Debate (not debase) a Truther [Archive]

View Full Version : Debate (not debase) a Truther

Pages : [1] 2

ImANiceGuy

11th May 2010, 11:29 PM

Hello Skeptics,

I'm welcoming any questions, and will pose a few of my own. I hope we can all remain civil. You'll discover I am a rationalist, not a tin-foil hatter; I'd still give odds that Beachnut somehow fits in the word delusional.

I trust that our resident 9/11 mod, Lashl, will moderate objectively, for the benefit of the entire JREF forum.

Finally, Mackey has me on ignore; I pissed him off sometime last year. If someone would be kind enough to apologize on my behalf, and invite him to this thread, his technical expertise would be greatly appreciated.

To better understanding my personal context if responding; physics and all related subjects should be expressed in semi-laymans terms. I cross-reference everything anyway (and suggest everyone does in this age of Internet) My specialty is economics and politics.

What I will try and do is bring to JREF the latest rebuttals from Truther websites; hopefully managing some back and forth between both sides. Don't worry,I'll share my personal opinion as well for your dissemination.

Specifically to 7, if you can't appreciate our skepticism towards an unprecedented phenomena in the midst of the worlds worst terrorist attacks, you need to reassess your 9/11 probability distributions. Anything is possible, n'est pas?

NIST won't release the (correct me if I'm wrong) ANSYS files, as they might aid future terrorists in leveling Western buildings (is what it boils down to). In today's security-driven society, don't you think that the state control should be in regards to bomb making material and terrorists, not engineering data? This is suspect enough to warrant scrutinizing. This is where I'm at....

Question #1

Did NIST accurately input the thermal conductivity of steel in their computer collapse scenario? Did NIST account for the concrete floors resting/attached to the steel-constructed floors? What effect would this have on the collapse simulation?

alienentity

12th May 2010, 12:02 AM

Hey there. I haven't been posting or reading for a while, but I thought your questions could be directed to the 2008 NIST report on WTC 7. It's available online, and I think most of the info you're looking for is in it.

You don't necessarily need JREF to answer those questions, in other words. You might also be interested to ponder the fact that no scientific analysis equivalent to the NIST report has disagreed with the methods or outcomes of their work on that building.
Just something to keep in mind when framing criticisms.

cheers

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

Reactor drone

12th May 2010, 12:37 AM

You may also like to look through http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-5index.htm particularly NCSTAR 1-5G that goes through the process of verifying the thermal models with real world experiments.

Mince

12th May 2010, 01:39 AM

Specifically to 7, if you can't appreciate our skepticism towards an unprecedented phenomena in the midst of the worlds worst terrorist attacks, you need to reassess your 9/11 probability distributions. Anything is possible, n'est pas?

I can appreciate skepticism regarding WTC 7's collapse; what I cannot appreciate is people, whose totality of research involves Google searches, YouTube videos, message boards, and Alex Jones radio shows, claiming 9/11 was an inside job. It was an unprecedneted event, to include the crashing of heavy aircraft at great speeds into tall office buildings.

I hope we can all remain civil...I'd still give odds that Beachnut somehow fits in the word delusional.

If you truly desire civil discourse, why are you taunting members one sentence later?

240-185

12th May 2010, 02:11 AM

Truthers' way of "debating":

"Let's debate in mutual respect, you a-holes!"

McHrozni

12th May 2010, 03:50 AM

In today's security-driven society, don't you think that the state control should be in regards to bomb making material and terrorists, not engineering data?

No, I don't, and I'm sure anyone that gives a millisecond of thought to this question won't, either.

It's simply not possible to control all bomb making material for getting into wrong hands. You can make an adequate bomb out of nail polish remover and hair bleach, as London attackers demonstrated. You can make a dangerous bomb out of fertilizer and diesel fuel, as Oklahoma city bombing demonstrated. It's just not possible to adequately control all possible ways to make a bomb.

It is possible, however, to control information of how best to demolish a building. I'm sure we can agree on that there are few legitimate reasons to want to know this, and plentiful reasons to control this information.

McHrozni

12th May 2010, 03:57 AM

NIST won't release the (correct me if I'm wrong) ANSYS files, as they might aid future terrorists in leveling Western buildings (is what it boils down to).

what the heck? is this really NIST's reasoning?
that is laughabl.

Ansys LS-Dyna can be buyed or even illegaly downloaded.
the data about the building is hardly a big secret anymore. the reports contain alot of info and also other sources give alot lot details about the WTC7 construction. money and time is the only thing needed to do a LS-Dyna FEA.

this cannot be the real reasion from NIST, its laughable.

T.A.M.

12th May 2010, 04:05 AM

Hello Skeptics,

I'm welcoming any questions, and will pose a few of my own. I hope we can all remain civil. You'll discover I am a rationalist, not a tin-foil hatter; I'd still give odds that Beachnut somehow fits in the word delusional.

I trust that our resident 9/11 mod, Lashl, will moderate objectively, for the benefit of the entire JREF forum.

...and away we go...

Finally, Mackey has me on ignore; I pissed him off sometime last year. If someone would be kind enough to apologize on my behalf, and invite him to this thread, his technical expertise would be greatly appreciated.

To better understanding my personal context if responding; physics and all related subjects should be expressed in semi-laymans terms. I cross-reference everything anyway (and suggest everyone does in this age of Internet) My specialty is economics and politics.

What I will try and do is bring to JREF the latest rebuttals from Truther websites; hopefully managing some back and forth between both sides. Don't worry,I'll share my personal opinion as well for your dissemination.

Specifically to 7, if you can't appreciate our skepticism towards an unprecedented phenomena in the midst of the worlds worst terrorist attacks, you need to reassess your 9/11 probability distributions. Anything is possible, n'est pas?

NIST won't release the (correct me if I'm wrong) ANSYS files, as they might aid future terrorists in leveling Western buildings (is what it boils down to). In today's security-driven society, don't you think that the state control should be in regards to bomb making material and terrorists, not engineering data? This is suspect enough to warrant scrutinizing. This is where I'm at....

1. Yes, having a global collapse of a skyscraper occur at the same time as two others do (for different reasons to a degree) is unusual. However, leaving fires to burn untreated for 7 hours is also...not the norm.

2. You'll have to post a well respected link proving your statement about why NIST wouldn't release the ANSYS files, simply because (A) it sounds like a silly excuse, and (B) IIRC they are available but you have to PAY FOR THEM.

Question #1

Did NIST accurately input the thermal conductivity of steel in their computer collapse scenario? Did NIST account for the concrete floors resting/attached to the steel-constructed floors? What effect would this have on the collapse simulation?

Out of my area of expertise or knowledge. I would say clarification as to why such would be relevant, would be a good addition to the debate, from your pov.

TAM:)

Dave Rogers

12th May 2010, 04:21 AM

Did NIST accurately input the thermal conductivity of steel in their computer collapse scenario?

That's kind of a strange question; having some experience of thermal modelling, I'll try to explain why.

NIST modelled the thermal response of the structure to the heating it experienced from the fire. The inputs to any thermal model, invariably and necessarily, will be a physical description of the system being modelled, incorporating dimensions, material properties (specifically, heat capacities and thermal conductivities, among others), and details of the heat input to the structure. To carry out thermal modelling without an accurate thermal conductivity for one of the principal materials involved, when that value is universally known, would demonstrate so staggering a degree of incompetence as to be almost indescribable. To carry out thermal modelling without considering the thermal conductivity of the materials at all, as some members of the truth movement have hinted might be an accusation they would level at NIST, is beyond unthinkable; it's actually a logical contradiction.

So, although I can't prove they did use the right value for the thermal conductivity of steel, I'd be stunned to hear that they used an incorrect value; it would be akin to Nissan releasing a new design of car and forgetting to put wheels on it.

Did NIST account for the concrete floors resting/attached to the steel-constructed floors?

Again, given that these were a significant part of the structural weight of the building, that NIST gathered and published their dimensions and compositions, and that the thermal response was explicitly modelled (necessitating a digital model of this part of the structure to be generated), it would be extraordinary if they didn't.

Dave

GlennB

12th May 2010, 04:47 AM

....
Anything is possible, n'est pas?
....

No. That might be the point where your critical thought processes need some adjustment.

p.s. it's n'est-ce pas

ImANiceGuy

12th May 2010, 07:04 AM

No. That might be the point where your critical thought processes need some adjustment.

p.s. it's n'est-ce pas

p.p.s It can also be n'est pas.

I have read through much of NIST's reports; I don't need .gov links please. I'll quote sections when necessary.

How does the collapse scenario change if the thermal conductivity values reflect the real values?

The collapse simulation data was partially withheld by NIST from some guy's FOIA; for apparent security reasons. This is fact(vague though, i must admit, no time to provide links). Ask yourself, is it likely that terrorists with the knowledge of long-span buildings weaknesses will then target these specific buildings? Not very likely.

I'm hoping that some members who are extremely familiar with the individual sections of NIST's final report on WTC7, can provide more information regarding their thermal conductivity values.

Sabrina

12th May 2010, 07:22 AM

Not if you're writing in French it can't. It's n'est-ce pas (pronounced "ness pah") according to every French person I've ever encountered.

As to the security issues (which, frankly, is all I'm qualified to speak to since I'm not an engineer or architect or scientist); I think it makes perfect sense to withhold data that might help a terrorist or someone with a grudge against a particular company or just someone who wants to harm others. Granted, there are not many buildings built like the WTC buildings were, but there are some, and to release that sort of information without placing some sort of caveat on it as to the use of the data is, quite frankly, stupid. The government has to weigh the potential for certain bits of data to cause harm if released to the general public, and while admittedly it's somewhat subjective, there are guidelines in place that dictate what can and cannot be released without limitations. If the person who submitted the FOIA intended to publish the data everywhere they possibly could, INCLUDING locations where terrorists or bombers or whoever means harm could locate it and determine the potential weak points, then NIST did the right thing by withholding it. My two cents, for what it's worth.

Dave Rogers

12th May 2010, 07:24 AM

How does the collapse scenario change if the thermal conductivity values reflect the real values?

That's an even stranger question. Since you've started by asking whether the thermal conductivity values are correct, and received no clear answer, then one might assume that you still don't know whether the thermal conductivity values are correct. And yet this question assumes that the thermal conductivity values are not correct. What's your basis for this assumption?

ETA:

Ask yourself, is it likely that terrorists with the knowledge of long-span buildings weaknesses will then target these specific buildings? Not very likely.

Ask yourself, rather, is it likely that a government agency, in providing commentary on the after-effects of a terrorist incident (which was, remember, the second attack on the WTC complex), would prefer to be over-cautious in its decisions on which data to release, or would decide to release any and all information without a specific reason not to? NIST may be witholding data they should ideally release, and their rationale for doing so may be poorly-reasoned or even completely invalid, but even if so there's a very innocent explanation for their paranoia; someone is out to get them.

Dave

Macgyver1968

12th May 2010, 07:30 AM

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make...are you saying NIST is wrong..therefore "inside job", and 7 was CD'ed?

DavidJames

12th May 2010, 07:42 AM

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make...are you saying NIST is wrong..therefore "inside job", and 7 was CD'ed?He seems to have uncovered a diabolically clever new tactic, just asking questions. :rolleyes:

BigAl

12th May 2010, 08:22 AM

Specifically to 7, if you can't appreciate our skepticism towards an unprecedented phenomena in the midst of the worlds worst terrorist attacks, you need to reassess your 9/11 probability distributions. Anything is possible, n'est pas?

What "unprecedented phenomena"?

Expansion of steel and the risks of uncontrolled fire in steel structures has been understood and taught to firemen for decades.

beachnut

12th May 2010, 08:38 AM

...state control should be in regards to bomb making material and terrorists, not engineering data? This is suspect enough to warrant scrutinizing. ...
Kind of paranoid. Anyone is free to do an engineering study on WTC7. 911Truth can't because unlike you they are not rational. The "state" does not prohibit engineering studies. lol, ... getting data on WTC7 could cost money; it is someone's work. I understand your frustration, to do a study on WTC7 could take years of your time, a super thesis for a few masters degrees or a PhD program dissertation. Life is hard, it takes real work to figure out things and it is not easy; 911 truth choose the easy road of spreading lies and delusions, and any rationalist can see that.

Specifically to 7, if you can't appreciate our skepticism towards an unprecedented phenomena in the midst of the worlds worst terrorist attacks, ... Fire destroying buildings is not unprecedented, this "unprecedented" junk is a 911 truth statement of stupidity. Repeating the standard cult lines make your claims of being a rationalist null and void.

...

cheers

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf)

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm)
You should take this advice and read and try to start at the source and not listen to the liars and frauds of 911 truth and the fringe dolt cult members.

TSR

12th May 2010, 09:41 AM

p.p.s It can also be n'est pas.

.
Not and be grammatically correct, it can't.
.

Newtons Bit

12th May 2010, 10:02 AM

what the heck? is this really NIST's reasoning?
that is laughabl.

Ansys LS-Dyna can be buyed or even illegaly downloaded.
the data about the building is hardly a big secret anymore. the reports contain alot of info and also other sources give alot lot details about the WTC7 construction. money and time is the only thing needed to do a LS-Dyna FEA.

this cannot be the real reasion from NIST, its laughable.

You're making an argument that there's no safety concern as anyone can download/buy/pirate Ansys or LS-Dyna. This might be true. That said, not everyone can put together a model that can accurately represent a building.

1. You need to understand how FEA works.

2. You need a good understanding of how buildings are put together and how they work structurally.

An advanced engineering degree for the 1st, and a couple years of experience for the second.

These aren't common. In fact, I would argue that they are very rare. There's a large number of truthers on the internet who would like nothing else than to create a model of the towers with one of these programs and prove "inside job", or that NIST is a bunch of liars, etc. Except they haven't. I postulate that it's not possible. They don't have the ability. Most terrorists, or people who want to do harm to buildings, also don't have the ability. Giving them a large-scale fully functional model would help them in understanding how to bring down buildings.

dudalb

12th May 2010, 10:11 AM

I smell a classic case of JAQing off here.
And I see the DC is beginning to suffer a relapse into Trutherism.

Oystein

12th May 2010, 12:07 PM

...
How does the collapse scenario change if the thermal conductivity values reflect the real values?
...
I'm hoping that some members who are extremely familiar with the individual sections of NIST's final report on WTC7, can provide more information regarding their thermal conductivity values.

Logical fallacy: Affirming the consequent.

Thunder

12th May 2010, 12:20 PM

if NIST or FEMA is wrong about anything, in regards to 9-11....than 9-11 was an Inside Job!!!!!

:)

GlennB

12th May 2010, 01:16 PM

p.p.s It can also be n'est pas.

When you toss in a little French and get it wrong but then claim it's right, then you're off to a rocky start.

Bell

12th May 2010, 01:41 PM

if NIST or FEMA is wrong about anything, in regards to 9-11....than 9-11 was an Inside Job!!!!!

:)

If it was an inside job, why would NIST or FEMA be wrong? They could have made up everything as long as it satisfies all laws of nature.

ImANiceGuy

12th May 2010, 02:34 PM

.
Not and be grammatically correct, it can't.
.

Ungrammatical explanation of another language's grammar = irony

Not if you're writing in French it can't. It's n'est-ce pas (pronounced "ness pah") according to every French person I've ever encountered.

J'suis sur que votre francais vient du France par ce que votre grammaire n'est pas assez mal que la plupart du Quebec. Fait que....

Considering the context, I agree that the "-ce" is required...

On topic post soon to come. (in english)

dudalb

12th May 2010, 02:41 PM

Just checked the OP's posting history.
It is one long "I am Not A Truther But I Have A Few Questions" routine.
You are not fooling anybody with that.

beachnut

12th May 2010, 03:15 PM

Ungrammatical explanation of another language's grammar = irony

J'suis sur que votre francais vient du France par ce que votre grammaire n'est pas assez mal que la plupart du Quebec. Fait que....

Considering the context, I agree that the "-ce" is required...

On topic post soon to come. (in english)
It is so easy to get truthers off topic because they have no evidence, their failed ideas have no substance.

Have you finished reading NIST? Looks like your question is not important as you are distracted by your own nonsense.

If someone had questions on 911 and it was important, they would take the courses to understand the things they have problems with; after 8 years they would have a PhD and solve their own questions. Why have you wasted 8 years and dredge up delusions from 911 truth in the form of uniformed questions?

You never answer questions about your questions; what are you talking about? unprecedented phenomena What phenomena are you talking about?

TSR

12th May 2010, 03:23 PM

Ungrammatical explanation of another language's grammar = irony

.
Of course, "guy" does not explain what was ungrammatical about my comment, and yet:
.

Considering the context, I agree that the "-ce" is required...

.
Then why did you dispute this when it was pointed out to you?
.

ImANiceGuy

12th May 2010, 04:06 PM

It is so easy to get truthers off topic because they have no evidence, their failed ideas have no substance.

Have you finished reading NIST? Looks like your question is not important as you are distracted by your own nonsense.

If someone had questions on 911 and it was important, they would take the courses to understand the things they have problems with; after 8 years they would have a PhD and solve their own questions. Why have you wasted 8 years and dredge up delusions from 911 truth in the form of uniformed questions?

You never answer questions about your questions; what are you talking about? What phenomena are you talking about?

Oh beachnuts, you missed the last sentence of my off-topic post....the one where I said an on-topic post was coming.

I haven't finished reading NIST, as it is a huge organization, with lots of written material. I think I'll stcik to the 10,000 or so pages concerning the WTC reports.

If you could be slightly patient, I'll try to reference the NIST sources directly and not some bs truther youtube video.

Finally, I'm not trying to fool anyone; I've decided the only way to ask questions around here is to be a self-proclaimed Truther. Yes I believe there was a grand conspiracy on 9/11, you can put the hidden-motive speculations aside.

....still reading the NCSTAR*.* info....its very lengthy, repetitive and sources different .pdf's which take forever to dl on this network.

BigAl

12th May 2010, 04:14 PM

Oh beachnuts, you missed the last sentence of my off-topic post....the one where I said an on-topic post was coming.

I haven't finished reading NIST, as it is a huge organization, with lots of written material. I think I'll stcik to the 10,000 or so pages concerning the WTC report.

Tell us on what page NIST uses the phrase "unprecedented phenomena."

Thunder

12th May 2010, 04:17 PM

why in the name of God...would I want to debate a Truther?

I mean, what exactly is their to debate? "nano-thermite"? "no-plane theory"?

give me a break.

ImANiceGuy

12th May 2010, 04:32 PM

if NIST or FEMA is wrong about anything, in regards to 9-11....than 9-11 was an Inside Job!!!!!

:)

Where does this disconnect occur? Can we not scrutinize NIST without implying far-fetched CD hypothesises?

Does anyoen know how to bypass the security settings for the .pdf's in order to copy and paste portions of text?

Bigal - I appreciated your reply and am constructing a response.....technical difficulties are causing delays.

Mince

12th May 2010, 04:34 PM

Considering the context, I agree that the "-ce" is required...

Continuing this ridiculous derail (since you also did): in any context, the French term "n'est-ce pas" ---pronounced "ness pah" and meaning "is it not"---is spelled precisely how I (and others) have laid it out. You cannot ever leave off the "-ce" and be correct. The "-ce" is the object "it" in the translation "is it not." N'est pas (pronounced "nay pah") simply means "not" or "is not", which you clearly did not mean by the context of your post.

"Anything is possible, n'est pas?" you wrote. Translated, you wrote "Anything is possible, is not?" (a contradictory statement, not a question) when you meant to write "Anything is possible, n'est-ce pas?", which means in English, "Anything is possible, is it not?"

I feel ridiculous explaining this because it is a horrible and unnecessary derail and because upon any cursory examination of the two terms, you'll discover you are incorrect. You chose to participate in the derail of your own thread, so I don't mind so much.

J'suis sur que votre francais vient du France par ce que votre grammaire n'est pas assez mal que la plupart du Quebec. Fait que....

In the above, you mean "your grammar is not"; in the sentence at issue, you meant "anything is possible, is it not?". And it's "Je suis"....

Are you a beginning French student? I mean no insult by asking this question, but you seem to know a little French, but not much and not very well. The sentence above is an atrocity of jumbled French words that don't fit well together. It's like you are taking an English sentence and literally translating word for word, which you cannot do, or copying and pasting English into a bad online translator. I can remember when I first started taking French, how I so badly wanted to impress my friends and family with my newfound knowledge and to say things they couldn't understand. I'm sure, not knowing any French, a lot of them were impressed; but any French national would have been LOLing to death.

ETA: I see the thread's back on topic now. I'm done with the ridiculous derail...sorry.

beachnut

12th May 2010, 04:48 PM

Oh beachnuts, you missed the last sentence of my off-topic post....the one where I said an on-topic post was coming.

...
....still reading the NCSTAR*.* info....its very lengthy, repetitive and sources different .pdf's which take forever to dl on this network.
Oh, No ImANiceGuys, I did not miss where you said an on topic post was coming. Sorry, you can't read minds or make logical conclusions and is indicative of your adopting idiotic 911 truth delusions.

Good luck with NIST. But you already made up your mind based on hearsay, lies and fantasy.

Yes I believe there was a grand conspiracy on 9/11, you can put the hidden-motive speculations aside.
Neat, you start with a delusions and try to back in the evidence. Not exactly the scientific method, more of a fictional approach to develop delusions free of logic, facts, and evidence.

dudalb

12th May 2010, 04:57 PM

Where does this disconnect occur? Can we not scrutinize NIST without implying far-fetched CD hypothesises?

