough for you? I can cite all of these. Can you cite anything that would contradict them, or are you just going to argue 'fatty bin laden'?

Yes no indictment.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Do I need one?

If you claim to know the truth then yes you do.

[Confuseling]

Whoah there nelly! You're claiming that foreign powers believe that America committed 911? Which ones?

Lemme guess... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. On his own. Having failed to incite any of the significant resources of Iran to attempt to bear that belief out.

[parky76]

HD- what is the point of this thread?

[stateofgrace]

No they did not you are wrong unless you can....



Show something they've been questioned on where they told the absolute truth.




Yes no indictment.

Really ?

MADRID, Spain (AP) — Spain's leading investigating judge issued the first known indictment against Osama bin Laden in the Sept. 11 attacks on Wednesday, accusing al-Qaeda of using the country as a base to plot the devastating strikes on New York and Washington.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-17-spain-alqaeda_x.htm

[Homeland Insurgency]

A terrorist organisation called Al Qaeda has existed since the 90s. The evidence of their idealogical lead attacks are extensive. They have attempted to destroy the WTC in 1993. Ramzi Youef who organised the attack is a relative of Bin Laden's right hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri. The evidence of Al Qaeda's existence is overwhelming. They weren't funded by the CIA, they were financed by wealthy Saudis. I'd recommended Jason Burke's "Al Qaeda" as a primer for a history of the organisation. On September 11th Planes hit the pentagon, the WTC and crashed into a field near Shanksville. The evidence from eyewitnesses and video, is irrefutable, to anyone but the most deluded idiots. Is to claims the WTC or WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition in the better part of a decade that has occured since 9/11, not a single theory has been put forward that is accepted (and by accepted I'm not talking about .001%) of the architects, civil engineers, demolition experts, or even the FDNY around the world. For two years now, I've been expecting something coherent from the "alternative theorists" a rational logical clearly laid out explanation of how they think things went down that awful day.


So H.I. are you going to "man up" and provide an alternative theory you support or are you just JAQing off*




*Hey by the threads cropping up at the moment we're going old school with the same tedious BS, I figure we too can go back to old
catchphrases.

What if I did and you debunked it? Would you win by default because you and your friends say so?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Really ?



http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-17-spain-alqaeda_x.htm

Oh please. I mean a real one right here in the country where the crime was committed. What are you trying to do start a NWO derail?

[stateofgrace]

If you claim to know the truth then yes you do.

I am waiting for a “researcher” like you to enlighten me, feel free.

Your narrative will surely follow.:rolleyes:

[Confuseling]

Spanish indictments aren't real now? Does that sound a teensy bit racist to you HI?

Which countries agree with you HI? List them.

[stateofgrace]

Oh please. I mean a real one right here in the country where the crime was committed. What are you trying to do start a NWO derail?

Oh, I see, so it was only Americans that were attacked were it?

Are Spain wrong to indict UBL?

Please explain why.

[stateofgrace]

Spanish indictments aren't real now? Does that sound a teensy bit racist to you HI?

Which countries agree with you HI? List them.

Maybe these countries HI ?


The Interpol General Assembly, meeting in Budapest from 24 to 28 September 2001 at its 70th session:
RECALLING the murderous attacks perpetrated against the world’s citizens in the United States of America on 11 September 2001,
SHOCKED by the loss of and injury to thousands of innocent lives from over 80 countries, including scores of police officers, firefighters and other public servants called to the scene to aid those in need,
DETERMINED that this abhorrent violation of law and of the standards of human decency must be condemned by every civilized person,
CONSCIOUS of our special responsibility as upholders of the laws of almost every nation of the world,
BEARING IN MIND the consistent record of Interpol at past General Assembly sessions in opposing all acts of terrorism, most recently at the 67th session in Cairo (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN67/Resolutions/AGN67RES12.asp) (1998) and the 68th session in Seoul (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN68/Resolutions/AGN68RES2.asp) (1999),
CONDEMNS these attacks as cold-blooded mass murder;
CONSIDERS that they constitute a crime against humanity;
COMMENDS the General Secretariat for its swift and decisive response to the 11 September tragedy in establishing an immediate and permanent 24-hour capability to respond to all Interpol member countries’ needs;
HONOURS the memory of the law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency workers and private citizens who selflessly gave their lives to save others;
SHARES in the grief of all those who have been touched by this tragedy and other tragedies caused by terrorism;
REITERATES its unwavering commitment to the 'Cairo Declaration against Terrorism' (AGN/67/RES/12 (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN67/Resolutions/AGN67RES12.asp)) and calls for enhanced international police and judicial collaboration to tackle terrorism and organized crime more effectively, for example by exploring all opportunities to co-ordinate legal, judicial and operational approaches;
EMPHASIZES the importance of making full use of the services available through Interpol to secure the arrest of fugitive offenders, to improve information sharing between member countries, to develop analysis of the threat more effectively and to facilitate the timely sharing of good practice;
REQUESTS that the General Secretariat afford the highest priority to the issuance of Interpol Red Notices for terrorist offenders whose arrest is sought by member countries and to accelerate the creation of an international database of counterfeit, forged and stolen identity documents;
URGES member countries to develop robust systems for the monitoring of suspicious financial transactions linked to terrorist activities in order to improve the ability of competent authorities to freeze such assets and so disrupt the funding of terrorism;
SOLEMNLY PLEDGES that the Organization and each of its Members endorsing the present resolution will collaborate without reservation, to the fullest extent permitted by law, in identifying every individual who assisted in committing these acts and bringing those who were responsible for them to justice.

Adopted.


http://www.interpol.int/public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN70/Resolutions/AGN70RES5.asp

All part of the NWO?

Why don't you get in touch with the 160 countries that made this solemn pledge?

[Hokulele]

Spanish indictments aren't real now? Does that sound a teensy bit racist to you HI?

Which countries agree with you HI? List them.


The amusing thing about this is that if another country (say, North Korea) came up with evidence that explosives were involved in the WTC collapses, the Truth Movement would be all over it.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Oh, I see, so it was only Americans that were attacked were it?

Are Spain wrong to indict UBL?

Please explain why.

Spain can do whatever they want in their little gesture to show commitment to the US and the war on terror.

Just don't be expecting them to track him down and catch him. Although I'm sure if he does get caught and is sent to Spain for a conviction on the crime of 9/11 then I'm sure some will not see it for what it really is. Or isn't. Spain isn't ruled by the US constitution is it?

[johnny karate]

You need to do more research and when you find some you need to do more then just claim they are crazy based on you and your faith.

Oh, I see how it works. You make constant demands of evidence to be provided by debunkers, but you aren't held to the same standard. You can make an implication and then tell me it's my job to research its veracity.

I defy you to point to a single professional investigator or law enforcement official anywhere that has discerned and/or revealed 9/11 to be an inside job. Good luck with that.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Maybe these countries HI ?



http://www.interpol.int/public/ICPO/GeneralAssembly/AGN70/Resolutions/AGN70RES5.asp

All part of the NWO?

Why don't you get in touch with the 160 countries that made this solemn pledge?

Where is the evidence against Bin Laden mentioned there? What is a terrorist while you are at it? How about someone who thinks Shock and Awe is warranted against civilians?

[e^n]

No they did not you are wrong unless you can....
Read the NIST report, their tests and test results are there.

Show something they've been questioned on where they told the absolute truth.
Define 'they' and I will answer your question.

Yes no indictment.
You've been shown to be wrong on this point, and moved the goalposts.

[stateofgrace]

Spain can do whatever they want in their little gesture to show commitment to the US and the war on terror.

Just don't be expecting them to track him down and catch him. Although I'm sure if he does get caught and is sent to Spain for a conviction on the crime of 9/11 then I'm sure some will not see it for what it really is. Or isn't. Spain isn't ruled by the US constitution is it?

So they are wrong to indict UBL for 911? Yes or no?

[8den]

What if I did and you debunked it? Would you win by default because you and your friends say so?


What? What if provided an alternative hypothesis for the destruction of the WTC?

Great. Lay it out.

What you are trying to suggest is , "what if I was like, Galileo, and everyone just laughed at me.

Homeland you are in the 2st century, I was just having a pint with a student from a recent graduate of a civil engineering school of several hundred.

We're literally producing tens of thousands of new architects and civil engineers, a year ever year.

Richard Gage has got under "500" Engineers on board, and his veto process is so flimsy that I signed up to A&E for 911 truth organisation as a "Professor Hupert J Farnsworth". So you'll forgive my scepticism.

So H.I. would you be willing to put forward a rational coherent theory as to what happened on 911?

[Confuseling]

So, right, Spain, those darn lapdogs. Along with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba.

Pretty much the 52nd - 58th states, eh?

[stateofgrace]

Where is the evidence against Bin Laden mentioned there? What is a terrorist while you are at it? How about someone who thinks Shock and Awe is warranted against civilians?

Why don't you ask them? Why doesn't your "movement” ask 160 countries who made a solemn pledge to bring to justice all those involved, ask?

Why don't YOU get in touch and ask?

WHY?

[parky76]

I think, we should just stop feeding this troll. Let him go back to LC where he belongs.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Oh, I see how it works. You make constant demands of evidence to be provided by debunkers, but you aren't held to the same standard. You can make an implication and then tell me it's my job to research its veracity.

Why should I be? You are the one who claims to know the truth about 9/11 based on faith. I don't claim as much.

