Debunking Popular Mechanics [Archive]

View Full Version : Debunking Popular Mechanics

kameelyun

29th January 2007, 03:49 PM

My first post on this site, and yes, I know this is a 9/11 conspiracy unfriendly site. This is my Amazon review and they didn't post it for a month! On the Randi Rhodes forum, a shill called "dpetonic" suggested I register here and submit my review so I can experience some first-class flames.

************************************************** *******

Anyone who has done serious research into 9/11 will come to the inescapable conclusion that rogue elements of the government orchestrated the attacks as a false flag operation to arouse patriotism so the nation would support a war of global domination.

However, there is a very strong contingent of Americans who react emotionally, rather than rationally, to any argument suggesting government complicity on any level, let alone outright orchestration. These are the ones, who for decades, have believed America is the best thing for humanity since sliced bread. They believe our government would never murder its own people (even though they have NO trouble believing OTHER govts would kill THEIR own people), and anyone who thinks as such must be paranoid and even anti-American. Indeed, most of the positive Amazon reviews seem to be of this mentality. Such Americans, comfortable in their established paradigm of reality, will find comfort with this book.

When James Meigs, editor of PM, appears on media outlets such as the O'Reilly Factor, he reassures FOX's mainstream audience that PM is not a political organization, or an organization seeking a specific conclusion, et cetera. However, the book's foreword was written by none other than GOP darling John McCain, in which he states unequivocally: "Blaming some conspiracy within our government mars the memories of the victims... To blame not a gang of terrorists but some conspiracy for September 11 insults the police officers and firefighters who raced into the burning towers; the men and women who left for dangerous, distant lands to fight our enemies; and those who have fought in all the wars of our history." In other words, there is a political bias to this book: Questioning the true identity of the 9/11 perpetrators is tantamount to treason. All of Popular Mechanics' "evidence" defends this forgone conclusion.

Another hole in McCain's rhetoric: "To blame not a gang of terrorists but some conspiracy for September 11..." Well, first of all, REGARDLESS of WHO pulled off 9/11, they are TERRORISTS! What the victims of 9/11 experienced was terror. The terrorists might wear suits and ties, and their skin might be white, but if they are responsible for 9/11, they are terrorists. Second of all, a "conspiracy" is when two or more people agree in secret to do something illegal and/or immoral. So UNLESS ONE AND ONLY ONE PERSON pulled off 9/11... it was a "conspiracy." What's deeply sad here is the subtle racism: When McCain says "terrorists" he means "those brown guys that wear those funny turbans and bandanas." Little wonder then, that in the Iraq run-up, most of America couldn't see the difference between "Osama" and "Saddam."

As far as the book itself is concerned, the only instances in which it does correctly expose erroneous 9/11 Truth arguments are when the original arguments were "straw men." In this instance, a "straw man" is when a true conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) is supported by bogus or unsubstantiated evidence. Once the particular erroneous argument is debunked, some will conclude that ALL arguments in the Truth Movement have been debunked, or can be debunked just as easily. In other words, the "straw man" ends up smearing the whole movement in the minds of many Truth Seekers. The most classic example is the "pod theory," which asserts that a missile pod was attached to the underbelly of the plane the hit the second tower, and that based on frame-by-frame analysis of the impact, a "flash" can be seen a millisecond before contact. This argument was popularized in the first major 9/11 conspiracy video "In Plane Site," a film which was a breakthrough in 2004 but is now considered old hat, especially as portions of it have been discredited.

However, PM is much less convincing, and much more transparent as a private-sector front for a government propaganda report, when it tries to explain how fire brought down the WTC buildings. The editors flat-out lie when they say that WTC7 was massively damaged when the damage was only minimal, especially in contrast to WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6. What's funny is that even the govt's own report, the NIST report, admits that the "fire theory" was especially unlikely for WTC7. However, PM attempts to convince the reader that debris from the Twin Towers created an internal fire in WTC7, which ignited several fuel tanks in the basement, causing the steel structure to collapse. If the reader chooses to believe this (because s/he doesn't want to believe that the govt caused 9/11), well, that proves that ultimately it's all about what a person is willing to believe. However, to watch a video of the collapse of WTC7 and not realize it's controlled demolition, well, you are wearing blinders of denial.

Popular Mechanics, in attempting to cover up the WTC towers' collapse, purports that gravity caused the buildings to weaken and fall. However, they do not account for not only the very rapid collapses (if they weren't EXACTLY free-fall speed, they were close enough), but more importantly, the fact that most all the concrete was pulverized into a very fine dust, coating all of Lower Manhattan in a nuclear winter.