Does anyoen know how to bypass the security settings for the .pdf's in order to copy and paste portions of text?

Bigal - I appreciated your reply and am constructing a response.....technical difficulties are causing delays.

Gee, almost every PDF I have you simply outline the text, right click and copy it, then paste it in notepad or Word.
If you are doing from a website, you might want to try dowloading it.......

ImANiceGuy

12th May 2010, 05:53 PM

Continuing this ridiculous derail (since you also did): in any context, the French term "n'est-ce pas" ---pronounced "ness pah" and meaning "is it not"---is spelled precisely how I (and others) have laid it out. You cannot ever leave off the "-ce" and be correct. The "-ce" is the object "it" in the translation "is it not." N'est pas (pronounced "nay pah") simply means "not" or "is not", which you clearly did not mean by the context of your post.

"Anything is possible, n'est pas?" you wrote. Translated, you wrote "Anything is possible, is not?" (a contradictory statement, not a question) when you meant to write "Anything is possible, n'est-ce pas?", which means in English, "Anything is possible, is it not?"

I feel ridiculous explaining this because it is a horrible and unnecessary derail and because upon any cursory examination of the two terms, you'll discover you are incorrect. You chose to participate in the derail of your own thread, so I don't mind so much.

In the above, you mean "your grammar is not"; in the sentence at issue, you meant "anything is possible, is it not?". And it's "Je suis"....

Are you a beginning French student? I mean no insult by asking this question, but you seem to know a little French, but not much and not very well. The sentence above is an atrocity of jumbled French words that don't fit well together. It's like you are taking an English sentence and literally translating word for word, which you cannot do, or copying and pasting English into a bad online translator. I can remember when I first started taking French, how I so badly wanted to impress my friends and family with my newfound knowledge and to say things they couldn't understand. I'm sure, not knowing any French, a lot of them were impressed; but any French national would have been LOLing to death.

ETA: I see the thread's back on topic now. I'm done with the ridiculous derail...sorry.

Mince....I am french. "J'suis", typed this way, is like "I'm". "Fait que..." is loosely translated as "however" or "unless that"....

Just like in the english language, what gets typed vs what is gramatically correct is quite different. I explained(in french) that you must be learning France french rather than Quebec french because your grammar is not poor enough for Quebec. In France, they laugh at our French. In Quebec, even Sarkozy himself wouldn't understand much....its akin to english ebonics.

Anyway....we are back on topic...esti niaiseux

ImANiceGuy

12th May 2010, 05:57 PM

Oh, No ImANiceGuys, I did not miss where you said an on topic post was coming. Sorry, you can't read minds or make logical conclusions and is indicative of your adopting idiotic 911 truth delusions.

Good luck with NIST. But you already made up your mind based on hearsay, lies and fantasy.

Neat, you start with a delusions and try to back in the evidence. Not exactly the scientific method, more of a fictional approach to develop delusions free of logic, facts, and evidence.

Beachnut drops "delusion" 3 times in this post.....turns out I can read minds!

Explain my delusion to me Beachnut, please. Quote me early and often if youd like...

How can you tell me that my mind is made up?

ImANiceGuy

12th May 2010, 05:59 PM

carlitos

12th May 2010, 06:02 PM

That explains the bad French.

c't'une tabernac d'affaire, là

ImANiceGuy

12th May 2010, 06:16 PM

Franco-Ontarien en actualite......we are slightly snottier than Quebecers, less refined that Parisiens.

carlitos

12th May 2010, 06:27 PM

Ah, my apologies. For the record, I loves me some poutine. I will be enjoying some this July ... up there.

ImANiceGuy

12th May 2010, 07:37 PM

Tell us on what page NIST uses the phrase "unprecedented phenomena."

I believe it was in the WTC7 Q & A brief, which I cannot find the link to anymore.

I'm certain that Shyam(sp?) described the event as a "phenomena" as well as "the first ever fire induced progressive collapse".

Point being that the rarity of such an event in context of the 9/11 attacks adds fuel to the fires (pun intended).

I'll try to find the exact quote.....combing NCSTAR is a time-consuming process as it will not let me search metadata nor copy and paste text.

BigAl

12th May 2010, 07:46 PM

I believe it was in the WTC7 Q & A brief, which I cannot find the link to anymore.

I'm certain that Shyam(sp?) described the event as a "phenomena" as well as "the first ever fire induced progressive collapse".

Right guy. Now find out precisely what was unprecedented.

ImANiceGuy

12th May 2010, 07:53 PM

beachnut

12th May 2010, 08:50 PM

Beachnut drops "delusion" 3 times in this post.....turns out I can read minds!

Explain my delusion to me Beachnut, please. Quote me early and often if youd like...

How can you tell me that my mind is made up? You seem to be stuck on a fence in the pit of ignorance known as 911 truth. … you are a proxy for 911 truth, here to ask questions because you are a nice guy. nice...

… you don't have substantial 911 knowledge and can't support 911 truth. Not sure if you share Jones insanity on thermite; guess you don't and can't support it better than the noncommittal posts you have made. Where have you been for months, climbing back on the fence in 911 truth fantasyland?
Why does no one publish a rebuttal to the Jones/Haritt paper in the journal of their own choice?
... How is reading NIST coming along?

No support for Kevin. I assume with zero evidence and facts (and messing up the facts) to help Kevin you don't support his failed ideas.
...
I understand that Kevin Ryan has made some pretty interesting claims, not all of which are true, probably not most of all are true. ...

Guess it is out of the question to ask what the heck melted metals have to do with 19 terrorists doing 911. You offered zero rational ideas on why you bring up the subject; except to ask questions. Why the tangential junk? (are you trying to support thermite?)
... Flowing molten metals, weeks after the collapses; many, many witnesses. ... Why does 911 truth bring this up? Are they nuts?

...
There is a difference between the CIA running Al-Queda, and a sasquatch piloting soda machines, when it comes to making a stretch. ... Yes, and you have the evidence to not prove it. lol

... It is, however, well documented that Al-Qaeda members received training from the CIA during the Mujahadeen guerilla war in Afghanistan, to fight the soviets. Duh. No real sources yet? Do you still stand by this one, or you are going with Bigfoot flying jets dumping tons of Coca Cola?

Good luck with NIST and being a proxy to the 911 cult question asking club. Why are you a proxy for the moronic claims of 911 truth? You are such a nice guy, supporting terrorist apologists.

T.A.M.

12th May 2010, 09:27 PM

I did download the .pdf's, and as far as I can tell, there is a security setting which does not allow text to be copied and pasted...

I might be a truther, but I'm not an imbicile. (that should elicit some stupid useless comments)

There are programs out there that can remove the security...of course I do not endorse such:D

TAM:)

funk de fino

13th May 2010, 12:44 AM

well that would be the fire induced progressive collapse (first ever = unprecedented)

I'll find the quotes so you aren't forced to take me at my word!

I feel as though you're getting at something though........thoughts?

I think you are wrong on this. There have been many fire induced progressive collapses.

Unprecedented was the thermal creep at lower temperatures than had been seen previously I believe.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1824447b1cfcfa7614.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10770)

Dave Rogers

13th May 2010, 02:02 AM

Right guy. Now find out precisely what was unprecedented.

well that would be the fire induced progressive collapse (first ever = unprecedented)

Can I suggest that you consider the complete set of unprecedented events that occurred on 9/11, rather than cherry-picking one in isolation and neglecting the causal connection from earlier unprecedented events whose validity is not in question unless you're Jammonius? For example, it was unprecedented for a 110 storey building to collapse close enough to a 47-storey building to cause widespread structural damage from debris impact. It was unprecedented for a 47-storey building to experience simultaneous initiation of multiple fires at multiple locations on multiple floors (two 110 storey buildings had also experienced simultaneous multiple floor fire initiations, but both of those had also collapsed). It was unprecedented for no effective firefighting effort to be possible due to a rupture of the water main to the area. Given all these pre-conditions, yet another unprecedented occurrance is rather less than striking.

Context is everything. Neglect it at your peril.

Dave

BigAl

13th May 2010, 02:29 AM

well that would be the fire induced progressive collapse (first ever = unprecedented)

Stop guessing.

I feel as though you're getting at something though........thoughts?

Of course I am.

Architect

13th May 2010, 05:01 AM

Iamaniceguy,

There's a book you should read called "Why Buildings Fall Down". It doesn't actually cover fire induced collapse, IIRC, but it does give you a feel for just how complex building failure analysis can be.

I can't speak for engineers, but in the UK architects usually study in the first year or two of their courses.

RedIbis

13th May 2010, 05:48 AM

For example, it was unprecedented for a 110 storey building to collapse close enough to a 47-storey building to cause widespread structural damage from debris impact.

And yet that structural damage is not what caused the bldg to collapse. You already know this, so why are you perpetuating this misconception?

240-185

13th May 2010, 05:58 AM

I'm sure, not knowing any French, a lot of them were impressed; but any French national would have been LOLing to death.

See a French dinosaur LOLing to death:

p.p.s It can also be n'est pas.
No, nah, nope, never. Mince has carefully explained what is wrong with this. And "n'est pas" is NOT grammatically correct in French, therefore NOBODY says incorrect bullfeces like this. If even somebody spoke really like this, he would be considered as a retarded guy.

Now the best part:

J'suis (1) sur (2) que votre francais (3) vient du France (4) par ce que (5) votre grammaire n'est pas assez mal que la plupart du Quebec (6). Fait que (7)....
(1) Contracted forms are not correct in written French. Writing "J'suis" may give you some cool attitude, but that is all.

(2) We have two words written in almost identical form: "sur" and "sûr". The first word means "above", the second "sure". The point is: accents on letters are important.

(3) Cedillas are important too. If you do not know how to write it, just copy and paste it: "ç"

(4) Incorrect again. In French, the grammatical gender of words matters. "France" is a feminine word. So the right thing is: "de la France".

(5) Spelling error. It is written "parce que".

(6) What the hell? This is complete nonsense! Perhaps you wanted to write "Your grammar is not as bad as in most part of the Québec". "Mal" must be followed by an adjective, not a pronoun. The right sentence should be: "Votre grammaire n'est pas aussi mauvaise que ce qu'on trouve dans la plupart du Québec".

(7) Complete garbage here. I do not see what you wanted to write by putting alone a verb and a pronoun.

So, do not EVER use French again, or I will have to correct it, showing how poor your level is. And I am afraid I have to say that either Ontarians' French is HORRIBLE, either you are LEARNING French. Even kiddies from Québec do not write such a terrible way!

Dave Rogers

13th May 2010, 05:59 AM

And yet that structural damage is not what caused the bldg to collapse. You already know this, so why are you perpetuating this misconception?

I'd just like to point out exactly how and why RedIbis is lying here, because it may not be clear. Firstly, NIST found that their models predicted that the building would have collapsed from the fire alone, but that the collapse progressed differently when the structural damage was included. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude (unless you're deliberately lying to further a dishonest agenda) that a combination of structural damage and fire damage caused the collapse. Secondly, the structural damage opened large areas of wall in the building, resulting in better ventilation for the fires; therefore, the structural damage contributed to the spread of the fires, and therefore even if the fires had been the sole cause of collapse, the unprecedented structural damage was still a contributory factor to the unprecedented scale of those fires; when we're looking at why one specific unprecedented event happened, all the prior unprecedented events that are connected by a chain of causality to that event are relevant to consider, and that causal connection is well established. And finally, nothing in my post perpetuated the misconception that the structural damage caused the building to collapse.

And it's ironic, though hardly unexpected given his record of blatant misrepresentation on this forum, that RedIbis should have looked at a post which stressed the importance of context, then quote-mined a small section of it to give a misleading impression of the general tenor of the post.

RedIbis, ImANiceGuy requested a serious debate, not a truther lie-fest. Kindly stop *********** in the pool.

Dave

WildCat

13th May 2010, 06:21 AM

Question #1

Did NIST accurately input the thermal conductivity of steel in their computer collapse scenario? Did NIST account for the concrete floors resting/attached to the steel-constructed floors? What effect would this have on the collapse simulation?
In what engineering journal was this truther rebuttal posted in? :rolleyes:

WildCat

13th May 2010, 06:26 AM

Gee, almost every PDF I have you simply outline the text, right click and copy it, then paste it in notepad or Word.
If you are doing from a website, you might want to try dowloading it.......
Careful... I once broke a thread here by pasting from a pdf that had a lot of formatting tags. It made the thread impossible to view!

sheeplesnshills

13th May 2010, 07:29 AM

Does anyoen know how to bypass the security settings for the .pdf's in order to copy and paste portions of text?

Its probably a scan of a document in pdf form not an original pdf. If you have a OCR you can probably pull out the text.

sheeplesnshills

13th May 2010, 07:36 AM

well that would be the fire induced progressive collapse (first ever = unprecedented)

I'll find the quotes so you aren't forced to take me at my word!

I feel as though you're getting at something though........thoughts?

WTC7 was the third that day, so no it was hardly unprecedented.......now maybe one could call the collapse of WTC1 "unprecedented" because of its scale and initial cause of the fire but steel buildings failing in fires was nothing new.

sheeplesnshills

13th May 2010, 07:41 AM

No, nah, nope, never. Mince has carefully explained what is wrong with this. And "n'est pas" is NOT grammatically correct in French, therefore NOBODY says incorrect bullfeces like this. If even somebody spoke really like this, he would be considered as a retarded guy.

Actually in my schooldays, long ago, in Scotland it was written as "n'est pas"
and I got a C in my O level :)

sheeplesnshills

13th May 2010, 07:46 AM

And yet that structural damage is not what caused the bldg to collapse. You already know this, so why are you perpetuating this misconception?

Details of the damage were not available to NIST so it was not included in the calcs. They showed that fire alone could cause the failure, not that there was no damage.
Are you saying that building damage would have helped it stay up or burn slower?:rolleyes:

RedIbis

13th May 2010, 11:39 AM

I'd just like to point out exactly how and why RedIbis is lying here, because it may not be clear. Firstly, NIST found that their models predicted that the building would have collapsed from the fire alone, but that the collapse progressed differently when the structural damage was included. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude (unless you're deliberately lying to further a dishonest agenda) that a combination of structural damage and fire damage caused the collapse. Secondly, the structural damage opened large areas of wall in the building, resulting in better ventilation for the fires; therefore, the structural damage contributed to the spread of the fires, and therefore even if the fires had been the sole cause of collapse, the unprecedented structural damage was still a contributory factor to the unprecedented scale of those fires; when we're looking at why one specific unprecedented event happened, all the prior unprecedented events that are connected by a chain of causality to that event are relevant to consider, and that causal connection is well established. And finally, nothing in my post perpetuated the misconception that the structural damage caused the building to collapse.

And it's ironic, though hardly unexpected given his record of blatant misrepresentation on this forum, that RedIbis should have looked at a post which stressed the importance of context, then quote-mined a small section of it to give a misleading impression of the general tenor of the post.

RedIbis, ImANiceGuy requested a serious debate, not a truther lie-fest. Kindly stop *********** in the pool.

Dave

Well there will certainly never be any kind of honest debate if you yell, liar liar pants on fire every time you're called on your exaggerations and misrepresentations.

I have quotes from NIST to back up where they said structural damage had little effect on initiating the collapse. The reason you're being petulant is because you know you have to defend NIST's preposterous fire theory and are trying to shoehorn structural damage into the discussion.

It would be nice to see some kind of civil debate take place here for once, but regardless of what debate transpires you'll be forced to defend a fire theory. I can understand why you're trying to avoid it.

funk de fino

13th May 2010, 12:21 PM

T.A.M.

13th May 2010, 12:35 PM

Well there will certainly never be any kind of honest debate if you yell, liar liar pants on fire every time you're called on your exaggerations and misrepresentations.

I have quotes from NIST to back up where they said structural damage had little effect on initiating the collapse. The reason you're being petulant is because you know you have to defend NIST's preposterous fire theory and are trying to shoehorn structural damage into the discussion.

It would be nice to see some kind of civil debate take place here for once, but regardless of what debate transpires you'll be forced to defend a fire theory. I can understand why you're trying to avoid it.

Well given the easier thing for the "liars" at NIST to do, would be to LIE and say that the structural damage DID significantly impact on the collapse, WHY ON GODS EARTH did they say that it didn't?

BECAUSE THEIR MODEL PREDICTS COLLAPSE WITHOUT THE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.

As for your opinion on why people are being petulant, well it it doesn't take that much to make us such when dealing with snake oil salesmen.

To be honest, from a laymen pov, until NIST came out with their final paper, I thought that the impact damage from the debris WOULD have been a significant factor...I was surprised like everyone else when they said it wasn't. However, just because they said it didn't, didn't make me suddenly go, "oh they must be covering up something.".

TAM:)

beachnut

13th May 2010, 12:38 PM

... it was unprecedented for a 110 storey building to collapse close enough to a 47-storey building to cause widespread structural damage from debris impact. It was unprecedented for a 47-storey building to experience simultaneous initiation of multiple fires at multiple locations on multiple floors ...

And yet that structural damage is not what caused the bldg to collapse. You already know this, so why are you perpetuating this misconception?
Oops, you have the misconception, Dave did not say what you think he said. Did you mess up and made up junk ideas and posted to your illusion of what you thought you read?

... I have quotes from NIST to back up where they said structural damage had little effect on initiating the collapse. ... It had little effect. A little is some. Glad you cleared that up. It had some effect on initiating the collapse. When will you have those citations for back up?

Dave Rogers

13th May 2010, 12:50 PM

Well there will certainly never be any kind of honest debate if you yell, liar liar pants on fire every time you're called on your exaggerations and misrepresentations.

RedIbis, there will never be any kind of honest debate as long as you insist on dishonestly misrepresenting your opponents' positions. Since you seem addicted to that behaviour, it's unlikely you'll ever be able to participate in an honest debate.

I have quotes from NIST to back up where they said structural damage had little effect on initiating the collapse.

(a) 'Little' and 'none' are not the same word, and (b) you were lying when you claimed I was trying to give the impression that the collapse was caused by the impact damage. Anyone can look back over the thread and see that I wasn't claiming any such thing, yet you've chosen to repeat your lie. It's not helping you.

The reason you're being petulant is because you know you have to defend NIST's preposterous fire theory and are trying to shoehorn structural damage into the discussion.

NIST's collapse hypothesis, which states that the collapse was caused primarily by fire damage but progressed in a way that was significantly affected by the impact damage, is accepted by all honest, unbiased and competent commentators. The fact that you find it 'preposterous' is your own problem.

It would be nice to see some kind of civil debate take place here for once, but regardless of what debate transpires you'll be forced to defend a fire theory. I can understand why you're trying to avoid it.

Since I've repeatedly defended it, this is another lie.

Dave

ImANiceGuy

13th May 2010, 05:08 PM

No, nah, nope, never. Mince has carefully explained what is wrong with this. And "n'est pas" is NOT grammatically correct in French, therefore NOBODY says incorrect bullfeces like this. If even somebody spoke really like this, he would be considered as a retarded guy.

Francais n'est pas capable a utilize jargon, especialement a l'internet?

I can't believe you took the time to disect this sentence and point out the missing accents! How long did you silly post take to construct? What a laugh! Thanks though...

ImANiceGuy

13th May 2010, 05:23 PM

Stop guessing.

Of course I am.

I'm not guessing, I'm telling. I also told you I was looking for the sources....so chill out!

I'm not claiming that the unprecedented nature of the collapse is suspect, only that it adds fuel to conspiracy theorists.

I agree with RedIbis that the wording used by skeptics often implies that the structural damage from the collapsing tower somehow affected the collapse initiation. The reality is that the only effect it had on the collapse was a sharp dip to the damaged corner in the last "phase".

DavidJames

13th May 2010, 05:32 PM

Francais n'est pas capable a utilize jargon, especialement a l'internet?

I can't believe you took the time to disect this sentence and point out the missing accents! How long did you silly post take to construct? What a laugh! Thanks though...And therein lies the difference between people who are concerned about getting their facts correct and those that pretend they know something, but really don't.

People will also note the pretenders will often respond exactly as you did.

Edx

13th May 2010, 05:53 PM

I agree with RedIbis that the wording used by skeptics often implies that the structural damage from the collapsing tower somehow affected the collapse initiation. The reality is that the only effect it had on the collapse was a sharp dip to the damaged corner in the last "phase".

The issue for me is that truthers deny any signficiant damage at all, that the pictures are fakes, the smoke coming is really only from WTC6 and the witness' are lying and that there were no major fires. Clearly truthers think fires and the damage would contribute to the collapse, that's why they have to deny it.

ImANiceGuy

13th May 2010, 05:57 PM

And therein lies the difference between people who are concerned about getting their facts correct and those that pretend they know something, but really don't.

People will also note the pretenders will often respond exactly as you did.

David, I think your opinion of me is a little misguided. I would suggest reading through the entire thread in order to gain better context and make less ignorant posts.

beachnut

13th May 2010, 06:08 PM

David, I think your opinion of me is a little misguided. I would suggest reading through the entire thread in order to gain better context and make less ignorant posts.
Means you failed to read NIST and can't contribute to your own 911 truth proxy OP? yep, and you ran out of interest in your fake 911 truth proxy thread.

When is your next 911 truth proxy thread coming. I can't wait to see how you will show your indifference in the next thread to finding the truth by posting another question you don't care about since you are easily distracted by anything and avoid the topic.