I defy you to point to a single professional investigator or law enforcement official anywhere that has discerned and/or revealed 9/11 to be an inside job. Good luck with that.

I've been defying you this whole thread and all you can come up with is that because there hasn't been a real investigation then you and your faith should be enough. Well then good luck with your faith.

[Confuseling]

which other countries agree with you?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Why don't you ask them? Why doesn't your "movement” ask 160 countries who made a solemn pledge to bring to justice all those involved, ask?

Why don't YOU get in touch and ask?

WHY?

160 countries looking for Bin Laden and he is no where to be found. Nor is any evidence from any of these 160 countries linking Bin Laden to 9/11.

But don't worry you still have your faith.

[stateofgrace]

Why don't you ask them? Why doesn't your "movement” ask 160 countries who made a solemn pledge to bring to justice all those involved, ask?

Why don't YOU get in touch and ask?

WHY?

Maybe you have not got the link to ask...........here it is.

http://www.interpol.int/

Go ahead,ask them, ask Interpol.

[Grizzly Bear]

Why should I be? You are the one who claims to know the truth about 9/11 based on faith. I don't claim as much.



I've been defying you this whole thread and all you can come up with is that because there hasn't been a real investigation then you and your faith should be enough. Well then good luck with your faith.

Just a question, have you ever bothered to read a single book related to construction and architecture to satisfy any of your curiosity regarding the faults you find in NIST? Could you point out the characteristics which NIST faults on in regard to architectural and engineering aspects of the event?

I'd be interested in what you have to say, to date not one CT has either read one such publication, or has answered this question at all.

What do you coin people who did not draw their conclusion about collapse of the towers using the NIST report as the primary research material?

[Homeland Insurgency]

which other countries agree with you?

All of the countries that have no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. Have you not been listening?

[stateofgrace]

160 countries looking for Bin Laden and he is no where to be found. Nor is any evidence from any of these 160 countries linking Bin Laden to 9/11.

But don't worry you still have your faith.

So their solemn pledge is worthless?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Just a question, have you ever bothered to read a single book related to construction and architecture to satisfy any of your curiosity regarding the faults you find in NIST? Could you point out the characteristics which NIST faults on in regard to architectural and engineering aspects of the event?

I'd be interested in what you have to say, to date not one CT has either read one such publication, or has answered this question at all.

What do you coin people who did not draw their conclusion about collapse of the towers using the NIST report as the primary research material?

Well just a question. Have you pointed to where NIST showed any of their fire tests reached the temperature needed to compromise steel in the way they claim caused the collapse of any of the WTC buildings on 9/11? Or do you just have faith that they did?

[stateofgrace]

All of the countries that have no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. Have you not been listening?

These guys are one of those 160 countries..............


MADRID, Spain (AP) — Spain's leading investigating judge issued the first known indictment against Osama bin Laden in the Sept. 11 attacks on Wednesday, accusing al-Qaeda of using the country as a base to plot the devastating strikes on New York and Washington


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-17-spain-alqaeda_x.htm

So Spain are wrong to indict him and the US are wrong not to indict him, right?

[Travis]

160 countries looking for Bin Laden and he is no where to be found

Ever hear of Eric Rudolph?


Nor is any evidence from any of these 160 countries linking Bin Laden to 9/11.

You know this because you have seen the cumulative intelligence of all these 160 countries on every subject and can therefore verify that none of them have provided evidence implicating Bin Laden? Or, perhaps, you are just assuming this? That would be very ironic considering the threads theme.


But don't worry you still have your faith.

Perhaps you can save the moderators extra work by just starting these threads in AAH.

[johnny karate]

Why should I be? You are the one who claims to know the truth about 9/11 based on faith. I don't claim as much.

I've been defying you this whole thread and all you can come up with is that because there hasn't been a real investigation then you and your faith should be enough. Well then good luck with your faith.

Translation: I'm dodging your question because it is inconvenient to my ideology. Here, have some more bile-filled rhetoric.

[Homeland Insurgency]

So their solemn pledge is worthless?

Their pledge to what? Produce the evidence?

[Myriad]

If Mohammed won't go to the mountain of evidence, the mountain of evidence must go to Mohammed.

... Or not. Mohammed could just remain ignorant and irrelevant, as the inevitable natural cost of refusing to examine evidence that isn't spoon-fed to him.

Yeah, I think I know which one's going to happen.

It's too bad, though. By missing the point of what skepticism and critical thinking are all about, people like HI make their world very small.

Here's how. Let's start with the idea that the world is a very large place. There are many things happening, many things that have happened, vast numbers of people and places and things and events, most of which each of us will never see first-hand.

Thanks to the technologies of our time, old and new, we nonetheless have the opportunity to know many more things than we can possibly observe or learn about first-hand. We can read journalists' reports of political issues in countries across the world. We can read historians' accounts of things that happened hundreds of years ago. We can view video of things happening in outer space. We can view photographs of objects too far away to be seen without an enormous telescope. We can use equations discovered by others to understand the behavior of particles too small for anyone to have ever seen. We can use the services of experts like doctors and engineers who can solve problems for us that we could not solve with our own personal knowledge and skills.

But there's a problem: what if those indirect sources are unreliable? What if the historian is just making things up, or altering the narrative for political purposes? What if the news photograph is faked? What if the doctor is incompetent?

Critical thinking and skepticism are the answer.

Since the way critical thinking and skepticism function is by filtering out bad information, it's perhaps an easy mistake to make to conclude that that's what they're for. But if all we wanted to do was filter out bad information, we could easily accomplish that by disregarding all information except the miniscule amount we are able to verify first-hand. We could, in short, all be like some Truthers, and refuse to believe that any airplane passengers died at the Pentagon unless we ourselves see the DNA test results. (Oops, not good enough, they could have been faked, so we'll have to see the charred bodies. Oops, not good enough, they could be different bodies, so we have to have watched them actually die before our eyes. But we weren't there to watch that, so it will have to remain a mystery to us, like just about everything else in the world as we reject everything outside our very very tiny range of personal observation.)

What critical thinking and skepticism are for is giving us a reasonably reliable basis to place our trust, conditionally and wisely, in indirect sources of information. This allows us to maximize our understanding of a very large world with a very deep history, at minimum risk of being harmed by errors and lies.

How we actually do that, step by step, is a large subject about which whole books and courses have been written. Generally speaking, we look for information consistent with well-verified scientific principles (unlike the impossible maneuvers hypothesized by PFT or the silent demolitions suggested by Jones), information that fits into a coherent narrative that makes logical sense (unlike the vague or self-contradictory narratives that truthers reluctantly offer), information that is verified by multiple independent sources (unlike the wild accounts of GZ countdowns or Pentagon fly-overs offered on truther sites), information that other critical thinkers are willing to stake money, reputations, and other valuable things on (unlike the truthers who are unwilling to act on what they claim to believe), information from sources that have been reliable in the recent past (unlike truthers who have demonstrably lied repeatedly and who refuse to correct proven errors), and yes, thrown into the mix, information consistent with what we can verify ourselves (unlike nearly every truther allegation of interest that I've been able to check on).

For example, there are people on this site who claim to be engineers, and who claim to calculate certain results from certain models of structural collapses. I cannot verify that they are engineers, and I cannot verify that all of their calculations are correct because some of what they do is beyond my working knowledge. However, I can and do repeat some of their calculations, and verify that they are correct. This makes me more willing to trust those people's results that I cannot verify for myself.

If on the other hand it turned out they tried to fool me about the simpler stuff, I would catch it and reveal their deception to others who perhaps could not detect it for themselves. If they tried to fool me on more complex stuff I can't verify myself, it's very likely that someone else who knows more than I do about the subject would catch it and reveal the deception to me. In order for my trust in this process to be misplaced, it would have to be the case that everyone more knowledgeable than me about that subject is lying. Without evidence, there is no reason to entertain such a paranoid notion.

Without verification my trust would be foolish, but without trust my verification would be useless, because I can only verify a tiny fraction of what I'm told. The interaction of trust and verification that comprises critical thinking is cumulative, because once I trust someone else's ability and willingness to convey accurate information, I can also take advantage of their ability to verify the accuracy, and eventually the trustworthiness, of third parties whose expertise I cannot verify myself, and so forth. Worlds of information are thereby opened up to me.

It also works the other way: when I attempt to verify something I can verify for myself and find that it's erroneous or deliberately deceptive, like Balsamo's "11G" descent path calculation, I know not to trust that source. Furthermore I know not to trust other sources who trust Balsamo as a source, and so forth. Whole networks of error and attempted deception are rendered harmless to me.

People like HI can go ahead and think I'm a fool for trusting, for example, in the ability of the world's press to notice, investigate, and report shortcomings in the official "story" that are anywhere near as clearly evidenced or as obvious as truthers claim they are. But in fact, systems based on multiple independent agents vying for individual advantage tend to be very robust and reliable, and far more difficult to subvert than an organized hierarchy. That's why it's much harder to stop a rumor from spreading than it is to intercept a UPS package delivery. Given my willingness to trust the entire world's press to collectively exhibit a modicum of competence at its fundamental business, the plausibility of trusting theorists whose narratives require that the entire world's press lacks that competence is correspondingly reduced.