Here's another good example of a straw man, in which PM distorts what truth seekers say: PM says (I'm paraphrasing here), "The conspiracy theorists claim that the towers fell into their own footprint like a demolition. This is not true. Look at the South Tower. The top clearly falls over sideways." This distortion is a classic example of PM's "debunking." First: yes, the top of the South Tower did break off and fall sideways. This, however, raises a major problem for defenders of the official collapse theory: If the collapse was a progressive, gravity-induced collapse, and if the top of a tower broke off and fell sideways, where is the massive weight to supposedly pulverize the rest of the building, evenly and symmetrically, from the top down, into nothingness?

Another outright lie concerns the thoroughness of our air defense system. PM claims that only one airplane (Payne Stewart's ill-fated private jet) was intercepted in the decade prior to 9/11. Not true. Sixty-seven of them occurred in just the one year before 9/11 alone. The 'one intercept' lie serves to back another one of PM's lies: that the Airforce was previously only trained to handle foreign attacks, coming from beyond our borders, and that the U.S. continental mainland was a defenseless donut-hole. Blatant falsehood.

To conclude, not much can be said that wasn't already at the top of my review. This book is for those grasping at straws, desparate to cling to anything that defends the official, commonly accepted account of 9/11. True researchers see it as such.

twinstead

29th January 2007, 03:51 PM

kameelyun

29th January 2007, 03:57 PM

There are many problems, invalid assumptions, and outright falsehoods in your OP.

I'll let those more qualified articulate why.

Added: are you speaking in your own voice, or just cutting an pasting what you read on a website?

My own voice. I did lots of reading and then put it all into my own words... just like they teach you in school when you write a book report or research paper... though I think I am paraphrasing Alex Jones when I say "GOP darling John McCain."

You sure read my review very quickly, having replied within a minute of my posting.

mailman

29th January 2007, 03:59 PM

Out of interest, what are your qualifications?

Mailman

Architect

29th January 2007, 04:01 PM

Kameelyun

Welcome. It may be helpful in moving this discussion forward if I paraphrase one of my fellow posters:

Present us your theory about what hapennd on 9/11.

This includes at least:

- What flew into the towers.

- Why did they fall

- In case of controlled demolition: please show how the buildings where prepped, how it was possible to do that within the time limits, why nobody saw the prepped walls, how the dynamite and the wires survived the planes' impacts and why no traces of dynamite were found afterwards.

- Please explain why such a destruction would work without the slightest problems even though there has never been any building brought down that was even nearly as large as the towers, everything was done in a rush and therefore had to been done very sloppy, and even though everything went perfect.

- What flew into Pentagon

- Does that match with the eyewitnesses observations?

- What was the purpose of the attack?

- Who is involved into the conspiracy?

- How have the engineering communities across the globe been silenced?

- What do you think happened to WTC7?

This just to start with.

Please explain in detail and with your own words. No links to CT sites accepted. Any articles, etc. will be checked in order to ensure quotes are accurate. Any calculations will be checked. Unsupported speculation will be ignored.

Are you up to the challenge?

mailman

29th January 2007, 04:02 PM

just like they teach you in school when you write a book report or research paper...

Im assuming you were also at school the day they taught you about backing any claim you make with evidence that supports your claim. For example;

Another outright lie concerns the thoroughness of our air defense system. PM claims that only one airplane (Payne Stewart's ill-fated private jet) was intercepted in the decade prior to 9/11. Not true. Sixty-seven of them occurred in just the one year before 9/11 alone. You say 67 aircraft were intecepted BUT you provide no footnotes that would back this claim up.

So can you provide evidence that would support your claim that 67 planes were intecepted the year before?

Note, you may not use links to 9/11 conspiracist websites as proof to back your claims up.

Mailman

uk_dave

29th January 2007, 04:06 PM

The editors flat-out lie when they say that WTC7 was massively damaged when the damage was only minimal, especially in contrast to WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Well, welcome to the forum kameelyun, but unfortunately I only got this far in your prose.

You accuse the PM editors of lying when they say that wtc7 was massively damaged, and yet you yourself make an unsubstantiated claim that the damage was minimal.

You have your mind made up already.

I think you should pause and consider that building are not designed to sustain structural damage.

True, the design would take into account all of the hazards a building would be expected to endure during it's life, and these may include hurricanes, fires, flooding and maybe even earthquakes.

But buildings are not generally designed to sustain structural damage which might occur from the collapse of a massive structure in the vicinity.

So the mere fact that wtc7 did sustain some damage (regardless of the degree) and was on fire (again, regardless of the degree) mean it is safe to assume that whatever redundancy was built into the design was now coming in to play.

If WTC7 was a pristine structure totally unaffected by the collapse of the WTC towers, I would agree that it's demise would be suspicious.

But it wasn't.

Now, you have to have detailed knowledge of just what damage was sustained, how widespread the fires were and be a competent structural engineer before I will take on board any notion that WTC7 collapsed due to anything other than dmage and fire.