You may also like to look through http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-5index.htm (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-5index.htm) particularly NCSTAR 1-5G that goes through the process of verifying the thermal models with real world experiments.
Was this helpful?

ImANiceGuy

13th May 2010, 06:27 PM

The issue for me is that truthers deny any signficiant damage at all, that the pictures are fakes, the smoke coming is really only from WTC6 and the witness' are lying and that there were no major fires. Clearly truthers think fires and the damage would contribute to the collapse, that's why they have to deny it.

When you say "truthers deny any significant damage".....I would ask: How is the damage significant in regards to the collapse? The answer is that it was not; it was the fires that caused the collapse.....then, we would both agree, the Truthers would proceed to deny the fires.

What concerns me is not the status of the building(on fire, no sprinklers), it is the investigation into the collapse.

....still reading NCSTAR to verify info from Truther vids......thanks for the help w/ the .pdf editing.

I don't expect credit for not posting links to youtube vids; however, please be patient as the 'real' source information takes some time to gather.

Newtons Bit

13th May 2010, 06:31 PM

please be patient as the 'real' source information takes some time to gather.

Maybe you should have started by reading the original information rather than the conspiracy peddlers?

ImANiceGuy

13th May 2010, 06:32 PM

Means you failed to read NIST and can't contribute to your own 911 truth proxy OP? yep, and you ran out of interest in your fake 911 truth proxy thread.

When is your next 911 truth proxy thread coming. I can't wait to see how you will show your indifference in the next thread to finding the truth by posting another question you don't care about since you are easily distracted by anything and avoid the topic.

Was this helpful?

Beachnut, I already explained that reading NIST in its entirety would take years....they've studied subjects other than just the WTC.

Beachnut, sincerely, what is your issue with me personally.....hate the Truth movement all you want, call them delusional if you'd like (some certainly are). Everytime you insult my posts or call me out I respond for clarification and get no response.

It is you who is dodging legitimate questions; eg. You called my ideas delusional: please tell me exactly where I have demonstrated this with a quote. Please give me some, any reason to not put you on ignore...

KoihimeNakamura

13th May 2010, 06:34 PM

When you say "truthers deny any significant damage".....I would ask: How is the damage significant in regards to the collapse? The answer is that it was not; it was the fires that caused the collapse.....then, we would both agree, the Truthers would proceed to deny the fires.

Except the damage significantly weakened the structural integrity. The fires created the collapse, but the damage done sped up the timescale of collapse.

triforcharity

13th May 2010, 06:34 PM

I did download the .pdf's, and as far as I can tell, there is a security setting which does not allow text to be copied and pasted...

I might be a truther, but I'm not an imbicile. (that should elicit some stupid useless comments)

right click on it, select "select" instead of hand, or whatever, and go back to the PDF. Or, you can simply do a screen shot, put it on your harddrive, then to photobucket, and paste link here.

Remember when using PB, use the IMG link.

triforcharity

13th May 2010, 06:48 PM

I'm not guessing, I'm telling. I also told you I was looking for the sources....so chill out!

I'm not claiming that the unprecedented nature of the collapse is suspect, only that it adds fuel to conspiracy theorists.

I agree with RedIbis that the wording used by skeptics often implies that the structural damage from the collapsing tower somehow affected the collapse initiation. The reality is that the only effect it had on the collapse was a sharp dip to the damaged corner in the last "phase".

You keep taking things out of context again. It did not directly affect the collapse. It DID however, directly affect the fire's progression inside the building, which IS the cause of the collapse.

BigAl

13th May 2010, 07:25 PM

When you say "truthers deny any significant damage".....I would ask: How is the damage significant in regards to the collapse? .

To be significant, the only damage necessary could be as little as destroying some of the fireproofing. Breaking lots of windows on the south side would contribute to the collapse by allowing generous ventilation for the fires.

A building is designed to survive a fire for an hour or so with a working sprinkler system while the fire trucks arrive. In my experience, buildings are designed to contain a fire to one floor until the FD shows up.

With no sprinklers, damaged fireproofing, lots of ventilation and fire on multiple floors and no water for firefighting, WTC7 was doomed.

BigAl

13th May 2010, 07:31 PM

I agree with RedIbis that the wording used by skeptics often implies that the structural damage from the collapsing tower somehow affected the collapse initiation. The reality is that the only effect it had on the collapse was a sharp dip to the damaged corner in the last "phase".

A "sharp dip" means the structure is doomed.

WTC7 was known to be doomed as early as 2PM due to observed bulging.

This has been pointed out to Red countless times.

Sword_Of_Truth

13th May 2010, 08:23 PM

And yet that structural damage is not what caused the bldg to collapse. You already know this, so why are you perpetuating this misconception?

Dave didn't say that it did cause the collapse. You're lying like a truther again, Red.

ImANiceGuy

13th May 2010, 09:36 PM

I think similarly to the other topic; literally, the heat of the structure during/after the collapse, many misunderstandings between (master)debaters have come from the spurious interchanging of specific words such as molten metal vs molten steel; mostly by truthers Big difference in this case

However, with the depth of analysis one is subjected to here(rightfully so; and including sometimes random grammar lessons from foreigners) the need to stress exact wordage within posts is a little over-the-top in your collective favor.

There is a culture here of self-serving interpretation as an excuse to debase other members. You can't pick and choose when to take something literally or not in order to marginalize them as Truthers.

Some of us are normal people who hear crazy stories and Jesse Ventura on CNN and decide to do a little investigating, on our own, in our spare(and limited)time. What you learn from an initial search is that JREF is the place to go if you want straight answers. The problem is you guys dont even let us ask questions, you've heard it all before....

Don't end up chasing everyone away...

feel free to mess with jammonious though, im pretty sure hes a noplaner right?

Oystein

13th May 2010, 10:22 PM

...
What concerns me is not the status of the building(on fire, no sprinklers), it is the investigation into the collapse.
...

<-- *shaking head in disbelief*

GlennB

13th May 2010, 11:58 PM

Francais n'est pas capable a utilize jargon, especialement a l'internet?

:rolleyes:

Finding some obscure/devious/deceptive way to back up a plain error is a typical Truther tactic. You're doing it again here. Which is partly why people are assuming you are a typical Truther who's simply doing a poor job of disguising the fact.

For the record, what you wrote in the Franglais above translates as is not and becomes a question purely through intonation, rather than the is it not in your original which is (as I recall) known as a question tag.

And I would have thought it should be capable d' utiliser , but then my French is not strong.

Regards

"A foreigner"

Sword_Of_Truth

14th May 2010, 12:53 AM

Hello Skeptics, I'm welcoming any questions, and will pose a few of my own. I hope we can all remain civil. You'll discover I am a rationalist, not a tin-foil hatter; I'd still give odds that Beachnut somehow fits in the word delusional.

Pleading to "debate not debase" and then immediately taking a swing at someone in your opening statement is inconsistent, to put it lightly.

Beachnut is aggressive when he sights a target, but he isn't remotely delusional.

240-185

14th May 2010, 01:19 AM

TL;DR: IamaNiceGuy's French is an insult to this language.
_______________________

I can't believe you took the time to disect this sentence and point out the missing accents! How long did you silly post take to construct? What a laugh! Thanks though...

If you had not pretended to be an expert about French language, my post would have never appeared.
French language is a difficult language to learn, and French spelling is very exigent. What you did there is whining against a real French who showed you how pedant you are by trying to impress people with babbles like this:

Francais (1) n'est pas capable a utilize (2) (3) jargon (4), especialement (5) a l'internet? (6) (7)
Oh right, now you try to move the goalposts. Yes, I should have said that "n'est pas" was not grammatically correct when you want to say "isn't it". Here, the meaning is simply "X is not Y".

However, this sentence accumulates, once again, grammatical aberrations. I said I had to correct you at every sentence you try to write in French, so here we go:

(1) In a French phrase, every noun is preceded by an article.
(2) The right construction is: "être" + adjective + "de" (or "d'" if the verb starts with a vowel).
(3) By the way, it is "utiliSER".
(4) Same as (1)
(5) It's "spécialement".
(6) The right construction is : article + noun + "de/d'" + noun. So it is "le jargon d'Internet", not that accumulation of spookiness.
(7) As GlennB said, learn to construct correct interrogative sentences.

The right phrase should have been : "Le français n'est-il pas capable d'utiliser le jargon qui vient spécialement d'Internet ?". Very, very, very different from what you dared to write.

As French magazines are sold in Franco-Ontarian territories, do NOT pretend that every Ontarian writes like you. It's a lie.

T.A.M.

14th May 2010, 04:08 AM

Dave Rogers

14th May 2010, 06:59 AM

I agree with RedIbis that the wording used by skeptics often implies that the structural damage from the collapsing tower somehow affected the collapse initiation.

But so does the wording used by NIST. As I pointed out to RedIbis, 'little' and 'none' are not the same word.

Dave

sheeplesnshills

14th May 2010, 07:21 AM

Dave Rogers

14th May 2010, 07:25 AM

Some of us are normal people who hear crazy stories and Jesse Ventura on CNN and decide to do a little investigating, on our own, in our spare(and limited)time. What you learn from an initial search is that JREF is the place to go if you want straight answers. The problem is you guys dont even let us ask questions, you've heard it all before....

The problem is a little different to that. The problem is that there has, in the past, been a regular stream of new members starting off with a first post that says something like, "I don't really believe all the conspiracy theories about 9/11, and I don't know a lot of the details, but I just heard a story from a friend that the collapse of WTC7 was a little faster than it should have been, and I wondered if anyone could explain it." A few regulars promptly post an explanation, usually with a link to 9/11 Myths (which usually has links to the source material). The new member then replies by quoting Steven Jones and Richard Gage, and presenting sufficiently subtle arguments about energy balances and inelastic buckling that he can't possibly have picked up all of this after making his initial post; after about ten he starts insulting anyone who disagrees with him, by post twenty he's accusing everyone of being shills, disinformation agents or catamites to Dick Cheney, and after about fifty posts he gets suspended, often eventually to be banned as a sockpuppet of an obsessive nutter from Manchester by the name of Paul Doherty. The result is that the regulars, having seen this behaviour so many times, are excessively suspicious of anyone who claims to be just asking questions. In fact, innocent-looking first posts along the lines of "I don't believe the conspiracy theories, but I just wanted to ask...." have become so depressingly familiar as the opening gambit in this sort of pantomime that they're known as "The Mark of Woo". The reason that there isn't a great deal of trust remaining is that it's been abused so often.

Dave

RedIbis

14th May 2010, 07:40 AM

But so does the wording used by NIST. As I pointed out to RedIbis, 'little' and 'none' are not the same word.

Dave

Did Sunder say that WTC7 collapsed from fire or did he say it was fire plus a little structural damage?

Like I said before, you're trying to shoehorn structural damage into a collapse hypothesis that relies entirely on fire.

Dave Rogers

14th May 2010, 07:45 AM

Did Sunder say that WTC7 collapsed from fire or did he say it was fire plus a little structural damage?

The full report says it collapsed primarily due to fire, and the structural damage had little effect on collapse initiation.

Like I said before, you're trying to shoehorn structural damage into a collapse hypothesis that relies entirely on fire.

And it was a lie both times you said it. Read NCSTAR 1A. It's perfectly clear that the hypothesis incorporates structural damage. In particular, the effect of structural damage on collapse propagation is very clearly and explicitly described, indicating that the collapse hypothesis incorporates it.

Dave

tsig

14th May 2010, 10:19 AM

dudalb

14th May 2010, 01:02 PM

The problem is a little different to that. The problem is that there has, in the past, been a regular stream of new members starting off with a first post that says something like, "I don't really believe all the conspiracy theories about 9/11, and I don't know a lot of the details, but I just heard a story from a friend that the collapse of WTC7 was a little faster than it should have been, and I wondered if anyone could explain it." A few regulars promptly post an explanation, usually with a link to 9/11 Myths (which usually has links to the source material). The new member then replies by quoting Steven Jones and Richard Gage, and presenting sufficiently subtle arguments about energy balances and inelastic buckling that he can't possibly have picked up all of this after making his initial post; after about ten he starts insulting anyone who disagrees with him, by post twenty he's accusing everyone of being shills, disinformation agents or catamites to Dick Cheney, and after about fifty posts he gets suspended, often eventually to be banned as a sockpuppet of an obsessive nutter from Manchester by the name of Paul Doherty. The result is that the regulars, having seen this behaviour so many times, are excessively suspicious of anyone who claims to be just asking questions. In fact, innocent-looking first posts along the lines of "I don't believe the conspiracy theories, but I just wanted to ask...." have become so depressingly familiar as the opening gambit in this sort of pantomime that they're known as "The Mark of Woo". The reason that there isn't a great deal of trust remaining is that it's been abused so often.

Dave

And that gambit has a specific name; JAQ for "Just Asking Questions". And I could retire if I had a dime for everytime I have seen it used here.....

GlennB

14th May 2010, 01:19 PM

Someone takes time to read your post and you deride them for it?

The joke was that even his derision turned into a poor imitation of Franglais ;) Il est un nincompoup qui cannot parle Franglais propaire, meme. Qu'est ce que fait-il, le doofus? Completement mental, il est.

Will he taunt us a second time?

beachnut

14th May 2010, 06:35 PM

Beachnut drops "delusion" 3 times in this post.....turns out I can read minds! ...
Will you drop your 911 delusions and stop being a proxy for 911 truth's lies, hearsay and idiotic fantasies? Going on 9 years, is reality a choice with 911 truth?
5. Were the planes remote controlled?
Possibly
6. Were "terrorists" on board the planes?
If Truman or Kissinger had been on board, would they count?
7. Were the calls and recordings on the planes fake?
have not looked into this enough to comment
8. Did an airplane hit the Pentagon?
Did Cheney get rich from his Haliburton investments? (rhetorical question)
9. Was flight 93 shot down?
Yes
Delusions found in the false smart-alecky, disrespectful answers. About par for 911 truth.

Question #1

Did NIST accurately input the thermal conductivity of steel in their computer collapse scenario? Did NIST account for the concrete floors resting/attached to the steel-constructed floors? What effect would this have on the collapse simulation? Did you find some stuff in NIST to help with the quesion?

... You called my ideas delusional: please tell me exactly where I have demonstrated ... See your post...
You said Flight 93 was shot down; a delusion you have.
You said it was possible the planes were remotely controlled; a delusion you have.
You think WTC tower and WTC7 were demolished, that is a delusions based on lies, hearsay and fantasy. as to the method of demolition as
All your answers in that post could qualify as delusions.

Beachnut, I already explained that reading NIST in its entirety would take years....they've studied subjects other than just the WTC.
... LOL, I meant the on-topic part of NIST. Good job.
... I haven't finished reading NIST, as it is a huge organization, with lots of written material. I think I'll stcik to the 10,000 or so pages concerning the WTC reports.
... The WTC7 part will do for this thread, not other NIST junk.

What other delusions on 911 do you need cleared up?
93 was not shot down, I was on active duty on 911 in the USAF, we were not missing missiles or ammunition on 911; we did not shoot down Flight 93, the Passengers figured out 911 in minutes and took action. I also cheated, I have the transcript of the terrorists in the cockpit and the Flight data recorder information for Flight 93.

Flight 11, 175, 77 and 93 were not remotely piloted on 911; the final flying on 911 by 77 and 93 were clearly inputs by the terrorists in the FDR. I cheated again, I have the FDR information for 77 and 93 and have flown Boeing heavy jets for over 4,000 hours since 1976.

No demolition of WTC towers and 7 on 911, the WTC towers fell due to impacts and fires, and WTC7 burned for hours and collapsed. Fire is bad for buildings. I cheated a little by going to school to be an engineer and returning for my masters. I know what explosives sound like and do, up close and glass blasted out of my office personal like, when shot at by some idiot in Iraq with rockets. I cheated and have talked to people in NYC who saw the impacting planes and were as close to WTC7 as you can get to see the massive fires. No one heard explosives, no evidence of explosives, no evidence of thermite. I have Jones' first paper where he made up the thermite scam out of thin air.

The WTC7 fire was not fought... this fire was not stopped. In buildings where fires are not fought or stopped major failures occur. Even in building with fires fought the building may be totaled.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc7fire3.jpg

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/IMG_1057b.jpg
You don't have time to read up and be rational on 911? I make time to learn while not having time to design my quad amp 4 way 7 driver center channel 5'x13"x17/21" or babysit my grandkids. The same tweeter as the 25k speakers by dunlavy.

911 truth has no evidence and only has lies. Jones said this column was cut by thermite.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Joneslie-1.jpg
Then Jones says the USA caused the Haiti earthquake; he is nuts on 911 and more. Lies = 911 truth. This column was cut after 911. Jones made up thermite as a theory. Jones was fired, Jones had to make up an on-line journal to publish his lies.

Good luck with 911 issues, sorry you don't have time to research 911 in the last 8 years to make rational conclusions.

1337m4n

14th May 2010, 07:13 PM

Question: What is the relevance of WTC7's collapse being "unprecedented"? What does precedent have to do with the question of how it happened?

Oystein

14th May 2010, 07:35 PM

Building collapse due to fire is not unprecedented at all.

Really unprecedented however would be the demolition of a tall building with thermite, or with explosives that do not go BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! devastatingly loudly.

Not that this lack of precedence means anything - just pointing out that truthers don't think consistently.

Regnad Kcin

14th May 2010, 07:39 PM

Specifically to 7, if you can't appreciate our skepticism towards an unprecedented phenomena in the midst of the worlds worst terrorist attacks, you need to reassess your 9/11 probability distributions. Anything is possible, n'est pas?No. Any suggestion that the events of 9/11 were in any way the end result of an "inside job" fails immediately. Such a thing was and is 100% impossible.

Regnad Kcin

14th May 2010, 07:47 PM

Yes I believe there was a grand conspiracy on 9/11...A grand conspiracy?

Believe all you like, but even any itty-bitty conspiracy of the type you "believe" would leave so much evidence as to fill volumes.

Alan

14th May 2010, 07:50 PM

Pleading to "debate not debase" and then immediately taking a swing at someone in your opening statement is inconsistent, to put it lightly.

Beachnut is aggressive when he sights a target, but he isn't remotely delusional.
He didn't call Beachnut delusional. He predicted that Beachnut would call HIM delusional.

Dog Town

14th May 2010, 11:01 PM

I'd still give odds that Beachnut somehow fits in the word delusional.

Don't care to read this whole thread. Guessing that you are just JAQing off.
So, if Beach hasn't done it yet. Allow me. You are delusional, even in made up French!
Pfffttt...

Sword_Of_Truth

14th May 2010, 11:32 PM

He didn't call Beachnut delusional. He predicted that Beachnut would call HIM delusional.

My bad.

I misread what NiceGuy said.

Travis

15th May 2010, 01:29 AM

Question: What is the relevance of WTC7's collapse being "unprecedented"? What does precedent have to do with the question of how it happened?

There is no relevance unless you live in Truther fantasy world where there is no such thing as a "first time for everything."

15th May 2010, 01:54 AM

You're making an argument that there's no safety concern as anyone can download/buy/pirate Ansys or LS-Dyna. This might be true. That said, not everyone can put together a model that can accurately represent a building.

1. You need to understand how FEA works.

2. You need a good understanding of how buildings are put together and how they work structurally.

An advanced engineering degree for the 1st, and a couple years of experience for the second.

These aren't common. In fact, I would argue that they are very rare. There's a large number of truthers on the internet who would like nothing else than to create a model of the towers with one of these programs and prove "inside job", or that NIST is a bunch of liars, etc. Except they haven't. I postulate that it's not possible. They don't have the ability. Most terrorists, or people who want to do harm to buildings, also don't have the ability. Giving them a large-scale fully functional model would help them in understanding how to bring down buildings.

sure they arent common, but the guys also learned how to fly an airliner, learned how to operate autopilots etc. that aint common either.

learning ansys is no problem, learning the structural engineering part is indeed more trouble. but considering Atta's education it isnt that implausible they could also organise a FEA. but obviously they didnt need them anyway.

i dont really see that security issue. maybe im wrong.

PS: and no Dudalb im not back to my trutherism. sorry to disapoint your prejudice.

DGM

15th May 2010, 07:22 AM

sure they arent common, but the guys also learned how to fly an airliner, learned how to operate autopilots etc. that aint common either.

learning ansys is no problem, learning the structural engineering part is indeed more trouble. but considering Atta's education it isnt that implausible they could also organise a FEA. but obviously they didnt need them anyway.

i dont really see that security issue. maybe im wrong.

PS: and no Dudalb im not back to my trutherism. sorry to disapoint your prejudice.
I don't think they're expecting to defeat the truly determined, nothings going to do that. What most of these "security reasons" are meant to do is defeat the nuts. You can look-up bomb making on the internet but without the specific skills you end up with something like the NYC (time square) fiasco or the "shoe bomber". I agree to some extent it seems silly but, there is a large group of people to which you don't want to give too much information.

Newtons Bit

15th May 2010, 08:44 AM

sure they arent common, but the guys also learned how to fly an airliner, learned how to operate autopilots etc. that aint common either.

They had to have people teach them how to do it, however. Do you think it would have been possible for them to fly the planes into buildings if they had less or no training?

learning ansys is no problem, learning the structural engineering part is indeed more trouble. but considering Atta's education it isnt that implausible they could also organise a FEA. but obviously they didnt need them anyway.

i dont really see that security issue. maybe im wrong.

The idea isn't to make it impossible, it's to make it less easy. If someone is trying to kill you, don't give them the tools that make that job easier.