If my purpose for using critical thinking and skepticism were to avoid ever being deceived on any matter at any cost even if mystically all-powerful organizations with implausible resources were out there focusing absurd efforts on deceiving me personally about relatively unimportant matters, then perhaps I might join HI and his ilk in regarding any trust in any information source whatsoever as unjustified faith. I might advocate endless investigations of 9/11 and then refuse to draw any reasonable conclusions from any of them. I might doubt there's dust on the moon if I can't go there and see it for myself. I might doubt that the FBI has any evidence of Osama Bin Laden's culpability for 9/11, or that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. I might doubt that Bin Laden, or for that matter George W. Bush, actually exist in the first place, or that my wife spends all those hours every day at work rather than in a secret cave full of ninjas plotting my demise.

But that's not my purpose. The reason I use critical thinking and skepticism is to place my trust as reliably as possible, so that I can know as much about the world as possible.

Well-justified trust is not a failure of skepticism. It's its intended result.

Well-justified trust is not a failure of critical thinking. It's the avenue for its rewards.

Calling that "faith" merely shows that HI doesn't get the point. The result of that is that his world is much smaller and contains vastly less truth than mine.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Grizzly Bear]

Well just a question. Have you pointed to where NIST showed any of their fire tests reached the temperature needed to compromise steel in the way they claim caused the collapse of any of the WTC buildings on 9/11? Or do you just have faith that they did?
Answer my question and I will gladly respond to the question you responded with. A simple yes or no, and if possible the titles of your references. I can suggest a few for you to look into as well if you've explored no such publications. In the mean time, you can also tell me which tests you are referring to, the simulations, or the physical tests?

[stateofgrace]

Their pledge to what? Produce the evidence?

WTF?

Can you read? Read the resolution for goodness sake..

[Homeland Insurgency]

Ever hear of Eric Rudolph?

Ever hear of Richard Jewell?

You know this because you have seen the cumulative intelligence of all these 160 countries on every subject and can therefore verify that none of them have provided evidence implicating Bin Laden? Or, perhaps, you are just assuming this? That would be very ironic considering the threads theme.

No what I'm claiming is everything you claim to be the truth is an assumption unless you can show otherwise.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Answer my question and I will gladly respond to the question you responded with. A simple yes or no, and if possible the titles of your references. I can suggest a few for you to look into as well if you've explored no such publications. In the mean time, you can also tell me which tests you are referring to, the simulations, or the physical tests?

I don't claim to know the truth you do. Produce it.

[Homeland Insurgency]

WTF?

Can you read? Read the pledge for goodness sake..

WTF? WTF is right. Do you have any evidence to refute anything in my OP or not?

[Jonnyclueless]

WTF? WTF is right. Do you have any evidence to refute anything in my OP or not?


Seeing as you have ignored all the ones so far, why would you start reading any now?

[stateofgrace]

WTF? WTF is right. Do you have any evidence to refute anything in my OP or not?


I don't know what happened to you, but I do remember having a rational debate with you a while ago. Clearly that has gone.

Goodbye.

[Alareth]

* Alareth grabs some popcorn and watches the puppet show

[Totovader]

I don't claim to know the truth you do. Produce it.

What a ridiculous statement.

You do claim to know the "truth"- in your fantasy narrative, none of the evidence is allowed, all these countries are blind, and attacking an entire forum of people in an attempt to start a flame war is an appropriate substitute for a well-thought rebuttal.

It's just far more comfortable for you to play ignorant so you can float in some ambiguous middle ground where there "is no evidence" and you "know nothing" except that you will then turn around and pretend to know just enough to demand a "new investigation".

Do you really think anyone buys that? It's been tried before- by many before you.

[Homeland Insurgency]

If Mohammed won't go to the mountain of evidence, the mountain of evidence must go to Mohammed.

... Or not. Mohammed could just remain ignorant and irrelevant, as the inevitable natural cost of refusing to examine evidence that isn't spoon-fed to him.

Yeah, I think I know which one's going to happen.

It's too bad, though. By missing the point of what skepticism and critical thinking are all about, people like HI make their world very small.

Here's how. Let's start with the idea that the world is a very large place. There are many things happening, many things that have happened, vast numbers of people and places and things and events, most of which each of us will never see first-hand.

Thanks to the technologies of our time, old and new, we nonetheless have the opportunity to know many more things than we can possibly observe or learn about first-hand. We can read journalists' reports of political issues in countries across the world. We can read historians' accounts of things that happened hundreds of years ago. We can view video of things happening in outer space. We can view photographs of objects too far away to be seen without an enormous telescope. We can use equations discovered by others to understand the behavior of particles too small for anyone to have ever seen. We can use the services of experts like doctors and engineers who can solve problems for us that we could not solve with our own personal knowledge and skills.

But there's a problem: what if those indirect sources are unreliable? What if the historian is just making things up, or altering the narrative for political purposes? What if the news photograph is faked? What if the doctor is incompetent?

Critical thinking and skepticism are the answer.

Since the way critical thinking and skepticism function is by filtering out bad information, it's perhaps an easy mistake to make to conclude that that's what they're for. But if all we wanted to do was filter out bad information, we could easily accomplish that by disregarding all information except the miniscule amount we are able to verify first-hand. We could, in short, all be like some Truthers, and refuse to believe that any airplane passengers died at the Pentagon unless we ourselves see the DNA test results. (Oops, not good enough, they could have been faked, so we'll have to see the charred bodies. Oops, not good enough, they could be different bodies, so we have to have watched them actually die before our eyes. But we weren't there to watch that, so it will have to remain a mystery to us, like just about everything else in the world as we reject everything outside our very very tiny range of personal observation.)

What critical thinking and skepticism are for is giving us a reasonably reliable basis to place our trust, conditionally and wisely, in indirect sources of information. This allows us to maximize our understanding of a very large world with a very deep history, at minimum risk of being harmed by errors and lies.

How we actually do that, step by step, is a large subject about which whole books and courses have been written. Generally speaking, we look for information consistent with well-verified scientific principles (unlike the impossible maneuvers hypothesized by PFT or the silent demolitions suggested by Jones), information that fits into a coherent narrative that makes logical sense (unlike the vague or self-contradictory narratives that truthers reluctantly offer), information that is verified by multiple independent sources (unlike the wild accounts of GZ countdowns or Pentagon fly-overs offered on truther sites), information that other critical thinkers are willing to stake money, reputations, and other valuable things on (unlike the truthers who are unwilling to act on what they claim to believe), information from sources that have been reliable in the recent past (unlike truthers who have demonstrably lied repeatedly and who refuse to correct proven errors), and yes, thrown into the mix, information consistent with what we can verify ourselves (unlike nearly every truther allegation of interest that I've been able to check on).

For example, there are people on this site who claim to be engineers, and who claim to calculate certain results from certain models of structural collapses. I cannot verify that they are engineers, and I cannot verify that all of their calculations are correct because some of what they do is beyond my working knowledge. However, I can and do repeat some of their calculations, and verify that they are correct. This makes me more willing to trust those people's results that I cannot verify for myself.

If on the other hand it turned out they tried to fool me about the simpler stuff, I would catch it and reveal their deception to others who perhaps could not detect it for themselves. If they tried to fool me on more complex stuff I can't verify myself, it's very likely that someone else who knows more than I do about the subject would catch it and reveal the deception to me. In order for my trust in this process to be misplaced, it would have to be the case that everyone more knowledgeable than me about that subject is lying. Without evidence, there is no reason to entertain such a paranoid notion.

Without verification my trust would be foolish, but without trust my verification would be useless, because I can only verify a tiny fraction of what I'm told. The interaction of trust and verification that comprises critical thinking is cumulative, because once I trust someone else's ability and willingness to convey accurate information, I can also take advantage of their ability to verify the accuracy, and eventually the trustworthiness, of third parties whose expertise I cannot verify myself, and so forth. Worlds of information are thereby opened up to me.

It also works the other way: when I attempt to verify something I can verify for myself and find that it's erroneous or deliberately deceptive, like Balsamo's "11G" descent path calculation, I know not to trust that source. Furthermore I know not to trust other sources who trust Balsamo as a source, and so forth. Whole networks of error and attempted deception are rendered harmless to me.

People like HI can go ahead and think I'm a fool for trusting, for example, in the ability of the world's press to notice, investigate, and report shortcomings in the official "story" that are anywhere near as clearly evidenced or as obvious as truthers claim they are. But in fact, systems based on multiple independent agents vying for individual advantage tend to be very robust and reliable, and far more difficult to subvert than an organized hierarchy. That's why it's much harder to stop a rumor from spreading than it is to intercept a UPS package delivery. Given my willingness to trust the entire world's press to collectively exhibit a modicum of competence at its fundamental business, the plausibility of trusting theorists whose narratives require that the entire world's press lacks that competence is correspondingly reduced.

If my purpose for using critical thinking and skepticism were to avoid ever being deceived on any matter at any cost even if mystically all-powerful organizations with implausible resources were out there focusing absurd efforts on deceiving me personally about relatively unimportant matters, then perhaps I might join HI and his ilk in regarding any trust in any information source whatsoever as unjustified faith. I might advocate endless investigations of 9/11 and then refuse to draw any reasonable conclusions from any of them. I might doubt there's dust on the moon if I can't go there and see it for myself. I might doubt that the FBI has any evidence of Osama Bin Laden's culpability for 9/11, or that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. I might doubt that Bin Laden, or for that matter George W. Bush, actually exist in the first place, or that my wife spends all those hours every day at work rather than in a secret cave full of ninjas plotting my demise.

But that's not my purpose. The reason I use critical thinking and skepticism is to place my trust as reliably as possible, so that I can know as much about the world as possible.

Well-justified trust is not a failure of skepticism. It's its intended result.

Well-justified trust is not a failure of critical thinking. It's the avenue for its rewards.

Calling that "faith" merely shows that HI doesn't get the point. The result of that is that his world is much smaller and contains vastly less truth than mine.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I have a list in my OP. Go point by point and source your evidence. I already know you have faith. Show me your evidence.

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't claim to know the truth you do. Produce it.
What is your "truth" then given you have not acknowledged reading any such material to verify the integrity of the NIST report research subjects? I've read several books pertaining to construction, steel, and structures in order to come to the opinion I have. NIST served as secondary research material to me. If the NIST is fallacious but corroborated by the many available publications made directly by teams of engineers, and similar, does that imply too much "faith" in the material they publish?

What is your opinion?

[Homeland Insurgency]

What a ridiculous statement.

You do claim to know the "truth"- in your fantasy narrative, none of the evidence is allowed, all these countries are blind, and attacking an entire forum of people in an attempt to start a flame war is an appropriate substitute for a well-thought rebuttal.

It's just far more comfortable for you to play ignorant so you can float in some ambiguous middle ground where there "is no evidence" and you "know nothing" except that you will then turn around and pretend to know just enough to demand a "new investigation".

Do you really think anyone buys that? It's been tried before- by many before you.

I sincerely don't know what happened on 9/11 based on any official investigation done to date or anything claimed to have been debunked here at JREF. I want to know how you know.

[Confuseling]

I sincerely don't know what happened on 9/11 based on any official investigation done to date or anything claimed to have been debunked here at JREF. I want to know how you know.

Read Myriad's post.

[Homeland Insurgency]

What is your "truth" then given you have not acknowledged reading any such material to verify the integrity of the NIST report research subjects? I've read several books pertaining to construction, steel, and structures in order to come to the opinion I have. NIST served as secondary research material to me. If the NIST is fallacious but corroborated by the many available publications made directly by teams of engineers, and similar, does that imply too much "faith" in the material they publish?

What is your opinion?

My opinion is that it is disputed by experts in the same fields as experts who endorse it. You would have a hard time finding someone who endorses the government version who isn't connected to the government.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Read Myriad's post.

Myraids post is faith.

[Confuseling]

Did you read it? Really? No porkies or Santa won't come.

My opinion is that it is disputed by experts in the same fields as experts who endorse it. You would have a hard time finding someone who endorses the government version who isn't connected to the government.

Like these guys?

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm

[Homeland Insurgency]

* Alareth;4013677 grabs some popcorn and watches the puppet show

It's interesting for you isn't it? Me? I'm bored.

[Myriad]

I have a list in my OP. Go point by point and source your evidence. I already know you have faith. Show me your evidence.


The list in your OP is a list of false assertions.

You want me to provide evidence for your false assertions? Sorry, I decline.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Ragnarok]

Why don't nations hostile to American power's engineers, intelligence services, universities and so forth speak out? What is stopping China, or Iran, for example, from pointing out the lack of evidence that 9/11 was committed by Al Qaeda? The irregularities in the investigation? The evidence of a cover up? What would they possibly lose, when they have so much to gain?


This is about the strongest rational, as opposed to scientific answer I have come across, but even this can be countered when you take into account compartmentalisation, plausible deniability, and the fact that they probably don't keep books on the kind of special ops folk who might be involved in a conspiracy like this.



p.s. If I was a competent investigative journalist, I'd try and do some checking up on special op's guys who went missing prior to 9/11.
p.p.s. If I haven't posted again within a month, the NWO have got to me.

[beachnut]

I have a list in my OP. Go point by point and source your evidence. I already know you have faith. Show me your evidence.

Your only problem is your complete lack of evidence to support any of your ideas on 9/11. This is why you make up an OP that is as ridiculous as your ideas on 9/11. Failed ideas!

Go ahead list your evidence for your 9/11 ideas. Oh, it is 0. Okay, your fantasies are based on nothing. Cool, pure faith based, your religion, 9/11 truth's lies and fantasies.

IF you wish I can list all posts with evidence.

I could not find one. Did you edit out your evidence in all your posts; I could not find any?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Did you read it? Really? No porkies or Santa won't come.



Like these guys?

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm

I can post experts who don't buy into the official version (From other countries too). You can claim all kinds of excuses as to why their opinion doesn't count. I've seen it all before. What I don't see is the evidence that puts it all to rest.

[Grizzly Bear]

My opinion is that it is disputed by experts in the same fields as experts who endorse it.
This is irrelevant unless you've dissected their own claims and verified the same material. It's called scrutiny, when you have found a person claiming authority in a field you verify their authority by independently looking into the material relevant to the subjects their claims encompass. You apparently haven't done that have you?

You would have a hard time finding someone who endorses the government version who isn't connected to the government.
I see then. So regardless of whether they have read NIST "most" professionals who agree with the overall conclusion of the NIST report, despite providing legitimate criticizing of the means to the conclusion, or demonstrating any disagreement with individual factors, is still a part of the government?

As such even they would refrain from making claims against the overall conclusion reached in the NIST report? If you're claiming they would refrain from calling afoul because of fears of reprisal, or losing their jobs... here's a hint: Richard Gage has not been cast off of his AIA membership or from his profession despite his claims.

[Confuseling]

This is about the strongest rational, as opposed to scientific answer I have come across, but even this can be countered when you take into account compartmentalisation, plausible deniability, and the fact that they probably don't keep books on the kind of special ops folk who might be involved in a conspiracy like this.



p.s. If I was a competent investigative journalist, I'd try and do some checking up on special op's guys who went missing prior to 9/11.
p.p.s. If I haven't posted again within a month, the NWO have got to me.

I actually very much agree. It doesn't disprove government complicity, but it does throw certain claimed lines of evidence into the long grass. If the twin towers shouldn't have collapsed in 10 seconds, for example, somebody would have noticed.

Good luck with the NWO. Remember, because of the frequency response of their reptilian eyes, you're invisible to them if you remain covered in a thick layer of mustard.

[Homeland Insurgency]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Your only problem is your complete lack of evidence to support any of your ideas on 9/11. This is why you make up an OP that is as ridiculous as your ideas on 9/11. Failed ideas!


What are my ideas? You don't have any evidence?

Go ahead list your evidence for your 9/11 ideas. Oh, it is 0. Okay, your fantasies are based on nothing. Cool, pure faith based, your religion, 9/11 truth's lies and fantasies.

What are my fantasies? If you have something more then faith then post it.


IF you wish I can list all posts with evidence.


Sure you can. That's why you posted this instead right?

I could not find one. Did you edit out your evidence in all your posts; I could not find any?

Just post your evidence not your faith.

[Elizabeth I]

No I don't believe the government is superman. Maybe there a superhero forum here for you somewhere?

Are you on crack? How did you get from
So the US government are a race of Bizarro creatures who always say the opposite of what they mean? Wow.
to "superhero"?

Maybe you have not got the link to ask...........here it is.

http://www.interpol.int/

Go ahead,ask them, ask Interpol.

Ah, but you forget. It won't click on links.

[Confuseling]

I can post experts who don't buy into the official version (From other countries too). You can claim all kinds of excuses as to why their opinion doesn't count. I've seen it all before. What I don't see is the evidence that puts it all to rest.

Other individuals? Or university departments? Intelligence services? Government agencies? Media organisations? Do you not think these people are probably better equipped to determine whether there is a sensible reason to suspect US government complicity than you?

[Sparky]

It kills me that HI and Radical Logic are probably wasting their entire weekend trying to convince the rest of us that a new investigation is needed based on some of the flimsiest arguments I've ever had the misfortune to see.

I would suggest that you two keyboard commandos take the rest of the weekend off and try to have fun because there is never going to be another investigation of the likes that you are wishing for.

Trust me. Never. You can bet on it.

[beachnut]

I can post experts who don't buy into the official version (From other countries too). You can claim all kinds of excuses as to why their opinion doesn't count. I've seen it all before. What I don't see is the evidence that puts it all to rest.
Go ahead, your experts have zero (0) evidence also.
Like you, they have lies and fantasies ideas. You never will post evidence to support your ideas. Pure hearsay and false information, the church of no evidence, 9/11 truth.

Your experts have no evidence, the list is still zero. Too bad you can list some evidence. Go ahead I have read all the exerts on 9/11, they have as much evidence as you do.

Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes, you have not even cracked a fact in 7 years.

We have flight 93 passengers figured out 9/11 in minutes.
We have you and 9/11 truth no clue in 7 years (in 5 days).

Your truth movement has never had evidence as it moves to 7 years.

heroes figure out 9/11 in minutes, truthers, still no clue (this is sad after 7 years- you could have had a masters degree in 7 years if not a PhD!

Lucky no truthers were on Flight 93.

The frauds of 9/11 truth are upset. The world knows 1 + 1 = 2, but 9/11 truth says it is wrong, and they want evidence and a new investigation! Ignorance of 9/11 issues is the primary trait needed to believe in 9/11 truth, the pure hearsay cult religion.

LOL
... Just post your evidence not your faith.
Your ideas on 9/11 are failed. You are like someone saying 1+1 is not 2. You insist on evidence and a new investigation, and refuse to learn math. This is what 9/11 truth is like. Lack of knowledge, and expecting someone else to do their thinking.