15th May 2010, 08:48 AM

They had to have people teach them how to do it, however. Do you think it would have been possible for them to fly the planes into buildings if they had less or no training?

The idea isn't to make it impossible, it's to make it less easy. If someone is trying to kill you, don't give them the tools that make that job easier.

but considering the special construction of WTC7 (edison station etc) how much use would the Ansys model be for them?

Pardalis

15th May 2010, 08:58 AM

However, this sentence accumulates, once again, grammatical aberrations.

ImANiceGuy reads like an automated translation algorythm. His French is unintelligible.

That's one of the main reasons Bill 101 was implemented. The longer you are out of contact with the French language, the faster you get assimilated, the more your understanding and command of the language erodes.

If Québec hadn't had Bill 101, we'd probably sound like ImANiceGuy right about now. Thank you Camille Laurin. [/derail]

Newtons Bit

15th May 2010, 09:28 AM

but considering the special construction of WTC7 (edison station etc) how much use would the Ansys model be for them?

Lots. It's a funny building. You can learn quite a bit from that.

15th May 2010, 09:55 AM

Lots. It's a funny building. You can learn quite a bit from that.

mmh dunno, maybe your right.
but was it actually withheld? someone else on this forum said you could pay for it to get it.

Fourbrick

15th May 2010, 10:34 AM

TL;DR:
What you did there is whining against a real French who showed you how pedant you are by trying to impress people with babbles like this:

Dont wish to be pedantic, but shouldn't that be "pedantic"?

alienentity

15th May 2010, 10:48 AM

sadhatter

15th May 2010, 11:09 AM

To me if you have to hide what you believe in layers of obfuscation ( i am just asking questions. Or " well i don't really believe everything alex jones says..." or " Not that i think it was an inside job, but....") that should tell you something right off the bat about your beliefs.

beachnut

15th May 2010, 11:29 AM

Beachnut - Please tell me you don't live in a condo (Or anywhere close to other dwellings) with that driver setup..:jaw-dropp

But for Gawd's sake clean the fingerprints off the glass!

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/IMG_1057b.jpg

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/keynansubwoofer2.jpg
I have no idea how the fingerprints got there. But my ~25% clones will look into it.

With the windows closed the frogs and crickets are louder at the borders of the yard unless you have it up past 110db in the living-room which requires hearing protection. My AR-9s from 1978 are my surround speakers.

If I have time to build speakers, babysit my grandkids and post, 911 truth proxies should have time to find a cure to repeating lies about 911.

On another note; I mean to call the ideas he posts as delusions; I assume most 911 truthers will recovers and be my superior in all things real (like glass cleaning).

240-185

15th May 2010, 12:18 PM

Dont wish to be pedantic, but shouldn't that be "pedantic"?

Sssshhhhhhhhhh :mad:
My bad. :D

technoextreme

15th May 2010, 12:46 PM

Wow someone was joking about the potato method of detecting conspirasists. I guess it really is a valid method.

DGM

15th May 2010, 02:02 PM

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/keynansubwoofer2.jpg
I have no idea how the fingerprints got there. But my ~25% clones will look into it.

With the windows closed the frogs and crickets are louder at the borders of the yard unless you have it up past 110db in the living-room which requires hearing protection. My AR-9s from 1978 are my surround speakers.

I knew there was I reason I liked your style! I use a pair of Klipsch PWK monitors (from the same era) for my "background noise abatement". :D

ImANiceGuy

17th May 2010, 02:47 PM

:rolleyes:

Finding some obscure/devious/deceptive way to back up a plain error is a typical Truther tactic. You're doing it again here. Which is partly why people are assuming you are a typical Truther who's simply doing a poor job of disguising the fact.

For the record, what you wrote in the Franglais above translates as is not and becomes a question purely through intonation, rather than the is it not in your original which is (as I recall) known as a question tag.

And I would have thought it should be capable d' utiliser , but then my French is not strong.

Regards

"A foreigner"

as mentioned in the other thread, please read through the entire thread before posting nonsense.

Had you done this, you would have read that I conceded that the "-ce" was necessary in my original context in order to be grammatically correct.

I used the same term (n'est pas) to demostrate that it is not always grammatically incorrect.

Thanks for trying.

Edx

17th May 2010, 04:10 PM

Oystein

17th May 2010, 05:14 PM

as mentioned in the other thread, please read through the entire thread before posting nonsense.

Had you done this, you would have read that I conceded that the "-ce" was necessary in my original context in order to be grammatically correct.

I used the same term (n'est pas) to demostrate that it is not always grammatically incorrect.

Thanks for trying.

No, you didn't. When you used it in your OP thus...

...Anything is possible, n'est pas? ...

...it was quickly pointed out that it can't be used thus. You insisted:

p.p.s It can also be n'est pas.
...

...and tried to back this up with an Argument from Authority:

Mince....I am french.

It has, however, been conclusively shown that your grasp of the French language is nowhere near that of a native speaker, let alone a true Frenchman.

Your claim now "I used the same term (n'est pas) to demostrate that it is not always grammatically incorrect" fails, because it is incorrect, always.

This is so pathetic - do you enjoy losing so much, or are you a troll?

Your insistence on bad French and the false excuses you try make you a generally untrustworthy person - I will henceforth think that you either don't want to debate civilly or honestly, or that you are incapable to an extraordinary degree of engaging in a reasonable debate.

Stout

17th May 2010, 06:27 PM

I just love how they try and argue is was both loud and quiet at the same time! :D

That would be your super nano thermite, code named hushaboom. Rocky and Bullwinkle were both members of Skull and Bones and they were working with technology recovered from Area 51.

ETA : Just after posting, my trash was picked up by two guys in a black SUV. Should I be worried?

Edx

17th May 2010, 06:30 PM

That would be your super nano thermite, code named hushaboom. Rocky and Bullwinkle were both members of Skull and Bones and they were working with technology recovered from Area 51.

ETA : Just after posting, my trash was picked up by two guys in a black SUV. Should I be worried?

No No, see its worse than that.

First they propose something that defies how sound works. ie. that an explosive can be intense enough to hurl steel around yet be quiet. This would be the "hushabom"

Second, they literally try and claim that the explosives were quiet because of the thermite yet also argue loud explosions were going off all over the place. So quite literally, they argue that the explosives were both loud and quiet at the same time! LOL

ImANiceGuy

17th May 2010, 09:34 PM

Just a question:

What were the actual recorded decibel levels during the collapses?

Anyone with a NIST volume/section/chapter/sub-chapter link?

Dave Rogers

18th May 2010, 01:18 AM

Just a question:

What were the actual recorded decibel levels during the collapses?

Anyone with a NIST volume/section/chapter/sub-chapter link?

I haven't seen any record of the sound levels recorded during the collapse. What you probably want to know, though, is the sound levels just before the collapse. However, it's a bit tricky to define what that means. In effect, you want to know how loud a bang was heard just before the collapse began, and the answer is that nobody heard any bang just before the collapse began.

Really, though, NIST's argument is very simple; explosives would have made such a loud bang that it would have been unmistakeable on any sound recording or from any nearby witness account. In fact, it would have been loud enough to cause temporary hearing loss within about a half-mile radius. By analogy, it's been pointed out that there wasn't an elephant in the room, and your question asks whether anyone saw a mouse.

Dave

Oystein

18th May 2010, 01:29 AM

Just a question:

What were the actual recorded decibel levels during the collapses?

Anyone with a NIST volume/section/chapter/sub-chapter link?

It is completely irrelevant what the decibel levels were during the collapse. If you want to bring down a building with explosives, then during the collapse would be after the explosions. All that's interesting is what we heard or didn't hear immediately before the collapse. And the simple truth of the matter is: There wasn't any relevant sound to be measured, when the minimum explosive charge required to sever one (only one) column would produce more than 130dB (ear shattering) about a kilometer away - regardless of what you use: PETN, TNT, dynamite, black powder, nukes, nanothermite... (list in descending order of likelihood)

You have probably seen the video where some TV lady is interviewing someone on the street only a few blocks away when they notice the rising noise and dust from WTC7 in the background - what is most notably absent in that video is the slightest "bang" just before that collapse. There is no need to include the decibel-level of a non-event in any investigation report. Non-events produce no decibel levels.

Oystein

18th May 2010, 01:35 AM

...nobody heard any bang just before the collapse began...

In all honesty, that is not quite true, depending on what you mean by "just before" and "bang". Some people recorded some "booms" at some point time before they noticed the building was in fact collapsing. You would even expect that, knowing that internal collapse was well under way before the facade started going down, so you would have heard beams and bolts snapping before you saw anything.

But those booms certainly many many orders of magnitude softer than the BANG from 9 pounds of TNT-equivalent necessary to cut just one column, as they are not heard on any of the videos, and have not been reported by tens of thousands of New Yorkers who were within a couple of miles of WTC7

1337m4n

18th May 2010, 05:46 AM

Why is so much of this thread being spent discussing proper French grammar?

Hey Truthers, did you miss this one:

Question: What is the relevance of WTC7's collapse being "unprecedented"? What does precedent have to do with the question of how it happened?

Sabrina

18th May 2010, 07:02 AM

Yes I believe there was a grand conspiracy on 9/11, you can put the hidden-motive speculations aside.

Just a quick note; you are familiar with the saying "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead", are you not? Are you aware of the number of people who would have to have been aware of at least part of the conspiracy in order for it to be carried out? No? Well, here's a partial (note the emphasis) list for you:

1,500 people who worked the flight 93 crash scene
40,000 people who worked the piles at Ground Zero
55 FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills in New York
7,000+ FBI Agents
8,000+ people who worked the scene at the Pentagon
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E. / Aine M. Brazil, P.E., S.E. / Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E. / Alfred D. Barcenilla, Sr., P.E. / Allan Jowsey, Ph.D. / Allyn Kilsheimer, P.E., S.E. / Amit Bandyopadhyay, S.E. / Amy Zelson Mundorff / Anamaria Bonilla, S.E. / Andre Sidler, P.E., S.E. / Andrei Reinhorn, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Andrew Coats, P.E., S.E. / Andrew McConnell, S.E. / Andrew Mueller-Lust, S.E. / Andrew Pontecorvo, P.E. / Andrew Whittaker, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Anthony Kirk US&R Structural Specialist / Anthony W. Chuliver, S.E. / Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D. / Antranig M. Ouzoonian, P.E. / Arlan Dobson, FEMA Region 2 DAS / Arthur Schuerman, FDNY (ret.) / Asif Usmani, Ph.D., B.E. / August Domel, Ph.D., S.E., P.E. / Ayhan Irfanoglu, P.E., S.E. / Barbara Lane, Ph.D. / Bernie Denke, P.E. US&R Structural Specialist / Bill Cote / Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E. / Bill Crowley, special agent, FBI / Bill Daly, senior vice president, Control Risks Group / Bill Scott (Capt. USAF, Ret.), / Bill Uher, NASA Langley Research Center / Bob Gray (I.U.O.E.) / Bonnie Manley, P.E., S.E. / Boris Hayda, P.E., S.E. / Brian Lyons, Tully / Brian McElhatten, S.E. / Brian Smith (Col.), Chief Deputy Medical Examiner, Dover AFB / Brian Tokarczik, P.E., S.E. / Charles Hirsch, M.D. / Charles J. Carter, P.E., S.E. / Charles Thornton, P.E. / Charlie Vitchers / Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D., Purdue University / Christopher E. Marrion, P.E. / Christopher M. Hewitt, AISC / Christopher N. McCowan / Chuck Guardia, S.E. / Conrad Paulson, P.E., S.E. / Curtis S.D. Massey / D. Stanton Korista, P.E., S.E. / Dan Doyle (IW 40) / Dan Eschenasy, P.E., S.E. / Dan Koch Jr. / Daniel A. Cuoco, P.E / Daniele Veneziano, P.E. / David Biggs, P.E., S.E. / David Cooper, P.E. / David Davidowitz, ConEd / David Hoy, S.E. / David J. Hammond, P.E., S.E. / David Leach, P.E. / David M. Parks, ME / David Newland Sc.D., FREng. / David Peraza, P.E., S.E. / David Ranlet / David Schomburg / David Sharp, S.E. / David T. Biggs, P.E. / Dean Koutsoubis, S.E. / Dean Tills, P.E. / Delbert Boring, P.E. / Dennis Clark (IST) / Dennis Dirkmaat, Ph.D. / Dennis Mileti, Ph.D. / Dennis Smith / Dharam Pal, M.E. / Dick Posthauer, S.E. / Donald Friedman, P.E. / Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E. / Ed Jacoby Jr., NYSEMO / Ed McGinley, P.E. / Ed Plaugher, Chief, Arlington FD / Edward A. Flynn, Arlington Police Chief / Edward M. DePaola, P.E., S.E. / Edward Stinnette, Chief, FCFD / Eiji Fukuzawa / Fahim Sadek, P.E., S.E. / Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Frank Vallebuono, FDNY Battalion Chief / Anthony Varriale, FDNY Captain / Frank Cruthers, FDNY Chief / Frank Fellini, FDNY Chief / Joseph Callan, FDNY Chief / Daniel Nigro, FDNY Chief of Operations / Nick Visconti, FDNY Deputy Chief / Peter Hayden, FDNY Deputy Chief / Sam Melisi, FDNY Firefighter / Forman Williams, Ph.D., P.E. / Francis J. Lombardi, P.E. / Frank Gayle, Sc.D. / Frank Greening, Ph.D. / Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B. / Fred Endrikat, FEMA USAR / Gary Keith, V.P. NFPA / Gary Steficek, S.E. / Gary Tokle, Asst. VP, NFPA / George Tamaro, P.E., S.E. / Gerald Haynes, P.E. / Gerald Wellman US&R Structural Specialist / Glenn Corbett / Graeme Flint / Guy Colonna, P.E., NFPA / Guylene Proulx, Ph.D. / H.S. Lew, P.E., S.E. / Hal Bidlack, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), Ph.D. / Harold E. Nelson, P.E., FSFP.E. / Harry Martin, AISC / Howard R. Baum, Ph.D., M.E. / J. David Frost, Ph.D., P.E. / J. David McColskey / Jack Brown Deputy Chief Loudoun County (Va.) Fire Rescue Department / Jack Messagno, WTC project Manager (Tully) / Jack Spencer, P.E. / Jacques Grandino, P.E., S.E. / James A. Rossberg, P.E. / James Chastain US&R Structural Specialist / James H. Fahey, S.E. / James J. Cohen, P.E., S.E. / James J. Hauck, P.E., S.E. / James Lord, FSFP.E. / James Milke, Ph.D., P.E. / James Quintiere, Ph.D., P.E. / Jan Szumanski, IUOE / Jason Averill, FSFP.E. / Jeff Rienbold, NPS / Jeffrey Hartman, S.E. / Jim Abadie, Bovis / Joel Meyerowitz / John Fisher, Ph.D., P.E., / John Flynn, P.E. / John Gross, Ph.D., P.E. / John Hodgens, FDNY (ret.) / John J. Healey, Ph.D., P.E. / John J. Zils, P.E., S.E. / John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E. / John Lekstutis, P.E. / John M. Hanson, Ph.D, P.E. / John McArdle NYPD/ESU (DTC) / John Moran, NYPD/ESU (NTC) / John O'Connell, Chief FDNY / John Odermatt (NYC OEM) / John Ruddy, P.E., S.E. / John Ryan, PAPD / John W. Fisher, P.E. / Jon Magnusson, P.E., S.E. / Jonathan Barnett, Ph.D / Joo-Eun Lee P.E., S.E. / José Torero, Ph.D. / Joseph C. Gehlen, P.E., S.E. / Joseph Englot, P.E., S.E. / Jozef Van Dyck, P.E. / Juan Paulo Morla, S.E. / Karen Damianick, P.E. / Karl Koch III / Karl Koch IV / Kaspar Willam, P.E., S.E. / Keith A. Seffen, MA, Ph.D. / Ken Hays / Kenneth Holden / Kent Watts / Kevin Brennan, OSHA / Kevin Malley, FDNY (ret.) / Kevin Terry, S.E. / Kurt Gustafson, P.E., S.E. / Larry Keating (IW 40) / Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E. / Lawrence Griffis, P.E. / Lawrence Novak, P.E., S.E. / Leo J. Titus, P.E. / Leonard M. Joseph, P.E. / Leslie E. Robertson, P.E., S.E. / Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E. / Lou Mendes, P.E., S.E. / Louis Errichiello, S.E. / Manny Velivasakis, P.E. / Mark Blair / Mark Kucera, USACE / Mark Pierepiekarz, P.E., S.E. / Mark Stahl / Mark Tamaro, P.E / Mark Volpe, IW 40 / Marty Corcoran / Matthew G. Yerkey, P.E., S.E. / Matthew McCormick, NTSB / Melbourne Garber, P.E., S.E. / Merle E. Brander, P.E. / Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. / Michael Burton, P.E. / Michael Dallal / Michael Fagel, Ph.D., CEM / Michael Hessheimer, S.E. / Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D., ATP, CFI / Michael Tylk, P.E., S.E. / Michel Bruneau, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Mike Banker, FDNY Capt. (SOC) / Mike Marscio, P.E. / Miroslav Sulc,, P.E., S.E. / Mohammed Ettouney / Mohammed R. Karim, Ph.D. / Morgan Hurley, FSFP.E. / Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E. / Nick Carcich / Norman Groner, Ph.D. / Pablo Lopez, P.E., S.E. / Patrick McNierney, P.E., S.E. / Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E. / Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E. / Paul Sledzik / Paul Tertell, P.E. / Pete Bakersky / Peter Chipchase, S.E. / Peter Rinaldi, P.E. / Phillip Murray, P.E. / Pia Hoffman / Rajani Nair, S.E. / Ralph Castillo, P.E., F.P.E. / Ralph D'Apuzo, P.E. / Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E / Randy Lawson / Raul Maestre, P.E., S.E. / Raymond F. Messer, P.E. / Raymond H.R. Tide, P.E., S.E. / Reidar Bjorhovde, Ph.D., P.E / Richard Bukowski P.E., FSFP.E. / Richard G. Gewain, P.E., S.E. / Richard Gann, Ph.D. / Richard Garlock, P.E., S.E. / Richard J. Fields, Ph.D. / Richard Kahler US&R Structural Specialist / Robert Athanas (thermal imaging specialist, FDNY) / Robert C. Sinn, P.E., S.E. / Robert Clarke, S.E. / Robert F. Duval (NFPA) / Robert Frances US&R Structural Specialist / Robert J. McNamara, P.E., S.E. / Robert L. Parker, Ph.D. / Robert Ratay, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / Robert Shaler, M.D. / Robert Smilowitz, Ph.D., P.E / Robert Solomon, P.E. / Robert Wills, AISC / Ron Dokell, president, Demolition Consultants / Ronald Greeley, Ph.D. / Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E. / Ronald J. LaMere, P.E. / Ronald Rehm, Ph.D. / Ronald Spadafora, FDNY D.A.C / Ruben M. Zallen, P.E. / Russell "Rusty" Dodge Jr, Asst. Chief, Fort Belvoir FD / Ryan Mackey / S. Shyam Sunder, P.E., S.E. / Saroj Bhol, P.E. / Saw-Teen See, P.E. / Shankar Nair. P.E., S.E. / Shawn Kelly, Arlington County Fire Marshal / Skip Aldous, Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.) / Socrates Ioannides, P.E., S.E. / Sonny Scarff / Stan Murphy, P.E. / Stephen Cauffman / Stephen W. Banovic, Ph.D. / Steve Douglass, image analysis consultant / Steve Rasweiler, FDNY B.C. (SOC) / Steve Spall, P.E., S.E. / Stuart Foltz, P.E. / Terry Sullivan, Bovis / Theodore Galambos, P.E. / Theodore Krauthammer, Ph.D., P.E. / Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E. / Thomas A. Siewert / Thomas Eagar, Sc.D., P.E. / Thomas Hawkins Jr, Chief, AFD / Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D / Thomas Schlafly, AISC / Timothy Foecke, Ph.D. / Todd Curtis, Ph.D / Todd Ude, P.E., S.E. / Tom Scarangello, P.E. / Tom Stanton (IST) / Tomasz Wierzbicki / Tony Beale, P.E. / Valentine Junker / Van Romero, Ph.D. / Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E. / Victor Hare, P.E. / Victoria Arbitrio, P.E. / Vincent Dunn, FDNY (ret.) / W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. / W. Lee Evey / Wallace Miller / William Baker, P.E., S.E / William E. Luecke, Ph.D. / William Grosshandler, Ph.D., ME / William Howell, P.E., S.E. / William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA / William McGuire, P.E. / Willie Quinlan, IW / Won-Young Kim, Ph.D / Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp. / Yukihiro Omika / Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D., S.E. /
ACE Bermuda Insurance / AEMC Construction / AIG Insurance / Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington / Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue / Allianz Global Risks / American Airlines / American Concrete Institute / American Institute of Steel Construction / American Red Cross / Applied Biosystems Inc. / Applied Research Associates / Arlington County Emergency Medical Services / Arlington County Fire Department / Arlington County Sheriff's Department / Arlington VA Police Department / Armed Forces Institute of Pathology / Armed Forces Institute of Technology Federal Advisory Committee / ARUP USA / Atlantic Heydt Inc. / Bechtel / Berlin Fire Department / Big Apple Wrecking / Blanford & Co. / Bode Technology Group / Bovis Inc. / Building and Construction Trades Council / Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms / C-130H crew in D.C. & Shanksville / Cal Berkeley Engineering Dept. / California Incident Management Team / Carter Burgess Engineering / Celera Genomics / Centers for Disease Control / Central City Fire Department / Central Intelligence Agency / Cleveland Airport control tower / Columbia University Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics / Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee / Consolidated Edison Company / Construction Technologies Laboratory / Controlled Demolitions Inc. / Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / Counterterrorism and Security Group / CTL Engineering / D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Inc. / DeSimone Consulting Engineers / Dewhurst MacFarlane &Partners / DiSalvo Ericson Engineering / District of Columbia Fire & Rescue / DOD Honor Guard, Pentagon / D'Onofrio Construction / E-4B National Airborne Operations Center crews / Edwards and Kelcey Engineering / Engineering Systems, Inc. / Environmental protection Agency / Exponent Failure Analysis Associates / EYP Mission CriticalFacilities / Fairfax County Fire & Rescue / Falcon 20 crew in PA / Family members who received calls from victims on the planes / FBI Evidence Recovery Teams / Federal Aviation Administration / Federal Bureau of Investigation / Federal Emergency Management Agency / Federal Insurance Co. / FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams: Arizona Task Force 1, California Task Force 1, California Task Force 3, California Task Force 7, Colorado Task Force 1, Fairfax Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 2, Maryland Task Force 1, Massachusetts Task Force 1, Metro Dade/Miami, Nebraska Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, New York Task Force 1, Pennsylvania Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Texas Task Force 1, Utah Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, Washington Task Force 1 / FEMA Disaster Field Office / FEMA Emergency Response Team / FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Incident Support Team-Advanced 3 / Fire Department of New York / Fort Myer Fire Department / French Urban Search & Rescue Task Force / Friedens Volunteer Fire Department / Gateway Demolition / Gene Code Forensics / Georgia Tech Engineering Dept. / Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP / GMAC Financing / Goldstein Associates Consulting Engineers / Guy Nordenson Associates / HAKS Engineers / Hampton-Clarke Inc. / HHS National Medical Response Team / HLW International Engineering / Hooversville Rescue Squad. / Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department / Hoy Structural Services / Hughes Associates, Inc / Hugo Neu Schnitzer East / hundreds of ironworkers, some of whom built the WTC / Hundreds of New York City Police Department Detectives / Industrial Risk Insurers / Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems / International Association of Fire Chiefs / International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 14 & 15 / J.R. Harris & Company / Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority / Karl Koch Steel Consulting Inc. / KCE Structural Engineers / Koch Skanska / Koutsoubis, Alonso Associates / Laboratory Corp. of America / Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory / Leslie E. Robertson Associates / LIRo Engineering / Listie Volunteer Fire Company / Lockwood Consulting / M.G. McLaren Engineering / Masonry Society / Mazzocchi Wrecking Inc. / Metal Management Northeast / Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit / Miami-Dade Urban Search & Rescue / Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team / Montgomery County Fire & Rescue / Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers / Murray Engineering / Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc. / National Center for Biotechnology Informatics / National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States / National Council of Structural Engineers Associations / National Disaster Medical System / National Emergency Numbering Association / National Fire Protection Association / National Guard in D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania / National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) / National Institutes of Health Human Genome Research Institute / National Law Enforcement and Security Institute / National Military Command Center / National Reconnaissance Office / National Response Center / National Science Foundation Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems / National Security Agency / National Transportation Safety Board / National Wrecking / Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center / New Jersey State Police / New York City Department of Buildings WTC Task Force / New York City Department of Design and Construction / New York City Department of Environmental Protection / New York City Office of Emergency Management / New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner / New York City Police Department Aviation Unit / New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit / New York Daily News / New York Flight Control Center / New York Newsday / New York Port Authority Construction Board / New York Port Authority Police / New York State Emergency Management Office / New York State Police Forensic Services / New York Times / North American Aerospace Defense Command / Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders and crew / Numerous bomb-sniffing dogs / Numerous Forensic Anthropologists / Numerous Forensic Dentists / Numerous Forensic Pathologists / Numerous Forensic Radiologists / NuStats / Occupational Safety and Health Administration / Office of Emergency Preparedness / Office of Strategic Services / Orchid Cellmark / Parsons Brinckerhoff Engineering / Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection / Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services / Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group / Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association / Pennsylvania State Police / Pentagon Defense Protective Service / Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team / Pentagon Medical Staff / Pentagon Renovation Team / Phillips & Jordan, Inc. / Port of New York and New Jersey Authority / Pro-Safety Services / Protec / Public Entity Risk Institute / Purdue University Engineering Dept. / Robert Silman Associates Structural Engineers / Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc / Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers / Royal SunAlliance/Royal Indemnity / SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams / SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams / Salvation Army Disaster Services / several EPA Hazmat Teams / several FBI Hazmat Teams / several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams / several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams / Severud Associates Consulting Engineers / Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company / Silverstein Properties / Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Engineers / Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP / Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire / Society of Fire Protection Engineers / Somerset Ambulance Association / Somerset County Coroner's Office / Somerset County Emergency Management Agency / Somerset Volunteer Fire Department / St. Paul/Travelers Insurance / State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency / Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company / Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) / Structural Engineers Association of New York / Superstructures Engineering / Swiss Re America Insurance / Telephone operators who took calls from passengers in the hijacked planes / Teng & Associates / Thornton-Tomasetti Group, Inc. / TIG Insurance / Tokio Marine & Fire / Transportation Safety Administration / Tully Construction / Twin City Fire Insurance / Tylk Gustafson Reckers Wilson Andrews Engineering / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers / Underwriters Laboratories / Union Wrecking / United Airlines / United States Air National Guard / United States Fire Administration / United States Secret Service / United Steelworkers of America / University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research / US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County / US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command / US Department of Defense / US Department of Justice / US Department of State / Virginia Beach Fire Department / Virginia Department of Emergency Management / Virginia State Police / Vollmer Associates Engineers / Washington Post / Weeks Marine / Weidlinger Associates / Weiskopf & Pickworth Engineering / Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency / Whitney Contracting / Willis Group Holdings / WJE Structural Engineers / Worcester Polytechnic Institute / World Trade Center security staff / XL Insurance / Yonkers Contracting / York International / Zurich Financial / Zurich Re Risk Engineering

Taken from here (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi).

I've estimated that in the past as over 100,000 people who would have to be aware of at least part of the conspiracy in order for it to be carried out. 100,000 people... and not one of them has come forward in nearly nine years to state it was a conspiracy.

Mathematically speaking, the more people who are aware of something, the greater the chance becomes that one of them will break their silence. The chance of that increases exponentially as more and more people are added to those who know the secret. I've never tried to calculate it, but the likelihood of all 100,000+ people remaining silent for nearly 9 years is almost infinitesimally small at this point, most likely. So you explain to me why you think 100,000+ people have remained silent about the deaths of nearly 3,000 people and the conspiracy by the government to effect said deaths in order to deliberately gain something (no one's ever explained what) out of it, and please, at least TRY to make it sound logical, mmkay?

tsig

18th May 2010, 09:34 AM

Just a question:

What were the actual recorded decibel levels during the collapses?

Anyone with a NIST volume/section/chapter/sub-chapter link?

I see, you're just asking questions.

tsig

18th May 2010, 09:36 AM

Why is so much of this thread being spent discussing proper French grammar?

Hey Truthers, did you miss this one:

Because truthers would rather talk about anything but the truth.

sts60

18th May 2010, 10:19 AM

Just a quick note; you are familiar with the saying "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead", are you not? Are you aware of the number of people who would have to have been aware of at least part of the conspiracy in order for it to be carried out? No? Well, here's a partial (note the emphasis) list for you:
[...]
Taken from here (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi).

And let's not forget Woodsboro Volunteer Fire Company (https://www.firehouse.com/news/news/maryland-company-provided-vital-element-pentagon-911). Because when you're covering up one of the greatest criminal conspiracies ever, you certainly want to bring in some small-town Maryland fire company to help keep your secret.

I've estimated that in the past as over 100,000 people who would have to be aware of at least part of the conspiracy in order for it to be carried out. 100,000 people... and not one of them has come forward in nearly nine years to state it was a conspiracy.. . .
... So you explain to me why you think 100,000+ people have remained silent about the deaths of nearly 3,000 people and the conspiracy by the government to effect said deaths in order to deliberately gain something (no one's ever explained what) out of it, and please, at least TRY to make it sound logical, mmkay?

As a volunteer member of one of the organizations listed - and who literally trusts some of those guys, who were at the Pentagon that day, with my life if things go south on the fireground - the notion that they would conspire to cover up this wacky alleged conspiracy is both contemptible and laughable at the same time. But I've gone from being irritated by it, more to feeling sorry for the loons who buy into it.

Especially due to the Rube Golderg-esqueness of it all. If the evil, all-powerful "real conspirators" wanted to do this, why not just pay some zealots to do it, or arrange to pay the families of some terminally-ill pilots? Why not just arrange to put real, not imaginary bombs, in the WTC, and blame a breakdown in security? Why not arrange for a tactical nuke, or at least a suitable amount of fissile material, to be "lost" and used by the bad guys? What would scare the American public more than that, and do greater harm? Any one of those scenarios would require far fewer people and be vastly simpler. But something in the conspiracy-believer makeup requires this vast, complicated, Da Vinci Code-meets-It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World whirligig to be what really happened. It's not a matter for engineers; it's a matter for psychologists.

240-185

18th May 2010, 02:00 PM

Why is so much of this thread being spent discussing proper French grammar?

Hey Truthers, did you miss this one:

Erm, when ImANiceGuy showed up with technical questions, everybody debunked him already. So, what is left is French grammar :(

Stout

18th May 2010, 06:04 PM

I've estimated that in the past as over 100,000 people who would have to be aware of at least part of the conspiracy in order for it to be carried out. 100,000 people... and not one of them has come forward in nearly nine years to state it was a conspiracy.

Mathematically speaking, the more people who are aware of something, the greater the chance becomes that one of them will break their silence. The chance of that increases exponentially as more and more people are added to those who know the secret. I've never tried to calculate it, but the likelihood of all 100,000+ people remaining silent for nearly 9 years is almost infinitesimally small at this point, most likely. So you explain to me why you think 100,000+ people have remained silent about the deaths of nearly 3,000 people and the conspiracy by the government to effect said deaths in order to deliberately gain something (no one's ever explained what) out of it, and please, at least TRY to make it sound logical, mmkay?

I fully agree, yet truthers seem to delight in avoiding these kind of numbers.

Really, you've got to figure that by now, somebody would have burned through their million ( or whatever figure it would take to keep someone quiet about their "role" in the murder of 3000 people ) by now, gotten used to the lifestyle and started hammering on Hollywood's door with a good story.

BillyRayValentine

18th May 2010, 09:53 PM

Mathematically speaking, the more people who are aware of something, the greater the chance becomes that one of them will break their silence. The chance of that increases exponentially as more and more people are added to those who know the secret. I've never tried to calculate it, but the likelihood of all 100,000+ people remaining silent for nearly 9 years is almost infinitesimally small at this point, most likely. So you explain to me why you think 100,000+ people have remained silent about the deaths of nearly 3,000 people and the conspiracy by the government to effect said deaths in order to deliberately gain something (no one's ever explained what) out of it, and please, at least TRY to make it sound logical, mmkay?

And let's remember that this isn't just a tally of people keeping a secret. It's a tally of knowing participants in mass murder plus some number of unwitting pawns who were duped into playing a role in mass murder, and who surely must have figured this out after the fact. So it's basically a list of mass murderers and those who unknowingly abetted mass murder and are unwilling to come forward and blow the lid off.

When I think about the bad guys putting together this list, i.e. the "9/11 team," I can't help but burst out laughing. The belief that it would be possible to assemble a team of thousands of mass murderers, in complete secrecy, no less, is baffling in its stupidity.

Oystein

19th May 2010, 02:43 AM

Erm, when ImANiceGuy showed up with technical questions, everybody debunked him already. So, what is left is French grammar :(

That was debunked early on as well, but at least we haven't been through bad French as many times as through bad forensics.

nvidiot

19th May 2010, 03:09 AM

It's likely the 38 hours without sleep speaking here, but is it in any way possible, (forget miniscule nature of the possibility) that the hijackers were not operating under the instructions of their "official" commanders, but under the command of others with the intention of conspiracy? Have we established a firm chain of command and timeline for the hijackers actions and immediate superiors saying : go!

/end stupid posting

(p.s. not a truther by any stretch of the imagination. First thought I had when I saw the towers hit late at night local time those 9 years ago was "bin laden".)

Sabrina

19th May 2010, 06:40 AM

Oystein

19th May 2010, 07:15 AM

I think he is asking how well it is established that the chain of command the ended with the Atta, his other 3 pilots and the 15 muscle hijackers, originated in Osama Bin Laden, versus the idea that somehow others intervened and Atta and co. only believed they were a cell of Al Qaida. Some secret service maybe.

Sabrina

19th May 2010, 08:18 AM

Ah.

Well, the answer is there's no evidence supporting that theory, but that doesn't negate it as a possibility. If evidence could be produced that does support such a theory, I'd be inclined to give it a further look. But as far as I know, the only evidence in existence points to KSM and Bin Laden orchestrating the plot and the 19 hijackers carrying it out.

ElMondoHummus

19th May 2010, 09:00 AM

nvidiot,

It's sort of a mistake to try and think of the "mission" like a military one with a rigid command and control. Bin Laden personally chose the mission's leader (Atta) as well as some of the participants (for example: al-Midhar, al-Hazmi), and KSM did just about all the nuts-and-bolts planning and, IIRC, much of the logistics, but after all that, I get the distinct impression that there was no day-to-day contact, and furthermore that once the "Go" was given that everyone from Atta on down just worked on their own. All they had to do, after all, was buy tickets and take over the jets; everything short of that was merely the logistics of getting to that point. And so, I agree with Sabrina: Because I don't see any evidence of rigid control over the hijackers, it's of course entirely possible that some other influence could have been exerted over the hijackers.

But the problem is, that possibility is built on nothing more than the lack of rigid control and the existence of the opportunity, and that's it. As Sabrina said, there's no positive evidence for this to have occurred. Plus, I'm sort of at a loss as to what additional control influences would've meant, given that the hijackers executed the KSM created and bin Laden blessed plan anyway. If there were additional influences, they either ended up having no sway over the hijackers, or merely reinforced what the plan was to begin with. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that the plan was inspired by OBL, planned out by KSM, and executed by Atta and all the others.

If some truther wants to insert some LIHOP or non-CD MIHOP into there, the argument starts with evidence. I'd need to see some. Otherwise, the mere lack of contact and minute control by KSM means nothing more than the opportunity having existed; claiming that someone actually took advantage of that opportunity requires evidence.

T.A.M.

19th May 2010, 11:51 AM

Atta - Ramzi Binalshibh - KSM - OBL

Their are documents confirming each of the above connections, and confirming that all of them were involved in the "Planes" mission.

TAM:)

ImANiceGuy

27th May 2010, 03:21 PM

And let's remember that this isn't just a tally of people keeping a secret. It's a tally of knowing participants in mass murder plus some number of unwitting pawns who were duped into playing a role in mass murder, and who surely must have figured this out after the fact. So it's basically a list of mass murderers and those who unknowingly abetted mass murder and are unwilling to come forward and blow the lid off.

When I think about the bad guys putting together this list, i.e. the "9/11 team," I can't help but burst out laughing. The belief that it would be possible to assemble a team of thousands of mass murderers, in complete secrecy, no less, is baffling in its stupidity.

What's baffling in its stupidity is anyone assuming that the plot was constructed in this way. I already circumvented your point with a little known tactic callled compartmentalization.

You've been duh-bunked. Come again.

JREF, what a dissapointment...

BigAl

27th May 2010, 04:09 PM

What's baffling in its stupidity is anyone assuming that the plot was constructed in this way. I already circumvented your point with a little known tactic callled compartmentalization.

You've been duh-bunked. Come again.

JREF, what a dissapointment...

Thousands of people were involved with 9/11 on day one. Many of these people would need unique scripts in their hands the day before. These scripts would tell people to to commit federal crimes (lying, faking evidence, etc) without explaining the big picture.

Nobody complained before or after.

An estimated 70,000 people were involved in total. Many of them would need custom scripts. Any of them could see that what they saw differed with what was reported in the news that day and ask why. These news stories became the archives that became the standards story for the events of 9/11. The archives still exist for anyone that wants to read them.

None of those 70,000 saw any discrepancies.

djlunacee

27th May 2010, 05:11 PM

What's baffling in its stupidity is anyone assuming that the plot was constructed in this way. I already circumvented your point with a little known tactic callled compartmentalization.

You've been duh-bunked. Come again.

JREF, what a dissapointment...

and yet you have not accomplished anything you said you would, its been almost nine years, nine, where is all this info you said you would be posting as soon as you had time? well darn son get to moving post it already, I am tired of reading about your french, whether it is inept or not is not up to me, I will leave it to the people who have already corrected you in that arena, this is your thread, what exactly did you want to debate??????? what a failure..deposit in circular file with all of the other twoof garbage.

KoihimeNakamura

27th May 2010, 05:32 PM

You /can't/ compartmentalize something like that. It's way too open.

DavidJames

27th May 2010, 06:13 PM

You've been duh-bunked. You just can't imagine how clever that is. I slap my knee and double over in laughter each time I read that. Doesn't matter if it's you or the other CTists, it never fails to amuse. I think if you repeat it some more, I may just abandon logic and reason, discard the evidence and gouge out 2/3 of my brain with a dull spatula so I can be as clever as you guys.

KoihimeNakamura

27th May 2010, 06:17 PM

That didn't take long, did it?

T.A.M.

27th May 2010, 10:27 PM

You just can't imagine how clever that is. I slap my knee and double over in laughter each time I read that. Doesn't matter if it's you or the other CTists, it never fails to amuse. I think if you repeat it some more, I may just abandon logic and reason, discard the evidence and gouge out 2/3 of my brain with a dull spatula so I can be as clever as you guys.

kind of reminds you of Dorothy and her red shoes, doesn't it. Except there is no returning to Kansas for the truthers, no matter how much they repeat their canards.

TAM:)

Dave Rogers

28th May 2010, 01:25 AM

I'm welcoming any questions, and will pose a few of my own. I hope we can all remain civil.

What's baffling in its stupidity is anyone assuming that the plot was constructed in this way. I already circumvented your point with a little known tactic callled compartmentalization.

You've been duh-bunked. Come again.

JREF, what a dissapointment...

Nice job remaining civil there, IANG.

Dave

Sabrina

28th May 2010, 05:23 AM

What's baffling in its stupidity is anyone assuming that the plot was constructed in this way. I already circumvented your point with a little known tactic callled compartmentalization.

You've been duh-bunked. Come again.

JREF, what a dissapointment...

Well then, perhaps you can be the first truther ever to actually give your personal idea of exactly how the plot was carried out. 70,000+ people were involved with the events of that day, nearly all of whom would have had to willingly hide/alter evidence, lie to reporters and the American people, and participate in the murder of nearly 3000 people with nary a qualm. And then keep their silence for nearly 9 years, without ONE SINGLE member coming forward to blow the conspiracy wide open. Surely you can see the ludicrousness of that idea.

ElMondoHummus

28th May 2010, 05:45 AM

Well then, perhaps you can be the first truther ever to actually give your personal idea of exactly how the plot was carried out. 70,000+ people were involved with the events of that day, nearly all of whom would have had to willingly hide/alter evidence, lie to reporters and the American people, and participate in the murder of nearly 3000 people with nary a qualm. And then keep their silence for nearly 9 years, without ONE SINGLE member coming forward to blow the conspiracy wide open. Surely you can see the ludicrousness of that idea.

Man, if a person could perceive ludicrousness, he wouldn't be a truther. Insensitivity to what makes things ludicrous is part of what makes them truthers to begin with.

BillyRayValentine

28th May 2010, 08:39 AM

BillyRayValentine

28th May 2010, 08:44 AM

Well then, perhaps you can be the first truther ever to actually give your personal idea of exactly how the plot was carried out. 70,000+ people were involved with the events of that day, nearly all of whom would have had to willingly hide/alter evidence, lie to reporters and the American people, and participate in the murder of nearly 3000 people with nary a qualm. And then keep their silence for nearly 9 years, without ONE SINGLE member coming forward to blow the conspiracy wide open. Surely you can see the ludicrousness of that idea.

They all compartmentalized. That's what allowed IANG to "circumvent" my point. That and a staggering intellect.

NutCracker

28th May 2010, 09:27 AM

Anyone here speak moron? I'm gonna need a moron-to-english translation of the above, please.

Thanks in advance.

Translation:

When you have shown me wrong and explained why I am wrong, I just throw back an allegation that is a mirror image of your conclusion. Thinking 'take that, debunk-ah' is the first step in dealing with the cognitive dissonance your argument induced in me. The second step is making myself believe I have a very clever way of countering your argument. In addition to resolving the cognitive dissonance, this helps me to maintain and reinforce my self-image of being intellectually superior to you.
The cognitive dissonance is now fully resolved, my ego reinforced and I therefore claim victory.

You see.. Moron is not a too difficult language. The important part is getting to know what make those that speak Moron tick. What make the native speakers tick is easy to learn; their clockwork is very simple. You will get the hang of it very quickly. Then you will be able to decipher Moron yourself.

Stellafane

29th May 2010, 04:50 PM

Anyone here speak moron? I'm gonna need a moron-to-english translation of the above, please.

Thanks in advance.