You can't remember your ideas on 9/11; are you afraid to say what you believe?

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Claiming the FBI or anyone else for that matter has evidence identifying the four flights on 9/11 without actually seeing that evidence is faith not debunking.[quote]
So what are you going to do about it, TWOOFER?
[quote]
Asserting that individuals who are claimed to have hijacked planes on 9/11 were positively identified without any DNA match done to family members in the same manner the 9/11 victims were identified is faith not debunking.

And you posting this crap here makes you feel what, TWOOFER?

Proclaiming there is hard evidence against Bin Laden for his involvement in 9/11 without being able to cite that evidence is faith not debunking.

Yeah, we follow "faith", what are YOU going to do about it, TWOOFER?


Preaching that the WTC fires were hot enough to compromise steel just because NIST says so without providing any tests to demonstrate that assertion is faith not debunking.
TWOOFER, does it make you feel good to post here @ JREF?

Believing that some liars told the truth for the first time in history when it came to 9/11 is having faith in miracles not debunking.
Ah! TWOOFER! let me ask you again, what are you doing about it as we speak?

Quoting from a book like it is gospel where the very authors of that book now claim the book was a product of an obstructed investigation is not even faith. It’s denial.
May be mommy and daddy cut off your allowance, TWOOFER.

Having to show up to church here everyday coming up with all kinds of elaborate excuses to explain away all of the first time in history events to keep your faith in miracles alive is just plain sad.

But if your dogma gives you piece of mind… who am I to put it down?
Just a plain TWOOFER. nothing more nothing less.

[Homeland Insurgency]

It kills me that HI and Radical Logic are probably wasting their entire weekend trying to convince the rest of us that a new investigation is needed based on some of the flimsiest arguments I've ever had the misfortune to see.

I would suggest that you two keyboard commandos take the rest of the weekend off and try to have fun because there is never going to be another investigation of the likes that you are wishing for.

Trust me. Never. You can bet on it.

We're not trying to convince you of anything anymore then we would try to get a Catholic to admit there is no Jesus.

We are just trying to get you to type so that others and maybe even other "Catholics" can read just how little you have to base your faith in.

[Grizzly Bear]

We're not trying to convince you of anything anymore then we would try to get a Catholic to admit there is no Jesus.

We are just trying to get you to type so that others and maybe even other "Catholics" can read just how little you have to base your faith in.

I probably know this already:rolleyes: But what is your favorite group of professionals to refer to?

[Homeland Insurgency]

So what are you going to do about it, TWOOFER?

And you posting this crap here makes you feel what, TWOOFER?

Yeah, we follow "faith", what are YOU going to do about it, TWOOFER?


TWOOFER, does it make you feel good to post here @ JREF?

Ah! TWOOFER! let me ask you again, what are you doing about it as we speak?

May be mommy and daddy cut off your allowance, TWOOFER.

Just a plain TWOOFER. nothing more nothing less.

Oh relax. Don't have an aneurism. Just post your evidence. The length of this thread coupled with the lack of evidence posted is starting to become indicative of something. Someone better get it moved to AAH and soon. We wouldn’t want anyone to lose faith now would we?

[Homeland Insurgency]

I probably know this already:rolleyes: But what is your favorite group of professionals to refer to?

The ones with the evidence. Know any?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Go ahead, your experts have zero (0) evidence also.
Like you, they have lies and fantasies ideas. You never will post evidence to support your ideas. Pure hearsay and false information, the church of no evidence, 9/11 truth.

Your experts have no evidence, the list is still zero. Too bad you can list some evidence. Go ahead I have read all the exerts on 9/11, they have as much evidence as you do.

Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes, you have not even cracked a fact in 7 years.

We have flight 93 passengers figured out 9/11 in minutes.
We have you and 9/11 truth no clue in 7 years (in 5 days).

Your truth movement has never had evidence as it moves to 7 years.

heroes figure out 9/11 in minutes, truthers, still no clue (this is sad after 7 years- you could have had a masters degree in 7 years if not a PhD!

Lucky no truthers were on Flight 93.

The frauds of 9/11 truth are upset. The world knows 1 + 1 = 2, but 9/11 truth says it is wrong, and they want evidence and a new investigation! Ignorance of 9/11 issues is the primary trait needed to believe in 9/11 truth, the pure hearsay cult religion.

LOL

Your ideas on 9/11 are failed. You are like someone saying 1+1 is not 2. You insist on evidence and a new investigation, and refuse to learn math. This is what 9/11 truth is like. Lack of knowledge, and expecting someone else to do their thinking.

You can't remember your ideas on 9/11; are you afraid to say what you believe?


Calm down. I don't claim to know what happened on 9/11. I'm asking you how you know what happened on 9/11. Why does this frustrate you?

[Homeland Insurgency]

You guys need to calm down. I'll come back later. Chow. (As in eat it)

[parky76]

Homeland- your movement is dead. Just accept it. You've lost.

=)

[TC329]

Claiming the FBI or anyone else for that matter has evidence identifying the four flights on 9/11 without actually seeing that evidence is faith not debunking.

Asserting that individuals who are claimed to have hijacked planes on 9/11 were positively identified without any DNA match done to family members in the same manner the 9/11 victims were identified is faith not debunking.

Proclaiming there is hard evidence against Bin Laden for his involvement in 9/11 without being able to cite that evidence is faith not debunking.

Preaching that the WTC fires were hot enough to compromise steel just because NIST says so without providing any tests to demonstrate that assertion is faith not debunking.

Believing that some liars told the truth for the first time in history when it came to 9/11 is having faith in miracles not debunking.

Quoting from a book like it is gospel where the very authors of that book now claim the book was a product of an obstructed investigation is not even faith. It’s denial.

Having to show up to church here everyday coming up with all kinds of elaborate excuses to explain away all of the first time in history events to keep your faith in miracles alive is just plain sad.

But if your dogma gives you piece of mind… who am I to put it down?

kudos!!!!!

[Myriad]

Very well, if you insist:

Claiming the FBI or anyone else for that matter has evidence identifying the four flights on 9/11 without actually seeing that evidence is faith not debunking.


This is a false assertion. There is no evidence for it, because it is false.

Asserting that individuals who are claimed to have hijacked planes on 9/11 were positively identified without any DNA match done to family members in the same manner the 9/11 victims were identified is faith not debunking.


This is a false assertion. There is no evidence for it, because it is false.

Proclaiming there is hard evidence against Bin Laden for his involvement in 9/11 without being able to cite that evidence is faith not debunking.


This is a false assertion. There is no evidence for it, because it is false.

Preaching that the WTC fires were hot enough to compromise steel just because NIST says so without providing any tests to demonstrate that assertion is faith not debunking.


This is a false assertion. There is no evidence for it, because it is false.

Believing that some liars told the truth for the first time in history when it came to 9/11 is having faith in miracles not debunking.


This is a false assertion. There is no evidence for it, because it is false.

Quoting from a book like it is gospel where the very authors of that book now claim the book was a product of an obstructed investigation is not even faith. It’s denial.


This is a false assertion. There is no evidence for it, because it is false.

Having to show up to church here everyday coming up with all kinds of elaborate excuses to explain away all of the first time in history events to keep your faith in miracles alive is just plain sad.


This is a false assertion. There is no evidence for it, because it is false.

But if your dogma gives you piece of mind… who am I to put it down?


Ah, an actual question. The answer appears to be, you are someone with no comprehension of critical thinking, and you are offering insults in an attempt to get members here to lose their temper for your amusement. For evidence, I present this thread.

However, I cannot explain why you have repeatedly asked for evidence for your false assertions when the fact that they are false means there is no evidence. That doesn't make sense, even as attempted provocation. It's just bizarre. Perhaps you lost a bet and your forfeit is to behave foolishly on a skeptics forum.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Grizzly Bear]

So what are you going to do about it, TWOOFER?

And you posting this crap here makes you feel what, TWOOFER?

Yeah, we follow "faith", what are YOU going to do about it, TWOOFER?


TWOOFER, does it make you feel good to post here @ JREF?

Ah! TWOOFER! let me ask you again, what are you doing about it as we speak?

May be mommy and daddy cut off your allowance, TWOOFER.

Just a plain TWOOFER. nothing more nothing less.

GRanted I know how tired you are of repeating the same crap let's not dignify him with the pleasure of ad hom'ing him, I really don't think he deserves such credit. Face palm's will do...

That said...

The length of this thread coupled with the lack of evidence posted is starting to become indicative of something.
Short of your consistent evading of my reasonable questioning you've demonstrated typical CT logic. Professionals are competent if and pretty much only if they disagree with the overall conclusion reached by the NIST report. While "most" who do agree with the overall conclusion are somehow involved or intimidated by the government because of threats of reprisal. If this is true, why are professionals like Gage, still employed? What of his other 400 "engineers & architects." Should that not serve as precedent showing your assertion is incorrect?


You have also failed to scrutinize your own professionals by studying materials relevant to the fields their claims lie at. You've not read one book relevant to the material to verify validity of claims made by the "professionals" of the truth movement. I ask you now what level of faith you have in the claims of the professionals you rely on. Do you have faith in their claims because only of their titles as professionals? Do you rely on faith in taking their claims at face value and not scrutinizing them?

[beachnut]

You guys need to calm down. I'll come back later. Chow. (As in eat it)

Again don't be ignoramuses your whole life. Try to learn something.
…
Go back to your communal denial exercise. Or is it already a long established way of life?