Actually, it's pretty simple. Whatever a 9/11 denier utters, whether it be a 3,000 word rant or a single letter, always translates to the exact same thing:

"Nu-uh!!"

ImANiceGuy

1st June 2010, 07:05 PM

Thank you all for your insightful comments. Especially Dave who was kind enough to remind me that I asked for civility hypocritically.

I'll take all your insults as concessions...

beachnut

1st June 2010, 07:31 PM

Thank you all for your insightful comments. Especially Dave who was kind enough to remind me that I asked for civility hypocritically.

I'll take all your insults as concessions...
Hard to back in CD when it did not happen.

Regnad Kcin

1st June 2010, 08:19 PM

Regnad Kcin

1st June 2010, 08:27 PM

What's baffling in its stupidity is anyone assuming that the plot was constructed in this way. I already circumvented your point with a little known tactic callled compartmentalization.

You've been duh-bunked. Come again.

JREF, what a dissapointment...See, here's the thing: all you have to do to shut up the big, bad ol' JREF skeptics is present proof of what you are suggesting. Evidence. Considering any "inside job" on the scale of 9/11 would leave countless amounts, both large and small, of physical evidence, paper trails, eyewitnesses, participants, and on and on...why, the mind reels.

Questions are not evidence. Things looking funny and seeming suspicious to you does not constitute evidence. You know what evidence is. That you cannot provide it should suggest something to you.

Dave Rogers

2nd June 2010, 03:11 AM

I'll take all your insults as concessions...

This seems consistent with the usual truther approach to interpretation of evidence.

Dave

ImANiceGuy

2nd June 2010, 07:53 AM

Once more, with feeling...

Any supposed "inside job" with respect to the events of 9/11 isn't just unlikely, or maybe a real long shot, but could happen, hey, you never know. The reality is that such a thing, as suggested, is 100% impossible.

It doesn't get any more not possible than 100%, so why go on? What's your agenda? I'm curious.

See, here's the thing: all you have to do to shut up the big, bad ol' JREF skeptics is present proof of what you are suggesting. Evidence. Considering any "inside job" on the scale of 9/11 would leave countless amounts, both large and small, of physical evidence, paper trails, eyewitnesses, participants, and on and on...why, the mind reels.

Questions are not evidence. Things looking funny and seeming suspicious to you does not constitute evidence. You know what evidence is. That you cannot provide it should suggest something to you.

Your advanced knowledge of probability theory is staggering. What else in this world is 100% "not possible"?

Bell

2nd June 2010, 07:55 AM

Your advanced knowledge of probability theory is staggering. What else in this world is 100% "not possible"?

Are you really asking?

:dl:

ImANiceGuy

2nd June 2010, 08:24 AM

Are you really asking?

:dl:

yes I am laughing dog....is it really that improbable to believe that the Arab highjackers were manipulated by external forces to commit the attacks for the benefit of the global elite?

Just keep believing everything they tell you......the government never lies......the air is safe to breath, no problem.....

carlitos

2nd June 2010, 08:31 AM

the global elite?

Who? Be specific please.

ImANiceGuy

2nd June 2010, 08:42 AM

Who? Be specific please.

Here's a few.....but do not make the false inference that all were explicitly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Just as it would be false to infer that every person involved with the 9/11 recovery/clean up efforts was also involved in the attacks.....

DEU Ackermann, Josef Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive
Committee, Deutsche Bank AG

USA Alexander, Keith B. Director, National Security Agency

GRC Alogoskoufis, George Member of Parliament

USA Altman, Roger C. Chairman and CEO, Evercore Partners, Inc.

GRC Arapoglou, Takis Chairman and CEO, National Bank of Greece

TUR Babacan, Ali Minister of State and Deputy Prime Minister

GRC Bakoyannis, Dora Minister of Foreign Affairs

NOR Baksaas, Jon Fredrik President and CEO, Telenor Group

PRT Balsemão, Francisco Pinto Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime
Minister

FRA Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

ITA Bernabè, Franco CEO Telecom Italia SpA

SWE Bildt, Carl Minister of Foreign Affairs

SWE Björklund, Jan Minister for Education; Leader of the Lìberal Party

CHE Blocher, Christoph Former Swiss Counselor; Former Chairman and CEO, EMS Group

FRA Bompard, Alexandre CEO, Europe 1

USA Boot, Max Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, Council
on Foreign Relations

AUT Bronner, Oscar Publisher and Editor, Der Standard

FRA Castries, Henri de Chairman of the Management Board and CEO, AXA

ESP Cebrián, Juan Luis CEO, Grupo PRISA

BEL Coene, Luc Vice Governor, National Bank of Belgium

USA Collins, Timothy C. Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC

GRC David, George A. Chairman, Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Co. (H.B.C.) S.A.

GRC Diamantopoulou, Anna Member of Parliament

ITA Draghi, Mario Governor, Banca d'Italia

USA Eberstadt, Nicholas N. Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy, American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

DNK Eldrup, Anders President, DONG Energy A/S

ITA Elkann, John Chairman, EXOR S.p.A.; Vice Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.

DEU Enders, Thomas CEO, Airbus SAS

ESP Entrecanales, José Manuel Chairman, Acciona

AUT Faymann, Werner Federal Chancellor

USA Ferguson, Niall Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University

IRL Gleeson, Dermot Chairman, AIB Group

USA Graham, Donald E. Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company

NLD Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former
Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings

NLD Hirsch Ballin, Ernst M.H. Minister of Justice

USA Holbrooke, Richard C. US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan

NLD Hommen, Jan H.M. Chairman, ING N.V.

INT Hoop Scheffer, Jaap G. de Secretary General, NATO

USA Johnson, James A. Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC

USA Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC

FIN Katainen, Jyrki Minister of Finance

USA Keane, John M. Senior Partner, SCP Partners; General, US Army, Retired

USA Kent, Muhtar President and CEO, The Coca-Cola Company

GBR Kerr, John Member, House of Lords; Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc

DEU Klaeden, Eckart von Foreign Policy Spokesman, CDU/CSU

USA Kleinfeld, Klaus President and CEO, Alcoa Inc.

TUR Koç, Mustafa V. Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.

DEU Koch, Roland Prime Minister of Hessen

TUR Kohen, Sami Senior Foreign Affairs Columnist, Milliyet

USA Kravis, Henry R. Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc.

INT Kroes, Neelie Commissioner, European Commission

GRC Kyriacopoulos, Ulysses Chairman and Board member of subsidiary companies
of the S&B Group

FRA Lagarde, Christine Minister for the Economy, Industry and Employment

INT Lamy, Pascal Director General, World Trade Organization

PRT Leite, Manuela Ferreira Leader, PSD

ESP León Gross, Bernardino General Director of the Presidency of the Spanish
Government

DEU Löscher, Peter CEO, Siemens AG

GBR Mandelson, Peter Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory
Reform

INT Maystadt, Philippe President, European Investment Bank

CAN McKenna, Frank Former Ambassador to the US

GBR Micklethwait, John Editor-in-Chief, The Economist

FRA Montbrial, Thierry de President, French Institute for International Relations

ITA Monti, Mario President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi

ESP Moratinos Cuyaubé, Miguel A. Minister of Foreign Affairs

USA Mundie, Craig J. Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation

CAN Munroe-Blum, Heather Principal and Vice Chancellor, McGill University

NOR Myklebust, Egil Former Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA

DEU Nass, Matthias Deputy Editor, Die Zeit

NLD Beatrix, H.M. the Queen of the Netherlands

ESP Nin Génova, Juan Maria President and CEO, La Caixa

FRA Olivennes, Denis CEO and Editor in Chief, Le Nouvel Observateur

FIN Ollila, Jorma Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc

GBR Osborne, George Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer

FRA Oudéa, Frédéric CEO, Société Générale

ITA Padoa-Schioppa, Tommaso Former Minister of Finance; President of Notre Europe

GRC Papahelas, Alexis Journalist, Kathimerini

GRC Papalexopoulos, Dimitris Managing Director, Titan Cement Co. S.A.

GRC Papathanasiou, Yannis Minister of Economy and Finance

USA Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research

BEL Philippe, H.R.H. Prince

PRT Pinho, Manuel Minister of Economy and Innovation

INT Pisani-Ferry, Jean Director, Bruegel

CAN Prichard, J. Robert S. President and CEO, Metrolinx

ITA Prodi, Romano Chairman, Foundation for Worldwide Cooperation

FIN Rajalahti, Hanna Managing Editor, Talouselämä

CAN Reisman, Heather M. Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.

NOR Reiten, Eivind President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA

CHE Ringier, Michael Chairman, Ringier AG

USA Rockefeller, David Former Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank

USA Rubin, Barnett R. Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, Center for
International Cooperation, New York University

TUR Sabanci Dinçer, Suzan Chairman, Akbank

CAN Samarasekera, Indira V. President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Alberta

AUT Scholten, Rudolf Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische
Kontrollbank AG

USA Sheeran, Josette Executive Director, UN World Food Programme

ITA Siniscalco, Domenico Vice Chairman, Morgan Stanley International

ESP Solbes, Pedro Vice-President of Spanish Government; Minister of Economy and
Finance

ESP Sophia, H.M. the Queen of Spain

USA Steinberg, James B. Deputy Secretary of State

INT Stigson, Bjorn President, World Business Council for Sustainable Development

GRC Stournaras, Yannis Research Director, Foundation for Economic and Industrial
Research (IOBE)

IRL Sutherland, Peter D. Chairman, BP plc and Chairman, Goldman Sachs International

INT Tanaka, Nobuo Executive Director, IEA

GBR Taylor, J. Martin Chairman, Syngenta International AG

USA Thiel, Peter A. President, Clarium Capital Management, LLC

DNK Thorning-Schmidt, Helle Leader ofThe Social Democratic Party

DNK Thune Andersen, Thomas Partner and CEO, Maersk Oil

AUT Treichl, Andreas Chairman and CEO, Erste Group Bank AG

INT Trichet, Jean-Claude President, European Central Bank

GRC Tsoukalis, Loukas President of the Hellenic Foundation for European and
Foreign Policy (ELlAMEP)

TUR Ugur, Agah CEO, Borusan Holding

FIN Vanhanen, Matti Prime Minister

CHE Vasella, Daniel L. Chairman and CEO, Novartis AG

NLD Veer, Jeroen van der Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell plc

USA Volcker, Paul A. Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board

SWE Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB

SWE Wallenberg, Marcus Chairman, SEB

NLD Wellink, Nout President, De Nederlandsche Bank

NLD Wijers, Hans Chairman, AkzoNobel NV

GBR Wolf, Martin H. Associate Editor & Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial
Times

USA Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC

USA Wolfowitz, Paul Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research

INT Zoellick, Robert B. President, The World Bank Group

GBR Bredow, Vendeline von Business Correspondent, The Economist (Rapporteur)

GBR McBride, Edward Business Editor, The Economist (Rapporteur)

• AUT Austria
• BEL Belgium
• CHE Switzerland
• CAN Canada
• DEU Germany
• DNK Denmark
• ESP Spain
• FRA France
• FIN Finland
• GBR Great Britain
• GRC Greece
• IRL Ireland
• INT International
• ITA Italy
• NOR Norway
• NLD Netherlands
• PRT Portugal
• SWE Sweden
• TUR Turkey
• USA United States of America

Dave Rogers

2nd June 2010, 09:08 AM

is it really that improbable to believe that the Arab highjackers were manipulated by external forces to commit the attacks for the benefit of the global elite?

That's probably the most plausible proto-hypothesis anyone in the truth movement can come up with. Highly improbable, actually, but it has the rare virtue for a truther hypothesis of not actually violating any physical laws. Since you don't claim to know which members of the global elite were involved, would it be fair to say that you have no evidence whatsoever for such a proto-hypothesis?

Dave

Bell

2nd June 2010, 09:43 AM

carlitos

2nd June 2010, 09:48 AM

Here's a few.....but do not make the false inference that all were explicitly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Just as it would be false to infer that every person involved with the 9/11 recovery/clean up efforts was also involved in the attacks.....

Nice list. Here is a suggestion.

1 - State your hypothesis about the events of 9/11/01.
2 - Provide evidence that even one of the people you listed was 'in on it.'

BigAl

2nd June 2010, 12:02 PM

Oystein

2nd June 2010, 01:12 PM

Here's a few.....but do not make the false inference that all were explicitly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Just as it would be false to infer that every person involved with the 9/11 recovery/clean up efforts was also involved in the attacks.....

[List of 124 named individuals from 20 different countries]

You have the guts to implicate, by name, 124 individuals with the murder of close to 3000 people. Thats's more that 20 murder victims per person on your list.

Surely, you have at least some information whatsoever that could possibly be construed as at least faintly shedding some light of suspicion on at least one person on the list. Right? If so, I would like to know that information, and its source.

If you cannot provide any such information, then clearly you are engaging in libel. So please do not dodge this urgent request for sourced information implicating at least one person on your list with the criminal acts of 9/11, or else I will have to call you a libeling fraud henceforth.
Alternatively, you may retract your false and unwarranted accusations.

triforcharity

2nd June 2010, 08:41 PM

Your advanced knowledge of probability theory is staggering. What else in this world is 100% "not possible"?

Getting a truther to admit they are wrong?!?!? :D

Getting a truther to understand physics/fire/structural engineering/english/kitten pictures?

:D:D:D

beachnut

3rd June 2010, 10:57 AM

... ....is it really that improbable to believe that the Arab highjackers were manipulated by external forces to commit the attacks for the benefit of the global elite? ...
Who makes up delusions this dumb?

911 truth has no rational understanding of terrorists or UBL; why?

Cuddles

4th June 2010, 04:09 AM

Some of us are normal people who hear crazy stories

What's baffling in its stupidity is anyone assuming that the plot was constructed in this way. I already circumvented your point with a little known tactic callled compartmentalization.

You've been duh-bunked. Come again.

I'll take all your insults as concessions...

improbable to believe that the Arab highjackers were manipulated by external forces to commit the attacks for the benefit of the global elite?

Just keep believing everything they tell you......the government never lies......the air is safe to breath, no problem.....

Here's a few...

Yes I believe there was a grand conspiracy on 9/11

So, how's that "normal person who just happens to have heard a few crazy stories" thing working out for you?

240-185

4th June 2010, 07:45 AM

cat bbg.txt | grep "FRA" :

1°) FRA Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
2°) FRA Bompard, Alexandre CEO, Europe 1
3°) FRA Castries, Henri de Chairman of the Management Board and CEO, AXA
4°) FRA Lagarde, Christine Minister for the Economy, Industry and Employment
5°) FRA Montbrial, Thierry de President, French Institute for International Relations
6°) FRA Olivennes, Denis CEO and Editor in Chief, Le Nouvel Observateur
7°) FRA Oudéa, Frédéric CEO, Société Générale

1°) Was a lawyer in 2001.
2°) Was leading... a soccer team in 2001. Plus, "Europe 1" is a national radio station. Clearly out of scope.
3°) "AXA" is an insurance company. So, he helped to organize a huge crime in order to stress his OWN BUSINESS????
4°) So you're accusing one of our ministers of being part of one of the biggest murders in history? By the way, she was a famous lawyer in 2001.
5°) Unknown to public. Was the president of the French Academy of Moral and Political Sciences in 2001.
6°) "Le Nouvel Observateur" is a french magazine, you should know that. BTW, Denis Olivennes was leading a french TV channel in 2001, before leading a chain of high-tech stores. So what? 9/11 allowed him to sell some iPods and flat screens?
7°) The "Société Générale" is a bank. Frédéric Oudéa was just an employee of this bank in 2001. That means he didn't have any power of decision.

Good job for accusing innocent people!

BadBoy

4th June 2010, 08:26 AM

What's baffling in its stupidity is anyone assuming that the plot was constructed in this way. I already circumvented your point with a little known tactic callled compartmentalization.

You've been duh-bunked. Come again.

JREF, what a dissapointment...
Hi, just been lurking on this thread.

Hay, ImANiceGuy,

Do you really believe it was an inside job? Hand on your nuts and on your hampsters deathbed do you honestly believe it was an inside job... come on now, you can type so you cant be all that... disadvantaged.

Listen to some advise my mate. Its like this you see. The truth is always more interesting than the woo. As Richard Dawkins pointed out, the theory of evolution is so much more interesting and wonderfull than the creationist mantra.

I would say that taking your time investigating US and Western European history and politics and the problems in the middle east would be far more interesting than hanging out on some truther forum pretending to be in some Tom Clancey novel.

BadBoy

4th June 2010, 08:32 AM

Getting a truther to admit they are wrong?!?!? :D

Getting a truther to understand physics/fire/structural engineering/english/kitten pictures?

:D:D:D
nice. :D

Regnad Kcin

4th June 2010, 08:33 AM

Your advanced knowledge of probability theory is staggering. What else in this world is 100% "not possible"?So no evidence then. Just as I thought. One can't provide evidence there's a Starbucks on the dark side of moon when there isn't a Starbucks on the dark side of the moon.

BadBoy

4th June 2010, 08:49 AM

So no evidence then. Just as I thought. One can't provide evidence there's a Starbucks on the dark side of moon when there isn't a Starbucks on the dark side of the moon.
I have seriously thought about going over to a truthers forum and spreading some lies around to get them all stirred up. You know, pretend some news source has uncovered a link or that they uncovered a coverup of explosive residue.

Let them take is all seriously for a while, see if they can independently come up with other sources/evidence and then tell then it was all nonsense.

But then I wonder if I were to do that, Id still hearing about the lies I started 8 years later. I can imagine it getting perpetuated and never going away. It would be like conducting an experiment on the delusional state of mind. It would also be in very bad taste, considering the subject. I laugh at truthers so much sometimes I forget and have to remind myself how outrageously disrespectful they are to the people who died with their idiotic ideas.

Pantaz

5th June 2010, 08:58 AM

... But then I wonder if I were to do that, Id still hearing about the lies I started 8 years later. I can imagine it getting perpetuated and never going away. ...
You might enjoy this... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113706

Follow-up: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115744

triforcharity

5th June 2010, 10:14 AM

You might enjoy this... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113706

Follow-up: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115744

I love that thread.....:D:D

EventHorizon

5th June 2010, 01:43 PM

Who makes up delusions this dumb?

911 truth has no rational understanding of terrorists or UBL; why?

No need to stop at terrorists or UBL. 911 truth has no rational understanding of the world. I mean, the "global elite". The air is unsafe to breathe? WTF is that?

George152

5th June 2010, 02:17 PM

Here's a few.....but do not make the false inference that all were explicitly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Just as it would be false to infer that every person involved with the 9/11 recovery/clean up efforts was also involved in the attacks.....

DEU Ackermann, Josef Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive
Committee, Deutsche Bank AG

USA Alexander, Keith B. Director, National Security Agency

GRC Alogoskoufis, George Member of Parliament

USA Altman, Roger C. Chairman and CEO, Evercore Partners, Inc.

GRC Arapoglou, Takis Chairman and CEO, National Bank of Greece

TUR Babacan, Ali Minister of State and Deputy Prime Minister

GRC Bakoyannis, Dora Minister of Foreign Affairs

NOR Baksaas, Jon Fredrik President and CEO, Telenor Group

PRT Balsemão, Francisco Pinto Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime
Minister

FRA Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

ITA Bernabè, Franco CEO Telecom Italia SpA

SWE Bildt, Carl Minister of Foreign Affairs

SWE Björklund, Jan Minister for Education; Leader of the Lìberal Party

CHE Blocher, Christoph Former Swiss Counselor; Former Chairman and CEO, EMS Group

FRA Bompard, Alexandre CEO, Europe 1

USA Boot, Max Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, Council
on Foreign Relations

AUT Bronner, Oscar Publisher and Editor, Der Standard

FRA Castries, Henri de Chairman of the Management Board and CEO, AXA

ESP Cebrián, Juan Luis CEO, Grupo PRISA

BEL Coene, Luc Vice Governor, National Bank of Belgium

USA Collins, Timothy C. Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC

GRC David, George A. Chairman, Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Co. (H.B.C.) S.A.

GRC Diamantopoulou, Anna Member of Parliament

ITA Draghi, Mario Governor, Banca d'Italia

USA Eberstadt, Nicholas N. Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy, American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

DNK Eldrup, Anders President, DONG Energy A/S

ITA Elkann, John Chairman, EXOR S.p.A.; Vice Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.

DEU Enders, Thomas CEO, Airbus SAS

ESP Entrecanales, José Manuel Chairman, Acciona

AUT Faymann, Werner Federal Chancellor

USA Ferguson, Niall Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University

IRL Gleeson, Dermot Chairman, AIB Group

USA Graham, Donald E. Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company

NLD Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former
Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings

NLD Hirsch Ballin, Ernst M.H. Minister of Justice

USA Holbrooke, Richard C. US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan

NLD Hommen, Jan H.M. Chairman, ING N.V.

INT Hoop Scheffer, Jaap G. de Secretary General, NATO

USA Johnson, James A. Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC

USA Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC

FIN Katainen, Jyrki Minister of Finance

USA Keane, John M. Senior Partner, SCP Partners; General, US Army, Retired

USA Kent, Muhtar President and CEO, The Coca-Cola Company

GBR Kerr, John Member, House of Lords; Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc

DEU Klaeden, Eckart von Foreign Policy Spokesman, CDU/CSU

USA Kleinfeld, Klaus President and CEO, Alcoa Inc.

TUR Koç, Mustafa V. Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.

DEU Koch, Roland Prime Minister of Hessen

TUR Kohen, Sami Senior Foreign Affairs Columnist, Milliyet

USA Kravis, Henry R. Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc.

INT Kroes, Neelie Commissioner, European Commission

GRC Kyriacopoulos, Ulysses Chairman and Board member of subsidiary companies
of the S&B Group

FRA Lagarde, Christine Minister for the Economy, Industry and Employment

INT Lamy, Pascal Director General, World Trade Organization

PRT Leite, Manuela Ferreira Leader, PSD

ESP León Gross, Bernardino General Director of the Presidency of the Spanish
Government

DEU Löscher, Peter CEO, Siemens AG

GBR Mandelson, Peter Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory
Reform

INT Maystadt, Philippe President, European Investment Bank

CAN McKenna, Frank Former Ambassador to the US

GBR Micklethwait, John Editor-in-Chief, The Economist

FRA Montbrial, Thierry de President, French Institute for International Relations

ITA Monti, Mario President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi

ESP Moratinos Cuyaubé, Miguel A. Minister of Foreign Affairs

USA Mundie, Craig J. Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation

CAN Munroe-Blum, Heather Principal and Vice Chancellor, McGill University

NOR Myklebust, Egil Former Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA

DEU Nass, Matthias Deputy Editor, Die Zeit

NLD Beatrix, H.M. the Queen of the Netherlands

ESP Nin Génova, Juan Maria President and CEO, La Caixa

FRA Olivennes, Denis CEO and Editor in Chief, Le Nouvel Observateur

FIN Ollila, Jorma Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc

GBR Osborne, George Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer

FRA Oudéa, Frédéric CEO, Société Générale

ITA Padoa-Schioppa, Tommaso Former Minister of Finance; President of Notre Europe

GRC Papahelas, Alexis Journalist, Kathimerini

GRC Papalexopoulos, Dimitris Managing Director, Titan Cement Co. S.A.

GRC Papathanasiou, Yannis Minister of Economy and Finance

USA Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research

BEL Philippe, H.R.H. Prince

PRT Pinho, Manuel Minister of Economy and Innovation

INT Pisani-Ferry, Jean Director, Bruegel

CAN Prichard, J. Robert S. President and CEO, Metrolinx

ITA Prodi, Romano Chairman, Foundation for Worldwide Cooperation

FIN Rajalahti, Hanna Managing Editor, Talouselämä

CAN Reisman, Heather M. Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.

NOR Reiten, Eivind President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA

CHE Ringier, Michael Chairman, Ringier AG

USA Rockefeller, David Former Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank

USA Rubin, Barnett R. Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, Center for
International Cooperation, New York University

TUR Sabanci Dinçer, Suzan Chairman, Akbank

CAN Samarasekera, Indira V. President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Alberta

AUT Scholten, Rudolf Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische
Kontrollbank AG

USA Sheeran, Josette Executive Director, UN World Food Programme

ITA Siniscalco, Domenico Vice Chairman, Morgan Stanley International

ESP Solbes, Pedro Vice-President of Spanish Government; Minister of Economy and
Finance

ESP Sophia, H.M. the Queen of Spain

USA Steinberg, James B. Deputy Secretary of State

INT Stigson, Bjorn President, World Business Council for Sustainable Development

GRC Stournaras, Yannis Research Director, Foundation for Economic and Industrial
Research (IOBE)

IRL Sutherland, Peter D. Chairman, BP plc and Chairman, Goldman Sachs International

INT Tanaka, Nobuo Executive Director, IEA

GBR Taylor, J. Martin Chairman, Syngenta International AG

USA Thiel, Peter A. President, Clarium Capital Management, LLC

DNK Thorning-Schmidt, Helle Leader ofThe Social Democratic Party

DNK Thune Andersen, Thomas Partner and CEO, Maersk Oil

AUT Treichl, Andreas Chairman and CEO, Erste Group Bank AG

INT Trichet, Jean-Claude President, European Central Bank

GRC Tsoukalis, Loukas President of the Hellenic Foundation for European and
Foreign Policy (ELlAMEP)

TUR Ugur, Agah CEO, Borusan Holding

FIN Vanhanen, Matti Prime Minister

CHE Vasella, Daniel L. Chairman and CEO, Novartis AG

NLD Veer, Jeroen van der Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell plc

USA Volcker, Paul A. Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board

SWE Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB

SWE Wallenberg, Marcus Chairman, SEB

NLD Wellink, Nout President, De Nederlandsche Bank

NLD Wijers, Hans Chairman, AkzoNobel NV

GBR Wolf, Martin H. Associate Editor & Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial
Times

USA Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC

USA Wolfowitz, Paul Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research

INT Zoellick, Robert B. President, The World Bank Group

GBR Bredow, Vendeline von Business Correspondent, The Economist (Rapporteur)

GBR McBride, Edward Business Editor, The Economist (Rapporteur)

• AUT Austria
• BEL Belgium
• CHE Switzerland
• CAN Canada
• DEU Germany
• DNK Denmark
• ESP Spain
• FRA France
• FIN Finland
• GBR Great Britain
• GRC Greece
• IRL Ireland
• INT International
• ITA Italy
• NOR Norway
• NLD Netherlands
• PRT Portugal
• SWE Sweden
• TUR Turkey
• USA United States of America

And none of those people/countries let their involvement slip ?
You have serious problems

BadBoy

7th June 2010, 12:24 AM

You might enjoy this... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113706

Follow-up: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115744
very cool, lying about lying hu.

Im from the UK and have never heard of the DJ before. What a jerk. If I did believe in God, which I dont, he'd be going to hell, along with Jerry Springer.

ImANiceGuy

9th June 2010, 01:30 AM

No need to stop at terrorists or UBL. 911 truth has no rational understanding of the world. I mean, the "global elite". The air is unsafe to breathe? WTF is that?

If you don't know about the 9/11 EPA fruc up, you had better ask somebody!

ImANiceGuy

9th June 2010, 01:33 AM

Getting a truther to admit they are wrong?!?!? :D

Getting a truther to understand physics/fire/structural engineering/english/kitten pictures?

:D:D:D

too obvious of a jref response to be funny, imo.

ImANiceGuy

9th June 2010, 01:37 AM

Hi, just been lurking on this thread.

Hay, ImANiceGuy,

Do you really believe it was an inside job? Hand on your nuts and on your hampsters deathbed do you honestly believe it was an inside job... come on now, you can type so you cant be all that... disadvantaged.

Listen to some advise my mate. Its like this you see. The truth is always more interesting than the woo. As Richard Dawkins pointed out, the theory of evolution is so much more interesting and wonderfull than the creationist mantra.

I would say that taking your time investigating US and Western European history and politics and the problems in the middle east would be far more interesting than hanging out on some truther forum pretending to be in some Tom Clancey novel.

Thank you for your unsolicited life-advice. I will take it into consideration...

Dave Rogers

9th June 2010, 01:41 AM

If you don't know about the 9/11 EPA fruc up, you had better ask somebody!

The EPA announced that the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe, and there are no known cases of people suffering problems related to dust inhalation in the publically accessible areas of the city. Ground Zero was at that time a controlled access site, and all workers were required to wear breathing apparatus while on site. Several cases of respiratory problems are alleged to have arisen from workers, generally for quite understandable reasons, failing to comply with those regulations. The EPA ****-up is purely an invention of truthers, who conflate the public announcement with a fictitious lifting of the on-site regulation.

Dave

ImANiceGuy

9th June 2010, 01:44 AM

And none of those people/countries let their involvement slip ?
You have serious problems

IMO, you have serious problems if you equate the word people to the word country. Unfortunately, I think you made the false inference I specifically warned repliers to avoid...

ImANiceGuy

9th June 2010, 01:58 AM

cat bbg.txt | grep "FRA" :

1°) Was a lawyer in 2001.
2°) Was leading... a soccer team in 2001. Plus, "Europe 1" is a national radio station. Clearly out of scope.
3°) "AXA" is an insurance company. So, he helped to organize a huge crime in order to stress his OWN BUSINESS????
4°) So you're accusing one of our ministers of being part of one of the biggest murders in history? By the way, she was a famous lawyer in 2001.
5°) Unknown to public. Was the president of the French Academy of Moral and Political Sciences in 2001.
6°) "Le Nouvel Observateur" is a french magazine, you should know that. BTW, Denis Olivennes was leading a french TV channel in 2001, before leading a chain of high-tech stores. So what? 9/11 allowed him to sell some iPods and flat screens?
7°) The "Société Générale" is a bank. Frédéric Oudéa was just an employee of this bank in 2001. That means he didn't have any power of decision.

Good job for accusing innocent people!

Well I suppose there would be a big frigging difference between benefitting unknowingly from an event, and being involved in it's execution. How can you claim #5 innocent and he is unknown to the public (I didn't even bother to look up his name). I would want you on my jury...

Carlitos, BigAl...you guys want evidence, of what? I've stated my hypothesis, specifiy your questions within it and I would be happy to elaborate...

It's hardly fair for you to ask me to basically lay to rest this great debate, in one post.

ImANiceGuy

9th June 2010, 02:05 AM

BigAl

9th June 2010, 03:53 AM

Carlitos, BigAl...you guys want evidence, of what? I've stated my hypothesis, specifiy your questions within it and I would be happy to elaborate...

A hypothesis is something that makes specific claims and is judged by how well it fits the available evidence, science, etc. Nothing you have posted is specific enough to rise to the level of being a hypothesis.

Sabrina

9th June 2010, 04:53 AM

kookbreaker

9th June 2010, 05:00 AM

IIRC, there are photos showing numerous Ground Zero workers with the masks they were supposed to wear hanging from their necks instead of being on their faces. That's probably not the case for all of them, but I'd say it's a safe bet that a vast majority of the folks who have respiratory problems as a result of working on Ground Zero were the ones in those photos with their masks hanging around their necks.

I've mentioned this before: A good friend of mine works in NYC for the EPA and was at ground zero for the clean-up. Since he had the big 'EPA' he was frequently asked by workers about how safe the air was. He would explain to them, while wearing his mask, all the various hazards present from the collapse: asbestos, phosphates from light bulbs & CRT's, and much more.

As he has said, invariably the worker asking would have his mask hanging around his neck, so he could smoke.

Dave Rogers

9th June 2010, 05:35 AM

IIRC, there are photos showing numerous Ground Zero workers with the masks they were supposed to wear hanging from their necks instead of being on their faces. That's probably not the case for all of them, but I'd say it's a safe bet that a vast majority of the folks who have respiratory problems as a result of working on Ground Zero were the ones in those photos with their masks hanging around their necks.

It's standard health & safety procedure to use personal protective equipment as a last line of defense against hazards, rather than as a standard approach. The simple reason is that people just don't use it. There are many reasons, from finding that it interferes with the ability to do the job properly (probably a major consideration for people doing search-and-rescue) to familiarity-breeds-contempt and simple laziness, but it's well recognised that people simply can't be relied on to use protective equipment whatever the level of regulation and enforcement. Sadly, for people working at ground zero, there were no other options.

Dave

ImANiceGuy

9th June 2010, 10:46 AM

The EPA announced that the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe, and there are no known cases of people suffering problems related to dust inhalation in the publically accessible areas of the city. Ground Zero was at that time a controlled access site, and all workers were required to wear breathing apparatus while on site. Several cases of respiratory problems are alleged to have arisen from workers, generally for quite understandable reasons, failing to comply with those regulations. The EPA ****-up is purely an invention of truthers, who conflate the public announcement with a fictitious lifting of the on-site regulation.

Dave

Nothing falsely conflated here...first paragraph in Wikipedia's EPA 9/11 air controversy entry;

The EPA 9/11 pollution controversy was the result of a report released by the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Environmental Protection Agency in August 2003 which claimed that the White House put pressure on the EPA to delete cautionary information about the air quality in New York City around Ground Zero following the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to the report: a September 18 EPA statement saying that the air was "safe"[1] was made without sufficient reliable data available; the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced the EPA to make reassuring comments to the public; and on September 12 the EPA Administrator issued a memo saying that all statements to the media must be cleared by the National Security Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency_Sept ember_11_attacks_pollution_controversy

Here's a link to the OIG report and an excerpt.

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2003/WTC_report_20030821.pdf

The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) influenced, through the collaboration process, the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones (P.17)

This is a separate issue from rescue workers not complying with PPE protocols later becomming sick.

This article summarizes the whole story best;

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-03.htm

NEW YORK -- In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available.

However, I can appreciate the statement offered in the final sentence of said article by then acting EPA director Marianne Horinko;

"Under unbelievably trying conditions, EPA did the best that it could," she said.

If I could finish her quote for her : "...under intense pressure from the Whitehouse to keep the public calm and return business to usual."

Dave....what say you?

ImANiceGuy

9th June 2010, 11:14 AM

A hypothesis is something that makes specific claims and is judged by how well it fits the available evidence, science, etc. Nothing you have posted is specific enough to rise to the level of being a hypothesis.

Well a conspiracy as grand as 9/11 requires a detailed and complex hypothesis; trying to explain it in brevity is near impossible.

If you'd like you can ask me specific questions regarding my 'vague hypothesis', and it will unravel and become clear with the respect for accuracy it deserves.

How about something easy, like did 19 terrorists highjack 4 planes and crash them into buildings/field; 2 in NY, 1 in DC, and one in Pennsylvania. My answer is yes, yes they did.

I can tell you what I don't hypothesize; tv trickery, no-planes, missile at the Pentagon, north-of-citgo.

The existence of a global elite is not news to anyone right? They exist, same as the silent majority exists....its been extensively studied in sociology. My theory is that only the highest ranking members, intent on geo-political engineering, were aware of all aspects of the conspiracy.

Bush Sr., Kissinger, Rice, HW, Cheney, Blair, Rockefeller are a few examples. These people, and many more, manipulated all the right people below them in order to MIHOP.

Sabrina

9th June 2010, 11:22 AM

How EXACTLY did the people you listed Make It Happen On Purpose? And do you have any evidence for claiming such? Or is it mere speculation and you have no concrete evidence?

Same question applies for the "global elite"; got any concrete evidence that they exist? Who exactly are they? Is there a listing somewhere that details why these people are "elite" over the rest of humanity? Can you provide evidence that they manipulate any of the world's governments in any way? And again, please refrain from mere speculation; provide citations, provide concrete EVIDENCE of any of these people existing and actually doing what you are claiming they do. Otherwise, your opinion means exactly this. *snaps fingers*

ImANiceGuy

9th June 2010, 11:31 AM

Sure! I'm hoping for a bit of downtime this evening; I'll get back to you asap...

Bell

9th June 2010, 11:44 AM

Sure! I'm hoping for a bit of downtime this evening; I'll get back to you asap...

You have evidence? REAL evidence? Real real evidence that definitely proves 9/11 was really an inside job? That's great! Don't forget to post it also in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=177088). I'm hoping you are also taking your evidence to the supreme court :rolleyes:

ImANiceGuy

9th June 2010, 04:43 PM

How EXACTLY did the people you listed Make It Happen On Purpose? And do you have any evidence for claiming such? Or is it mere speculation and you have no concrete evidence?

Sabrina, if you're expecting some miracle evidence to present itself, don't hold your breath, just go away from this thread.

Better yet, take a deep breath and try to remain objective in light of your overwhelming emotion...

Same question applies for the "global elite"; got any concrete evidence that they exist? Who exactly are they? Is there a listing somewhere that details why these people are "elite" over the rest of humanity? Can you provide evidence that they manipulate any of the world's governments in any way? And again, please refrain from mere speculation; provide citations, provide concrete EVIDENCE of any of these people existing and actually doing what you are claiming they do. Otherwise, your opinion means exactly this. *snaps fingers*

Paraphrasing the entire Elitist sociological tradition, those who qualify (although each social scientist would have their own specific criteria) as global elites are, simply put, the highest of the economic elites who hold power and influence outside their specific economic forums. These individuals are able to influence public policy in many ways; and it's been extensively studied by many sociologists; think....how could someone with tremendous economic power bypass democratically defined spheres of influence? Now start thinking about all the summits and forums going on behind closed doors all over the world. Where did the term 'backroom deal' come from?

If you wanted to independently learn more about Elite Theory. I would start by studying the original works of CW Mills, John Porter's Verticle Mosaic, then Wallace Clement's excellent book, The Canadian Corporate Elite. (bit of a Canadian influence to this research lineup.....)

Anyway, certain individuals around the world qualify as Global Elites, rather than just elites, due to the rise in MNC's and the rapid pace of globalization. To deny this is just plain silly. Now if you have a specific question in regards to my definition of this group....pose away.

Sabrina

9th June 2010, 05:09 PM

Sabrina, if you're expecting some miracle evidence to present itself, don't hold your breath, just go away from this thread.

Better yet, take a deep breath and try to remain objective in light of your overwhelming emotion...

Paraphrasing the entire Elitist sociological tradition, those who qualify (although each social scientist would have their own specific criteria) as global elites are, simply put, the highest of the economic elites who hold power and influence outside their specific economic forums. These individuals are able to influence public policy in many ways; and it's been extensively studied by many sociologists; think....how could someone with tremendous economic power bypass democratically defined spheres of influence? Now start thinking about all the summits and forums going on behind closed doors all over the world. Where did the term 'backroom deal' come from?

If you wanted to independently learn more about Elite Theory. I would start by studying the original works of CW Mills, John Porter's Verticle Mosaic, then Wallace Clement's excellent book, The Canadian Corporate Elite. (bit of a Canadian influence to this research lineup.....)

Anyway, certain individuals around the world qualify as Global Elites, rather than just elites, due to the rise in MNC's and the rapid pace of globalization. To deny this is just plain silly. Now if you have a specific question in regards to my definition of this group....pose away.

Name names. Otherwise it's mere speculation with no hard evidence. That is not how we work here. And if you name those names, you'd better be prepared to back up your accusations against them with even more evidence.

Are certain people more powerful than others because they are wealthy? Certainly. But that doesn't mean the so-called "global elite" exist in the sense that you are intimating.

dudalb

9th June 2010, 05:34 PM

And none of those people/countries let their involvement slip ?
You have serious problems

Not to mention I can't understand why 75% of those listed would have had any benefit from the 9/11 attacks in the first place.
Just more proof of the untter insane Rabbit Hole that Conspiracy theories lead to.

dudalb

9th June 2010, 05:37 PM

Sabrina, if you're expecting some miracle evidence to present itself, don't hold your breath, just go away from this thread.

Better yet, take a deep breath and try to remain objective in light of your overwhelming emotion...

Paraphrasing the entire Elitist sociological tradition, those who qualify (although each social scientist would have their own specific criteria) as global elites are, simply put, the highest of the economic elites who hold power and influence outside their specific economic forums. These individuals are able to influence public policy in many ways; and it's been extensively studied by many sociologists; think....how could someone with tremendous economic power bypass democratically defined spheres of influence? Now start thinking about all the summits and forums going on behind closed doors all over the world. Where did the term 'backroom deal' come from?

If you wanted to independently learn more about Elite Theory. I would start by studying the original works of CW Mills, John Porter's Verticle Mosaic, then Wallace Clement's excellent book, The Canadian Corporate Elite. (bit of a Canadian influence to this research lineup.....)

Anyway, certain individuals around the world qualify as Global Elites, rather than just elites, due to the rise in MNC's and the rapid pace of globalization. To deny this is just plain silly. Now if you have a specific question in regards to my definition of this group....pose away.

And they have their headquarters in an extinct Volcano in Japan,and the Global Elite Chairman has a White Persian Cat as a pet.

ImANiceGuy

9th June 2010, 05:40 PM

Name names. Otherwise it's mere speculation with no hard evidence. That is not how we work here. And if you name those names, you'd better be prepared to back up your accusations against them with even more evidence.

Are certain people more powerful than others because they are wealthy? Certainly. But that doesn't mean the so-called "global elite" exist in the sense that you are intimating.

Which sense of existence, of the Global Elite, am I intimating in your opinion?

Naming names: Henry Kissinger

In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed Kissinger to chair a committee to investigate the terrorist attacks of September 11 attacks.[citation needed] Kissinger stepped down as chairman on December 13, 2002 rather than reveal his client list, when queried about potential conflicts of interest. - Kissinger's Wiki page

The New York Times suggested the White House chose him "to contain an investigation it has long opposed."

President Bush named Kissinger to lead the 10-member commission last month, dropping his longstanding opposition to an independent probe of the events leading up to the September 11 terrorist attacks. So Bush is calling Kissinger independent of the gov't?

Almost laughable seeing as how (from Wiki) Kissinger was the "most frequent visitor" to the George W. Bush White House as an unofficial political adviser on Israel and the Middle East—including the Iraq War.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/kissinger.resigns/

Sorry no evidence, just speculation of evil-doings. Now if we could get a glance at Dr.Kissinger's client list, then we might have some evidence; which client's interests were of conflict?

BigAl

9th June 2010, 05:58 PM

Well a conspiracy as grand as 9/11 requires a detailed and complex hypothesis; trying to explain it in brevity is near impossible.

If you'd like you can ask me specific questions regarding my 'vague hypothesis', and it will unravel and become clear with the respect for accuracy it deserves.
...
The existence of a global elite is not news to anyone right? They exist, same as the silent majority exists....its been extensively studied in sociology. My theory is that only the highest ranking members, intent on geo-political engineering, were aware of all aspects of the conspiracy.

You're the one that claims to have a hypothesis.

2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis

It's your job to expand on the details so it can be compared to reality and shown to be right or wrong.

ImANiceGuy

9th June 2010, 06:21 PM

You're the one that claims to have a hypothesis.

It's your job to expand on the details so it can be compared to reality and shown to be right or wrong.