I thought you had some ideas on 9/11. But your evidence free posts only imply you are a truther with failed ideas, lies and fantasies about 9/11. You have not stated any position!

But you have evidence and ideas disguised as insults. Covert secret coded evidence to hide your ideas on 9/11? Go ask Dr Greening.

You are right, you have made zero claims.

You are void of evidence and have nothing to say about 9/11. Just stupid questions, and act like you can't understand 9/11. At least you act like a truther and seem to fit their anti-intellectual movement to a t.

Zero evidence, zero ideas on 9/11, just asking stupid questions. Playing with JREF, as you act like a fact less truther. You win, you fooled me, I thought you had said something, but your stupid questions only imply you are a fact less truther. Your questions make you look as if you are in total ignorance on 9/11. Good job...
You guys need to calm down. I'll come back later. Chow. (As in eat it)

[16.5]

But if your dogma gives you piece of mind… who am I to put it down?

Hee hee hee, Troll, you suck.

[Sparky]

We're not trying to convince you of anything anymore then we would try to get a Catholic to admit there is no Jesus.

I'm glad you realize that your arguments are less than persuasive.

We are just trying to get you to type so that others and maybe even other "Catholics" can read just how little you have to base your faith in.

I'm an atheist. I take nothing on faith. You and your efforts are about as troublesome to me as a sunny day.

It's Saturday night and I have no intention of wasting my life on observing the futility of your efforts. I'm going to the local pub and flirt with pretty girls.

Later.

[A W Smith]

Claiming the FBI or anyone else for that matter has evidence identifying the four flights on 9/11 without actually seeing that evidence is faith not debunking.
Jurors saw that evidence during the moussaoui sentencing trial. you know the one where moussaoui confessed?.
Asserting that individuals who are claimed to have hijacked planes on 9/11 were positively identified without any DNA match done to family members in the same manner the 9/11 victims were identified is faith not debunking.
it does not matter who the hijackers family members were. all they needed to do was trace a trail of DNA from locations where they were known to have stayed or traveled which matched the document and witness trail.
Proclaiming there is hard evidence against Bin Laden for his involvement in 9/11 without being able to cite that evidence is faith not debunking.
from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,177983,00.html

Since the first demands for "evidence," the U.S. government has busied itself preparing a laundry list of suitable accusations and diplomatically correct labels to hurl at bin Laden and his terrorist cells. The mysterious "proof" of his guilt has been shared, we're told with Allied leaders in Europe, as well as with various Pakistani and Afghan (rebel) authorities. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson later characterized a secret U.S. briefing as offering "clear and compelling evidence," while Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced he was "quite satisfied" the information "proves" bin Laden's involvement.


Preaching that the WTC fires were hot enough to compromise steel just because NIST says so without providing any tests to demonstrate that assertion is faith not debunking.
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/g3a.jpg
Believing that some liars told the truth for the first time in history when it came to 9/11 is having faith in miracles not debunking.
You need to clarify who you are talking about in this question or you will come across as a trolling Internet punk. Or we can just continue to assume you are.

Quoting from a book like it is gospel where the very authors of that book now claim the book was a product of an obstructed investigation is not even faith. It’s denial.
Are those same authors satisfied with what is published in that book? yes or no?

Having to show up to church here everyday coming up with all kinds of elaborate excuses to explain away all of the first time in history events to keep your faith in miracles alive is just plain sad.

some of us come here to watch people like you make asshats of themselves. It falls somewhere between comedy central and jackass. or was that too elaborate for you?

But if your dogma gives you piece of mind… who am I to put it down?

And you posting here many more times per day than I ever felt the need to, accomplishes what? oh yeah, makes you feel safe in your religion.

[Totovader]

I sincerely don't know what happened on 9/11 based on any official investigation done to date or anything claimed to have been debunked here at JREF. I want to know how you know.

I know because- unlike you- I do not simply dismiss evidence and fact as "faith" because it's convenient or inconvenient to my whims.

Once you realize that your lack of understanding and inability to accept the facts is not something that's admirable, you will be taking the first step to becoming credible in your claims that you are interested in the truth.

Dismissing the mountains of evidence and the thousands of issues discussed here- at great length and with great care- as nothing more than faith takes a great deal of faith in and of itself. Surely you can comprehend that- but since your position (or lack thereof) is so easily demolished by the facts, you clearly have no other option than to simply dismiss all of this information by cupping your ears and screaming as loudly as you can. It's just too bad for you- as I said before- that this pathetic technique has been so overdone already.

[parky76]

But if your dogma gives you piece of mind… who am I to put it down?

You got us, 9-11 Sheeper, we are just guided by dogma. You have won.

Now please, go away.

[Corsair 115]

I didn't say I knew that to be true either. Your conspiracy theory isn't better then any other one.You'd get further if you posted a list demonstrating all the problems with proving any of the myriad of 9/11 theories which tout the government/NWO/whomever as the real culprits. But curiously you do not do that. You only post your issues with the so-called official story. Such actions indicate you are being disingenuous when you are claim you are not a supporter of one of the non-official theories.

[TheLoneBedouin]

I find this to be a pretty comprehensive gathering of evidence.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home?authtoken=7cc4bb0a34f9b3beb19a513be64903cdf94 03d9e#Main%20links%20section
Had a look at the Pentagon section. A lot of it is wrong, e.g. the witness list.
The "hundreds of witnesses to the attack" simply do not exist. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10632) The list was inflated by early media misreporting. This was pointed out to Gravy, yet here you are in 2008 citing it as absolute fact. Yep, you guys definitely don't take anything on faith.
Furthermore, nothing in the thread refutes Sami Yli-Karjanmaa's critique of the ASCE report. The "debunkers" on this forum dismissed the article without even reading it. Don't take my claim on faith- see for yourself (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72378).

[Arus808]

4 pages to answer 1 troll thread...do we ALL really need to resort answering trolls?

[Arus808]

Had a look at the Pentagon section. A lot of it is wrong, e.g. the witness list.
The "hundreds of witnesses to the attack" simply do not exist. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10632) The list was inflated by early media misreporting. This was pointed out to Gravy, yet here you are in 2008 citing it as absolute fact. Yep, you guys definitely don't take anything on faith.


false. you prove yet agan that you dont understand what Gravy did with that site (hint its not to list every witness, just to list the pertinent accounts of SEVERAL witnesses, NOT all of them)

Furthermore, nothing in the thread refutes any of Sami Yli-Karjanmaa's critique of the ASCE report. The "debunkers" on this forum dismissed the article without even reading it. Don't take my claim on faith- see for yourself (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72378).

DEALT with YOU IGNORED THE THREAD that is ALREADY here about it!

YOu are a nothing more than a pathetic liar.

[TheLoneBedouin]

false. you prove yet agan that you dont understand what Gravy did with that site (hint its not to list every witness, just to list the pertinent accounts of SEVERAL witnesses, NOT all of them)

You prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. I joined after Gravy quit posting here, so I don't know what you mean by "yet again". Gravy claims that:
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

This is a PROVEN LIE! (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10632)
DEALT with YOU IGNORED THE THREAD that is ALREADY here about it!

The "debunkers" dismissed that article an entire year before Caustic Logic finally answered (incorrectly). Furthermore, didn't you read Brainache's admission:
You're too clever for me TLB! You caught me.

I haven't read the page

[Arus808]

You prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. I joined after Gravy quit posting here, so I don't know what you mean by "yet again". Gravy claims that:

This is a PROVEN LIE! (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10632)

P4t? the known liars of the troof movement? Gravy has repeatedly stated that he doesn't have a complete list of the people who are witnesses.

If you want to have him correct it, provide him with VERIFIABLE proof (ie a news article) not claim by a post on the Pilots who lie forum


The "debunkers" dismissed that article an entire year before Caustic Logic finally answered (incorrectly). Furthermore, didn't you read Brainache's admission:

I read that thread. And again, your article WAS dealt with. YOU ignored the answers given.

Sorry, but liars like you need to be shown for who they really are.

[EventHorizon]

How can someone go to a forum for critical thinking, start a thread completely lacking in said critical thinking and NOT expect to get slammed for it? It's astonishing. Or else trolling.

[eromitlab]

Believing that some liars told the truth for the first time in history when it came to 9/11 is having faith in miracles not debunking.


Hold up, I'm confused. Are you talking about the public presentation of the Bush/Cheney "9/11 Official Story" where all the sheeple were sat in front of their televisions to be told what the facts were about 9/11? Because I don't remember that ever happening, but truthists seem to imply it with their "official story" and "official conspiracy theory" constructs. Most of America, even the 'brain-dead American Idol-watching sheeple' that truthists live to fling insults at, figured out what happened from what was shown in the news coverage, dealt with it in their own way and moved on. You know, like Bill Maher said on his show... "how big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours, and then think 'well, if you believe that was the cause'..."

Or, alternatively... are you talking about Rumsfeld "slipping up" and saying the Pentagon was hit by a missile... in Parade Magazine? Or Bush "slipping up" and saying he saw the first plane hit on TV at a random gathering of supporters in Orlando? Do those big bad evil lying neocons only tell the truth when it's a piece of something that can be fitted into this "coat of many colors" 9/11 conspiracy? If Rumsfeld and Bush are to be painted as evil greedy murdering liars, how can a truthist then quote something they said, and hold it up as any sort of truth or proof, and ignore the glaring conflicts evident in such a presentation without essentially admitting that they only seek things out that fit their preconceived conclusions and shun the existence of anything that doesn't fit as readily as they shun contradicting viewpoints?

[Brainache]

You prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. I joined after Gravy quit posting here, so I don't know what you mean by "yet again". Gravy claims that:

This is a PROVEN LIE! (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10632)

The "debunkers" dismissed that article an entire year before Caustic Logic finally answered (incorrectly). Furthermore, didn't you read Brainache's admission:

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I am a "Debunker". I have occasionally debunked things, but there is no way I would categorise myself as a debunker.

I've been many things in my time; Camera Operator, Salesman, TV Director, Father, Maintenance Man,... but around here I'm just a member of the public who doesn't buy into the cretinous BS being pushed by loons and con-men generally known as the Truth Movement.

I should have known that someone like you would take my simple honest statement regarding some lunatic's pamphlet and use it to categorise all of the posters on this forum.

Taking my honest personal statement and twisting it to apply to everyone on that thread is just another example of what the Truth movement does so well, ie: Complete intellectual dishonesty.

[Civilized Worm]

No I don't believe the government is superman. Maybe there a superhero forum here for you somewhere?


But you do believe they always say the opposite of what is true? OK.

[Dr Adequate]

Claiming the FBI or anyone else for that matter has evidence identifying the four flights on 9/11 without actually seeing that evidence is faith not debunking.

Asserting that individuals who are claimed to have hijacked planes on 9/11 were positively identified without any DNA match done to family members in the same manner the 9/11 victims were identified is faith not debunking.

Proclaiming there is hard evidence against Bin Laden for his involvement in 9/11 without being able to cite that evidence is faith not debunking.

Preaching that the WTC fires were hot enough to compromise steel just because NIST says so without providing any tests to demonstrate that assertion is faith not debunking.

Believing that some liars told the truth for the first time in history when it came to 9/11 is having faith in miracles not debunking.

Quoting from a book like it is gospel where the very authors of that book now claim the book was a product of an obstructed investigation is not even faith. It’s denial.

Having to show up to church here everyday coming up with all kinds of elaborate excuses to explain away all of the first time in history events to keep your faith in miracles alive is just plain sad.

But if your dogma gives you piece of mind… who am I to put it down? Creationists do a lot of whining like this, usually in the infinite interval between having all their arguments debunked and shutting up.

[Redtail]

Had a look at the Pentagon section. A lot of it is wrong, e.g. the witness list.
The "hundreds of witnesses to the attack" simply do not exist. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10632) The list was inflated by early media misreporting. This was pointed out to Gravy, yet here you are in 2008 citing it as absolute fact. Yep, you guys definitely don't take anything on faith.
Furthermore, nothing in the thread refutes Sami Yli-Karjanmaa's critique of the ASCE report. The "debunkers" on this forum dismissed the article without even reading it. Don't take my claim on faith- see for yourself (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72378).

Funny, I don't see where he said there were hundreds of witness to the attacks. Could you point it out?

[Bobert]

I didn't say I knew that to be true either. Your conspiracy theory isn't better then any other one.
Does the truth ever come out of your mouth?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Spanish indictments aren't real now? Does that sound a teensy bit racist to you HI?
So they are wrong to indict UBL for 911? Yes or no?


Heh. I don't think "racist" is the right word, but I'm very amused at Homeland Insurgency's implication that Spain can indict an allegedly innocent man and, hey... it doesn't matter; Spain's just doing their own thing.

But, man... The U.S. merely accuses OBL of 9/11 and HI gets all huffy and demands impossible standards of evidence.

ETA: But seriously, guys... You all know he's trolling, but you're the only ones that can make it work. Don't take the bait.

[Grizzly Bear]

Heh. I don't think "racist" is the right word, but I'm very amused at Homeland Insurgency's implication that Spain can indict an allegedly innocent man and, hey... it doesn't matter; Spain's just doing their own thing. But, man... The U.S. merely accuses OBL of 9/11 and HI gets all huffy and demands impossible standards of evidence.

His double standards are astounding


ETA: But seriously, guys... You all know he's trolling. Don't make it work.
If anything he does give us a great show of irony, which is why I asked if he ever bothered to read any kind of architecture and engineering publications to compare with his "expert's opinions", however he declined to answer the question. Does anybody see the irony when he argues that positions here must be based on faith? :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

This is a PROVEN LIE! (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=10632)
77 hit the Pentagon, a proven fact. Your lack of evidence is clear, and thus the only faith based like groups on 9/11 are you and 9/11 truth. You use hearsay, lies, false ideas, and fantasy to make up statements that are false.

You use no math, no physics, no science, you only use hearsay to form false ideas.

It is funny you can't post a single piece of evidence to support your 9/11 ideas, and deny the evidence that exists which show your ideas wrong. Pure faith, no evidence, 9/11 truth.

[Jontg]

Congratulations, HI, you've become the first person I've ever ignore-listed. As of now, you officially do not exist; say hello to the space lizards for me. ^^

[UNLoVedRebel]

Claiming the FBI or anyone else for that matter has evidence identifying the four flights on 9/11 without actually seeing that evidence is faith not debunking.

Asserting that individuals who are claimed to have hijacked planes on 9/11 were positively identified without any DNA match done to family members in the same manner the 9/11 victims were identified is faith not debunking.

Proclaiming there is hard evidence against Bin Laden for his involvement in 9/11 without being able to cite that evidence is faith not debunking.

Preaching that the WTC fires were hot enough to compromise steel just because NIST says so without providing any tests to demonstrate that assertion is faith not debunking.

Believing that some liars told the truth for the first time in history when it came to 9/11 is having faith in miracles not debunking.

Quoting from a book like it is gospel where the very authors of that book now claim the book was a product of an obstructed investigation is not even faith. It’s denial.

Having to show up to church here everyday coming up with all kinds of elaborate excuses to explain away all of the first time in history events to keep your faith in miracles alive is just plain sad.

But if your dogma gives you piece of mind… who am I to put it down?

Claiming a secret shadow government that controls a secret shadow government rigged the twin towers with explosives so they could pass a controlled demolition off as a progressive collapse from structural damage and fire without anyone noticing, except for an uneducated percentage of the population, is not a conspiracy theory, it's stupidity.

[jhunter1163]

Hold up, I'm confused. Are you talking about the public presentation of the Bush/Cheney "9/11 Official Story" where all the sheeple were sat in front of their televisions to be told what the facts were about 9/11? Because I don't remember that ever happening, but truthists seem to imply it with their "official story" and "official conspiracy theory" constructs. Most of America, even the 'brain-dead American Idol-watching sheeple' that truthists live to fling insults at, figured out what happened from what was shown in the news coverage, dealt with it in their own way and moved on. You know, like Bill Maher said on his show... "how big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours, and then think 'well, if you believe that was the cause'..."

Or, alternatively... are you talking about Rumsfeld "slipping up" and saying the Pentagon was hit by a missile... in Parade Magazine? Or Bush "slipping up" and saying he saw the first plane hit on TV at a random gathering of supporters in Orlando? Do those big bad evil lying neocons only tell the truth when it's a piece of something that can be fitted into this "coat of many colors" 9/11 conspiracy? If Rumsfeld and Bush are to be painted as evil greedy murdering liars, how can a truthist then quote something they said, and hold it up as any sort of truth or proof, and ignore the glaring conflicts evident in such a presentation without essentially admitting that they only seek things out that fit their preconceived conclusions and shun the existence of anything that doesn't fit as readily as they shun contradicting viewpoints?

I missed this post before. The last sentence is a brilliant summation of the Truther mindset. Nominated.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Hee hee hee, Troll, you suck.

Don't you like Iron Maiden? Sheez everybody is a critic.

[Homeland Insurgency]

While "most" who do agree with the overall conclusion are somehow involved or intimidated by the government because of threats of reprisal.

Did I claim this?

[Homeland Insurgency]

I missed this post before. The last sentence is a brilliant summation of the Truther mindset. Nominated.

No. If he's so brilliant why couldn't he just put it simpler terms and cut to the chase? For instance … "I know you are but what am I?”

[Homeland Insurgency]

Claiming a secret shadow government that controls a secret shadow government rigged the twin towers with explosives so they could pass a controlled demolition off as a progressive collapse from structural damage and fire without anyone noticing, except for an uneducated percentage of the population, is not a conspiracy theory, it's stupidity.

Yeah? So why are you telling me?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Creationists do a lot of whining like this, usually in the infinite interval between having all their arguments debunked and shutting up.

So then how am I like creationists? Is your debunking a secret? Lets see it.

[Homeland Insurgency]

How can someone go to a forum for critical thinking, start a thread completely lacking in said critical thinking and NOT expect to get slammed for it? It's astonishing. Or else trolling.

Is that there post of yours an example of the so-called critical thinking around here or evidence for lack thereof?

[Tbone]

Multi-quote, do you use it?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Multi-quote, do you use it?

No not usually. I think people who take the time to respond to me deserve to feel special as I'm embarrassing them.

[applecorped]

No not usually. I think people who take the time to respond to me deserve to feel special as I'm embarrassing them.


What kind of person derives enjoyment from embarrassing people?

;)

[Homeland Insurgency]

What kind of person derives enjoyment from embarrassing people?