I respect your position Al; the onus is on me to provide a hypothesis which fits with established evidence.

However, being such a complex conspiracy, I leave it in the debunkers hands(or fingers) to navigate the direction of the hypothesis' reveal through a questioning process...

I think it was Churchill who said " If you want me to talk for 4 hours, I can start now.....if you want a 5 minute speech, I'll need a couple days to prepare."

BigAl

9th June 2010, 06:31 PM

I respect your position Al; the onus is on me to provide a hypothesis which fits with established evidence.

However, being such a complex conspiracy, I leave it in the debunkers hands(or fingers) to navigate the direction of the hypothesis' reveal through a questioning process...

I think it was Churchill who said " If you want me to talk for 4 hours, I can start now.....if you want a 5 minute speech, I'll need a couple days to prepare."

I other words, you've got nothing.

Dave Rogers

10th June 2010, 12:31 AM

Dave....what say you?

Politicians twist the truth to serve their political agenda. Big deal; we all know this. In no sense does this even vaguely suggest that the government did anything more serious than spin the facts.

Dave

Gaspode

10th June 2010, 12:00 PM

Some posts moved to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=58).

Remember to address the argument, not the arguer.

beachnut

10th June 2010, 04:25 PM

yes I am laughing dog....is it really that improbable to believe that the Arab highjackers were manipulated by external forces to commit the attacks for the benefit of the global elite?

Just keep believing everything they tell you......the government never lies......the air is safe to breath, no problem.....
Seems to be a paranoid response with no evidence.

Who? And a very long list! lol
Here's a few.....but do not make the false inference that all were explicitly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Just as it would be false to infer that every person involved with the 9/11 recovery/clean up efforts was also involved in the attacks.....

DUE Ackerman, Josef Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive
Committee, Deutsch Bank AG

...
• TUE Turkey
• USA United States of America
But there is a disclaimer which means...

...
Sorry no evidence, just speculation of evil-doings. ...
No evidence, just an opinion based on nothing; just speculation.
...JUST ASKING...
What formed your speculation?

...JUST ASKING...
Why do you say no evidence and then make the mistake of implying you might get some if...

... if we could get a glance at Dr.Kissinger's client list, then we might have some evidence; which client's interests were of conflict?

Good luck finding your evidence.

Regnad Kcin

11th June 2010, 08:22 AM

Carlitos, BigAl...you guys want evidence, of what? I've stated my hypothesis, specifiy your questions within it and I would be happy to elaborate...

It's hardly fair for you to ask me to basically lay to rest this great debate, in one post.Wow.

Regnad Kcin

11th June 2010, 09:01 AM

Well a conspiracy as grand as 9/11 requires a detailed and complex hypothesis; trying to explain it in brevity is near impossible.You remember what's 100% impossible?

My theory is that only the highest ranking members [of the "global elite"], intent on geo-political engineering, were aware of all aspects of the conspiracy.

Bush Sr., Kissinger, Rice, HW, Cheney, Blair, Rockefeller are a few examples. These people, and many more, manipulated all the right people below them in order to MIHOP.Impossibility is an absolute; something can't be more impossible, or really impossible. Still, the more people you involve the more impossible your "theory" becomes.

theprestige

11th June 2010, 09:29 PM

Naming names: Henry Kissinger

In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed Kissinger to chair a committee to investigate the terrorist attacks of September 11 attacks.[citation needed]
Emphasis mine.

ImANiceGuy, why is the first and only name you come up with not actually supported by evidence?

You pull an unsourced, un-cited claim from Wikpedia, as your first and best effort?

Since Kissinger was never actually appointed to anything having to do with 9/11, it doesn't really matter who his clients were, does it?

ImANiceGuy

12th June 2010, 08:20 AM

Emphasis mine.

ImANiceGuy, why is the first and only name you come up with not actually supported by evidence?

You pull an unsourced, un-cited claim from Wikpedia, as your first and best effort?

Since Kissinger was never actually appointed to anything having to do with 9/11, it doesn't really matter who his clients were, does it?

Your opinion is hardly prestigious....I dont see many members jumping to your defense....

Myriad

12th June 2010, 08:36 AM

I dont see many members jumping to your defense....

:confused: Defense from what, exactly?

Respectfully,
Myriad

sadhatter

12th June 2010, 08:49 AM

You can easily tell who is not full of it by thier willingness to provide real evidence. Look at this debate, for every post iamaniceguy posts on topic or with any information, he has about 3 or 4 that are just padding the thread in some way. People who know they are right in facts, do not try to put long rambling tirades, and snide remarks, they put thier evidence out there. Every time i see someone ask niceguy this, it is a dodge ( like comparing himself to winston churchhill, which beyond being egotistical is just a dodge. ), or some rambling list and a statement of " look it up!".

If you have the evidence, show the evidence in a clear and concise manner, we are sick of having to sift through mountains of garbage to get anything that is going to further the debate. Respect is earned not given niceguy , and at this point you have done nothing to earn it.

dafydd

12th June 2010, 09:18 AM

Your opinion is hardly prestigious....I dont see many members jumping to your defense....

We don't need to.

ImANiceGuy

12th June 2010, 03:08 PM

:confused: Defense from what, exactly?

Respectfully,
Myriad

well Theprestige claims Kissinger had nothing to do with 9/11...that he was never appointed to any "commissions"

What say you to that?

djlunacee

13th June 2010, 01:42 AM

well Theprestige claims Kissinger had nothing to do with 9/11...that he was never appointed to any "commissions"

What say you to that?

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/bios.htm

try again.

Sam.I.Am

13th June 2010, 02:30 AM

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/bios.htm

try again.

Kissinger was originally appointed to head the 9/11 commission. Of that I'm certain (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/kissinger.resigns/). But he resigned before the first hearing was convened so it actually was a bit of both in that he was appointed to head it but he resigned the position before it started, to protect his clients confidentiality and speed the process of starting the hearings.

It's really a no starter because Kissinger, in reality, had no say in the hearings or their outcome.

djlunacee

13th June 2010, 10:07 AM

Kissinger was originally appointed to head the 9/11 commission. Of that I'm certain (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/kissinger.resigns/). But he resigned before the first hearing was convened so it actually was a bit of both in that he was appointed to head it but he resigned the position before it started, to protect his clients confidentiality and speed the process of starting the hearings.

It's really a no starter because Kissinger, in reality, had no say in the hearings or their outcome.

Thanks Sam for the information.

ImANiceGuy

15th June 2010, 02:14 PM

Thanks Sam for the information.

You didn't even read halfway up the page......try post #203.

I love when people post before even reading through a page or two of a thread....

T.A.M.

15th June 2010, 02:20 PM

You didn't even read halfway up the page......try post #103.

I love when people post before even reading through a page or two of a thread....

post #103 is an unrelated post by DC concerning Atta and the pilots.

Regarding Kissinger, what more is there to say. He was originally appointed to the commission but resigned shortly after due to an obligation as part of the commission, to disclose the names etc...of his private firms clients.

Are you insinuating there was more to it, and if so, based on what evidence?

TAM:)

ImANiceGuy

15th June 2010, 02:27 PM

post #103 is an unrelated post by DC concerning Atta and the pilots.

Regarding Kissinger, what more is there to say. He was originally appointed to the commission but resigned shortly after due to an obligation as part of the commission, to disclose the names etc...of his private firms clients.

Are you insinuating there was more to it, and if so, based on what evidence?

TAM:)

Sry, fixed post #....

What kind of conflict of interest with what client? He did not want to reveal his client list; I wonder who on that list would cause a conflict. What is Kissinger & Associates anyway.....?

Journalistic evidence exists that Bush first attempted to avoid any investigation, and then conceded and chose Kissinger to head the "independent" investigation. How 'independent' is the man who made the most non-official visits to the whitehouse during Bush's terms?

T.A.M.

15th June 2010, 02:34 PM

ImANiceGuy

15th June 2010, 02:45 PM

I agree with the following,

1. Bush and his admin, for a good while, tried to avoid an investigation into 9/11, beyond the original FBI/CIA investigation.

2. Henry Kissinger and his firm LIKELY have some less then admirable clients, some of which may in fact HATE the USA.

WHat we likely disagree on, are the probably motives for (A) avoiding a commission investigation and (B) why Kissinger wished to keep his clients names a secret.

Where you see iluminati cabal NWO cover up of the 9/11 attacks, I see cover up of incompetence/asleep at the switch and protection of reputation.

TAM:) My bold....

So you believe they were covering up their incompetence and protecting their reputations (2004 election played a big role). At whose expense was this covering-up and protecting done?

Let me also just say....you started with the Dan Brown references, not me.

T.A.M.

15th June 2010, 05:07 PM

My bold....

So you believe they were covering up their incompetence and protecting their reputations (2004 election played a big role). At whose expense was this covering-up and protecting done?

Let me also just say....you started with the Dan Brown references, not me.

I stand by my comments. As for Dan Brown, i have read angels and demons as well as davinci, and i am not sure to what you are referring.

TAM:)

Regnad Kcin

15th June 2010, 06:44 PM

Say, I need directions to that Starbucks, NiceGuy. Can you help?

ImANiceGuy

15th June 2010, 07:15 PM

Say, I need directions to that Starbucks, NiceGuy. Can you help?

Which starbucks are you referring to. I, of course, only drink free-trade coffee. Just go downtown anywhere......or you could try google.

TAM......the iluminati; come on, don't play stupid...

ImANiceGuy

15th June 2010, 07:24 PM

I stand by my comments. As for Dan Brown, i have read angels and demons as well as davinci, and i am not sure to what you are referring.

TAM:)

You stand by your comments? Then answer to them....

(By any name,) Why is a cover-up and the protection of reputation okay in your books? Is this a democratic process?

Dave Rogers

15th June 2010, 07:39 PM

Why is a cover-up and the protection of reputation okay in your books? Is this a democratic process?

Where did anyone say it was okay? The worst way in which truthers have polluted the discourse over 9/11 is that, by making up fantasy crimes and demanding their investigation, they discredit any allegations of real, demonstrable wrongdoing by the Bush administration. We know that the Iraq war was started as a result of, at best, wildly over-optimistic and biased interpretation of intelligence on WMD. We know that the Bush administration stalled over holding a proper inquiry into the response to the 9/11 attacks, and attempted - unsuccessfully, fortunately - to neuter the inquiry that they eventually were forced to hold. But these legitimate concerns are overwhelmed with nonsense about secret cabals, impossible demolition devices and holographic airliners, and the lunacy of the latter is ascribed to the former by association. So keep it up, truthers; you're the best friends the Bush administration has left.

Dave

Oystein

16th June 2010, 03:04 PM

You have the guts to implicate, by name, 124 individuals with the murder of close to 3000 people. Thats's more that 20 murder victims per person on your list.

Surely, you have at least some information whatsoever that could possibly be construed as at least faintly shedding some light of suspicion on at least one person on the list. Right? If so, I would like to know that information, and its source.

If you cannot provide any such information, then clearly you are engaging in libel. So please do not dodge this urgent request for sourced information implicating at least one person on your list with the criminal acts of 9/11, or else I will have to call you a libeling fraud henceforth.
Alternatively, you may retract your false and unwarranted accusations.

Bumping this for ImA"Nice"Guy

I read the entire thread, and you have dodged the request to supply at least one piece of evidence to imply at least one person on the list of those who YOU accuse to be mass murderers.

I still call that libel.

Will you please retract your entire accusation of these 124 individuals, or start providing evidence? Thanks!

bynmdsue

16th June 2010, 03:09 PM

the iluminati; come on, don't play stupid...

Wait,you don't think Dan Brown created the Illuminati do you?

ImANiceGuy

16th June 2010, 03:37 PM

Bumping this for ImA"Nice"Guy

I read the entire thread, and you have dodged the request to supply at least one piece of evidence to imply at least one person on the list of those who YOU accuse to be mass murderers.

I still call that libel.

Will you please retract your entire accusation of these 124 individuals, or start providing evidence? Thanks!

Effective use of bolding, imo. I've used it below as well....

If I get a question respectful of what I've previously stated, then I'll respond.

Here's a few.....but do not make the false inference that all were explicitly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Just as it would be false to infer that every person involved with the 9/11 recovery/clean up efforts was also involved in the attacks.....

Oystein

16th June 2010, 04:14 PM

Effective use of bolding, imo. I've used it below as well....

If I get a question respectful of what I've previously stated, then I'll respond.

Yeah. Dodge noted.

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy
Here's a few.....but do not make the false inference that all were explicitly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Just as it would be false to infer that every person involved with the 9/11 recovery/clean up efforts was also involved in the attacks.....

I did not ask for evidence that proves they are ALL murderers. I asked for evidence that suggests that at least ONE if them is a murderer. Haven't seen any so far.

Yet, you list 124 names and suggest that some or all of them are mass murderers. Surely, you must have SOME evidence that informs this opinion? If so, cough it up. If not, please retract (ETA: the entire list).

ImANiceGuy

16th June 2010, 04:30 PM

I did not ask for evidence that proves they are ALL murderers. I asked for evidence that suggests that at least ONE if them is a murderer. Haven't seen any so far.

Yet, you list 124 names and suggest that some or all of them are mass murderers. Surely, you must have SOME evidence that informs this opinion? If so, cough it up. If not, please retract (ETA: the entire list).

one sec....doesnt ETA stand for estimated time of arrival?

Also, I have not suggested that any individual on that list is a murderer, only that they are part of the Global Elite. If you can show me that a member is no longer a Global Elite, I'll retract their name just for you. Finally, stop asking me for "hard" "concrete" evidence; you're being silly. Read the commission report if you want evidence; post at JREF if you want to debate the anonymous hypothesis of a Truther.

Anyway, should I start with Rockefeller or Perle?

please, please try reading and comprehending instead of capitalizing WORDS and bolding.

Oystein

16th June 2010, 05:32 PM

one sec....doesnt ETA stand for estimated time of arrival?

In the context of travelling, yes. In the context of posting in a forum, no. Here, it means "Edited To Add", meaning that I edited my post, but did not change any content, only added the part after the "ETA", for the benefit of anybody who might at the same be replying to my post.

Also, I have not suggested that any individual on that list is a murderer, only that they are part of the Global Elite.

You suggested "that the Arab highjackers were manipulated by external forces to commit the attacks for the benefit of the global elite". Now since no one would do such a thing without anybody within the "global elite" knowing about this endeavour, and since we are here to discuss theories about who did 9/11 and how, it seems reasonable that if you list names of members of said "global elite", you mean to imply that at least some of them are in the know, i.e. conspirators to mass murder. Otherwise, why would you even name anybody, if they have nothing at all to do with 9/11?

If you can show me that a member is no longer a Global Elite, I'll retract their name just for you. Finally, stop asking me for "hard" "concrete" evidence; you're being silly.

Oh. Asking for hard evidence when putting blame for mass murder on a named group of humans is silly? Okidoki... :boggled: What jurisdiction and legal system did you grow up in? North Korea or the like maybe?

Read the commission report if you want evidence;

No. It's your hypothesis. It is therefore YOUR job to point us to the quoted and referenced passages in the commission report that put the blame on any of the 124 named individuals.

post at JREF if you want to debate the anonymous hypothesis of a Truther.

Urrr are you talking about yourself there?

Anyway, should I start with Rockefeller or Perle?

Don't ask me. Start with whomever you want, but please be prepared to provide evidence (referenced quotes...) as soon as you name anyone individually with the implication they might be culpable in the mass murder of close to 3000 innocent civilians.

So what and where is your evidence that puts any blame whatsoever for 9/11 on Rockefeller (which Rockefeller?) or Pearle?

please, please try reading and comprehending instead of capitalizing WORDS and bolding.

Again, we are discussing here who did 9/11 (and how and why). When you list 124 individuals by name, don't act surprised if your listing these individuals is construed as you suspecting their individual involvement in the commitment of mass murder. That would be hypocritical.

ImANiceGuy

16th June 2010, 05:53 PM

Sorry Oystein, I'm only able to provide speculation, coincidence, probability and inference in support of my hypothesis. I'm afraid that the 'evidence' you're looking for is unattainable. All that can be done is to test my hypothesis against known evidence...

Ask me a specific question and you'll get a specific answer...

taken from rense.com; evidence of influence in the Media

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

From Rockefeller's 2002 memoirs; evidence of geo-political engineering/influence

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Oystein

16th June 2010, 06:03 PM

Sorry Oystein, I'm only able to provide speculation, coincidence, probability and inference in support of my hypothesis. I'm afraid that the 'evidence' you're looking for is unattainable. All that can be done is to test my hypothesis against known evidence...

In other words: You have nothing. Nothing whatsoever. Nothing at all.

Thanks for admitting the Big Nothingness.

Case closed?

Ask me a specific question and you'll get a specific answer...

Ok, specific questions:

Do you mention David Rockefeller specifically, individually and by name in the context of this thread and this subforum because you suspect and want to convince us that David Rockefeller, specifically and individually, is a conspirator to the murder of nearly 3000 humans on 9/11/2001?

If not, why do you mention him at all in the context of 9/11?

If yes, what specific information makes you believe so and confirms your suspicion as plausible evidence? Because no part of the rest of your post relates in any way specifically to 9/11.

taken from rense.com; evidence of influence in the Media

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

From Rockefeller's 2002 memoirs; evidence of geo-political engineering/influence

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Regnad Kcin

17th June 2010, 01:47 PM

Which starbucks are you referring to. I, of course, only drink free-trade coffee. Just go downtown anywhere......or you could try google.The one located on the dark side of the moon.

There is one there, y'know.

Regnad Kcin

17th June 2010, 01:56 PM

Sorry Oystein, I'm only able to provide speculation, coincidence, probability and inference in support of my hypothesis. I'm afraid that the 'evidence' you're looking for is unattainable.Well, how conveeeenient!

Suppose I ask a couple friends of mine to have a little chat with you about fooling around with my wife. What's that? You say you haven't? That I can't prove you did? Silly rabbit, why should such an unattainable detail get in the way of what I know to be true?

dudalb

17th June 2010, 01:56 PM

Wait,you don't think Dan Brown created the Illuminati do you?

Hell ,I was playing the Illuminati card game years before anybody ever heard of Dan Brown.

ImANiceGuy

17th June 2010, 02:19 PM

In other words: You have nothing. Nothing whatsoever. Nothing at all.

Thanks for admitting the Big Nothingness.

Case closed?

In your mind it obviously is. But you're still here talking to me, asking me questions (kinda).....

Heres a question for your question: How do you define the starting and ending points of a conspiracy as vast and complex as this one. In order to understand their motive, you must understand their history.

But I dont expect you to appreciate this.

Can you, at least agree that Rockefeller is considered a Global Elite based upon his previously posted quotes?

Edx

17th June 2010, 03:59 PM

taken from rense.com; evidence of influence in the Media

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

You got a source on that one?

Lets check wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller). It says the source is "as quoted in Matrix of Power: How the World Has Been Controlled by Powerful Men Without Your Knowledge (2000) by Jordan Maxwell"

Well, there's a reliable source.

From Rockefeller's 2002 memoirs; evidence of geo-political engineering/influence

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Not the first time someone's posted that.

I think this post explains (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3153407&postcount=104) that quote fairly well.

Also:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4586124&postcount=41
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4590007&postcount=45

ImANiceGuy

17th June 2010, 06:38 PM

I disagree with your 'symantic' hand wave.

He explicitly says; If this is the charge, then I stand guilty.

KoihimeNakamura

17th June 2010, 08:50 PM

"Populists and isolationists ignore the tangible benefits that have resulted from our active international role during the past half-century. Not only was the very real threat posed by Soviet Communism overcome, but there have been fundamental improvements in societies around the world, particularly in the United States, as a result of global trade, improved communications, and the heightened interaction of people from different cultures. Populists rarely mention these positive consequences, nor can they cogently explain how they would have sustained American economic growth and the expansion of our political power without them." -- David Rockefeller

Could be refering to this. One World has many meanings.

ETA: Damnit, broke the boycott. Man, now I'm a scab too.

dudalb

18th June 2010, 09:59 AM

I am not a scab because I thought the boycott was a silly idea and never signed on.

Edx

18th June 2010, 10:10 AM

I disagree with your 'symantic' hand wave.

He explicitly says; If this is the charge, then I stand guilty.

Again I asked for a source on the first quote, where is it?

As for the second...

He says he is guilty of wanting... "to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will"...

Remember he starts the sentence off with "SOME EVEN SAY". IE. Its a separate point to the preceding sentence. He uses the word "conspire" as a joke (conspiracy theorists don't understand jokes, or hyperbole). He also explains what he means by this "integrated global political and economic structure".

But why would he just come out and admit he is this evil banker trying to take over the world? Doesn't it sound more likely to you that this is what he meant?

This is a textbook example of a quote-mine and you fell for it. Well done. Truthers told you what it says, so now you can only see that.

I wonder if someone told you they can see a monkey in the clouds, Im sure you refuse to see anything but monkeys as well.

Dog Town

18th June 2010, 10:46 PM

I am not a scab because I thought the boycott was a silly idea and never signed on.

Ditto! However, this sub-forum is a waste of bandwidth now (not that I care). It used to be informative, tip of the spear, and all that. Twoof is dead, but still damn hysterical! Carry on . All of the "boy cotters", will be back soon enough...

KoihimeNakamura

19th June 2010, 01:28 PM

Was talking about myself.

Dog Town

19th June 2010, 03:16 PM

Was talking about myself.

Fair enough. However the use of the word "too", sounded inclusive.