;)

Me when it's ironic.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Me when it's ironic.

"Attack the argument, not the person" is usually the call in this forum, and I always try to adhere. In this case though, you haven't got an argument, therefore; you're a twat.

[Homeland Insurgency]

"Attack the argument, not the person" is usually the call in this forum

Wow. Just how much nonsense do you buy into?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Yeah? So why are you telling me?

So if you openly admit the 9/11 conspiracies are stupid, why did you start this thread? Just in a "I need to get the last word" mood, like so many other truthers.

[Totovader]

No not usually. I think people who take the time to respond to me deserve to feel special as I'm embarrassing them.

... or you just want to get your post-count up with useless one line responses.

[applecorped]

Me when it's ironic.

Proud of that are you?

[JoeyDonuts]

Wow, the list of conspirators grows and grows. Look at all the agencies that the NIST worked with on the 7WTC report. The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).

Now, I really don't feel like calling each one of these organizations on my own to find out how many people from each org worked on 7WTC, but it's got to be in the hundreds. I guess these guys must also be on the payroll of The Skull and Bones/CIA/NSA/Patriots/Pentumverate/Illuminati/Colonel Sanders or whoever the hell else was supposed to have been responsible other than Bin Laden.

Bottom line, I don't think you can possibly ask for a more thorough, independently reviewed, scientifically based analysis of the 7WTC collapse than the NIST review.

NIST has a pretty damned good pedigree, judging by this:

Three researchers at NIST have been awarded Nobel Prizes for their work in physics, William D. Phillips in 1997, Eric A. Cornell in 2001 and John L. Hall in 2005.

So who is more qualified to conduct a review of 7WTC and structural steel collapse than the above? I challenge you to name a group of people that have more collective experience than NIST and the folks they worked with.

Oh well. Some people will argue if you tell them the sky is blue.

[Safe-Keeper]

Preaching that the WTC fires were hot enough to compromise [he means 'weaken'] steel just because NIST says so without providing any tests to demonstrate that assertion is faith not debunking.Why on Earth would they need to do tests to prove something that we already know? If I get killed in a car accident tomorrow, would anyone have to do tests to determine if car accidents kill?

If I say that someone's been murdered by arsenic poisoning, will you believe me, or do I need to perform tests to show you that arsenic kills:rolleyes:?

Believing that some liars told the truth for the first time in history when it came to 9/11 is having faith in miracles not debunking....the ****?

Can you name one single person who believes planes hit WTC because Dubya said so?! I can just picture the scene...
A living room. A family watches the 9/11 attacks live on their television set. The second tower falls into dust.

All-american father: I wonder what that was all about.
All-american son: For certain. It's really such a pity I lack the ability to interpret moving images.
All-american father [takes a bit of apple pie]: For true, Andy... for true. Now we'll have to wait for the interpretation of our Heavenly President.

Dubya appears on television screen

(All together in awe): It's Him!
Dubya: Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to tell you what you just observed... [they hold breath in anticipation] ...the World Trade Center has just been hit and destroyed by airliners. Now, a plane hitting a building does damage by wrecking the materials of the building and setting off all the fuel - that's what that huge organge ball was, an "explosion". This damage caused the WTC to collapse - that's what it means when the building suddenly appears to sink into the ground.
All together in realization: Oooooooh....
All-american father [hugs flag]: How dreadful. Surely this must be a plot to invade Iraq?
Dubya: No, you twat, what you observed was an attack by Usama ibn Ladin, whom we shall now invade.
All-american father [stricken]: I... I'm so sorry, Heavenly Leader! I... [starts sobbing] I... I did not mean to...
Dubya: Enough! Your incompetence is killing me! Report to a FEMA death... sorry, re-education camp at 0900 Hours tomorrow morning at the latest! ...rebellious swine.

[Architect]

Wow, the list of conspirators grows and grows. Look at all the agencies that the NIST worked with on the 7WTC report. The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).


Remember that there are these things called "other countries" where, strangely, construction academics and professionals also seem to agree with the NIST study results, despite the "glaring holes" identified by such competent individuals as Jones, Gage, et al. It's clearly a global conspiracy.

:eek:

[eromitlab]

With all these domestic and foreign conspirators on the government dole, no wonder the US is running a huge budget deficit. Who did the nWo bid that contract out to? I know hush money is a huge expense when it comes to vast global conspiracies to commit mass murder and start unpopular wars, but this is ridiculous.

[Grizzly Bear]

Did I claim this?

Don't tell me you forgot about this already...
My opinion is that it is disputed by experts in the same fields as experts who endorse it. You would have a hard time finding someone who endorses the government version who isn't connected to the government.

What pray tell, does this mean then? Please, feel free to clarify if I took you out of context.

[GreyICE]

Oh for pete's sake, are they still going on about the steel weakening as if its somehow undocumented and never before observed?

Here is a small, short sample of what we can do to normal carbon steel with heat treatment.

* Spheroidizing: Spheroidite forms when carbon steel is heated to approximately 700 °C for over 30 hours. Spheroidite can form at lower temperatures but the time needed drastically increases, as this is a diffusion controlled process. The result is a structure of rods or spheres of cementite within primary structure (ferrite or pearlite, depending on which side of the eutectoid you are on). The purpose is to soften higher carbon steels and allow more formability. This is the softest and most ductile form of steel. The image to the right shows where spheroidizing usually occurs.[7]

* Full annealing: Carbon steel is heated to approximately 40 °C above Ac3 or Ac1 for 1 hour; this assures all the ferrite transforms into austenite (although cementite might still exist if the carbon content is greater than the eutectoid). The steel must then be cooled slowly, in the realm of 38 °C (100 °F) per hour. Usually it is just furnace cooled, where the furnace is turned off with the steel still inside. This results in a coarse pearlitic °structure, which means the "bands" of pearlite are thick. Fully annealed steel is soft and ductile, with no internal stresses, which is often necessary for cost-effective forming. Only spheroidized steel is softer and more ductile.[8]

* Process annealing: A process used to relieve stress in a cold-worked carbon steel with less than 0.3 wt% C. The steel is usually heated up to 550–650 °C for 1 hour, but sometimes temperatures as high as 700 °C. The image to the right shows the area where process annealing occurs.

* Isothermal annealing: It is a process in which hypoeutectoid steel is heated above the upper critical temperature and this temperature is maintained for a period of time and then the temperature is brought down below lower critical temperature and is again maintained. Then finally it is cooled at room temperature. This method helps in eliminating any temperature gradient.

* Normalizing: Carbon steel is heated to approximately 55 °C above Ac3 or Acm for 1 hour; this assures the steel completely transforms to austenite. The steel is then air cooled, which is a cooling rate of approximately 38 °C (100 °F) per minute. This results in a fine pearlitic structure, and a more uniform structure. Normalized steel has a higher strength than annealed steel; it has a relatively high strength and ductility.[9]

* Quenching: Carbon steel with at least 0.4 wt% C is heated to normalizing temperatures and then rapidly cooled (quenched) in water, brine, or oil to the critical temperature. The critical temperature is dependent on the carbon content, but as a general rule is lower as the carbon content increases. This results in a martensitic structure; a form of steel that possesses a super-saturated carbon content in a deformed body-centered cubic (BCC) crystalline structure, properly termed body-centered tetragonal (BCT). This crystalline structure has a very high amount of internal stress. Due to these internal stress quenched steel is extremely hard but brittle, usually too brittle for practical purposes. These internal stresses cause stress cracks on the surface. Quenched steel is approximately three (lower carbon content) to four (high carbon content) times harder than normalized steel.[10]

* Martempering (Marquenching): Martempering is not actually a tempering procedure, hence the term "Marquenching." It is a form of isothermal heat treatment applied after an initial quench of typically in an oil or brine solution at a temperature right above the "martensite start temperature". At this temperature, residual stresses within the material are relieved and some bainite may be formed from the retained ferrite which did not have time to transform into anything else. In industry, this is a process used to control the ductility and hardness of a material. With longer marquenching time, the ductility increases with a minimal loss in strength; the steel is held in this solution until the center and surface temperatures equalize. Then the steel is cooled at a moderate speed to keep the temperature gradient minimal. Not only does this process reduce internal stresses and stress cracks, but it also increases the impact resistance.[11]

* Quench and tempering: This is the most common heat treatment encountered, because the final properties can be precisely determined by the temperature and time of the tempering. Tempering involves reheating quenched steel to a temperature below the eutectoid temperature then cooling. The elevated temperature allows very small amounts of spheroidite to form, which restore ductility, but reduces hardness. Actual temperatures and times are carefully chosen for each composition.[12]

* Austempering: The austempering process is the same as martempering, except the steel is held in the brine solution through the bainite transformation temperatures, and then moderately cooled. The resulting bainite steel has a greater ductility, higher impact resistance, and less distortion. The disadvantage of austempering is it can only be used on a few steels, and it requires a special brine solution.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_steel#Heat_treatment


I assure you, they absolutely do heat treat steel for maximum strength when used for structural supports.

Why do you think a completely uncontrolled heat treatment would have the same results as a carefully controlled tempering?

[Travis]

Strangely enough someone who always tells lies is, in fact, being truthful since you can always deduce the truth by assuming its the opposite of what they said.

The problem is when people sometimes tell lies and sometimes tell the truth. Fortunately, as Truthers have advocated, we live in absolute black and white world where everyone is either purely angelic or purely evil so such distinctions are not a worry.