Why?

Well, because, as I have said, WTC was NOT in pristine condition. That fact alone points towards the damage it sustained being the reason for it's collapse. That may be boring to you and may contradict whatever version of common sense you're applying to this, but it is an inescapable fact that WTC7 had sustained damage during the collapse of the towers.

Comparing WTC7 to other buildings is also wrong and, quite frankly, lazy.

Buildings have their weak points and their strong points. Prove to me that WTC7 could not have suffered damage sufficient to bring it down and I will listen.

But you wont be able to becuase neither you or I know precisely what damage it did suffer.

All we do know is that it was damaged, and then it collapsed.

To suggest that some kind of conspiracy had it brought down by CD in those circumstances seems rather silly.

DavidJames

29th January 2007, 04:06 PM

kameelyun: Welcome to the forum.

I will summarize your comments here:A ton of unsubstantiated claims. No evidence, no detailed analysis.I suggest you return with something of substance. Should you be able to do that, you will find this forum a great place for debate. If instead, you choose just to spout out claims, without evidence, your time will be less enjoyable.

Arus808

29th January 2007, 04:09 PM

and if this is a review for the book on amazon.com then it should be deleted. You're not commenting on the book btw...youre commenting on the issues they address.

Alt+F4

29th January 2007, 04:12 PM

First of all, welcome kameelyun. You won't get flamed here as long as you stick to evidence and not what things "seem to be".

The editors flat-out lie when they say that WTC7 was massively damaged when the damage was only minimal, especially in contrast to WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6.

However, to watch a video of the collapse of WTC7 and not realize it's controlled demolition, well, you are wearing blinders of denial.

...but more importantly, the fact that most all the concrete was pulverized into a very fine dust, coating all of Lower Manhattan in a nuclear winter.

Might I ask you:

1. What expertise do you have in structural engineering, demolitions and/or firefighting?
2. Were you in NYC on September 11, 2001 or shortly afterwards and did you witness the damage to lower Manhattan with your own eyes?
3. Have you done ANY research on your own or do you only rely on what you have read on the Internet?

ConspiRaider

29th January 2007, 04:14 PM

Firestone

29th January 2007, 04:16 PM

Welcome kameelyun!

I'll mention one specific claim you make:

Another outright lie concerns the thoroughness of our air defense system. PM claims that only one airplane (Payne Stewart's ill-fated private jet) was intercepted in the decade prior to 9/11. Not true. Sixty-seven of them occurred in just the one year before 9/11 alone. You accuse PM of lying, but provide no evidence whatsoever for your counterclaim. This is not the way things should be done.

Before you try to prove your claim, please read this (http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html).

kameelyun

29th January 2007, 04:19 PM

HyJinX

29th January 2007, 04:20 PM

Welcome Kameelyun!!!! Have fun and be smart.

:popcorn1

Firestone

29th January 2007, 04:24 PM

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers.As a "truth seeker" you are required not to accuse people of lying without evidence.

The amout of swift responses I received here means I must have ruffled some feathers!No. It means that we have seen this stuff many times before!

Please, stop the posturing, and start providing EVIDENCE for your claims. That's the game here.

kameelyun

29th January 2007, 04:25 PM

You're not commenting on the book btw...youre commenting on the issues they address.

That's the most nonsensical thing I've ever read.

Alt+F4

29th January 2007, 04:25 PM

I knew this would be the kind of flaming I would receive.

Perhaps you are new to the Internet. Flaming is when a poster is deliberately hostile and insulting. No one has flamed you in these first few posts. All we ask for here is evidence.

CptColumbo

29th January 2007, 04:25 PM

As I've pointed out to others who criticize the PM article and book: There were nearly 300 people who worked on the article. Researchers, engineers, demolitions experts, metalurgists, and other people with an appropriate field of expertise. None of whom has objected to the article as it was printed. This would mean, if your accusations are correct, that PM found 300 people who have no problem with covering up the murder of 3000 people by the gov't.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

jsfisher

29th January 2007, 04:26 PM

I knew this would be the kind of flaming I would receive.

What exactly are "conspiracy theory" websites?

The NIST and FEMA sites giving everyone's beloved "debris and fire" hypothesis - those themselves are CT sites! They back up the "official" conspiracy theory.

Popular Mechanics uses the 911-commission.gov as a source to back up its claims. That right there completely discredits it as "nonpolitical!"

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

The amout of swift responses I received here means I must have ruffled some feathers!

Cheers!
Boy, your toned turned nasty in three easy posts. I don't see a lot of flaming going on; mostly just a lot of "you said this..., so where's your evidence?"

By the way, for the claims you made in your opening post, where's your evidence? Why not pick out just one of the claims for now, and let it and your evidence lead a friendly discussion?

Panoply_Prefect

29th January 2007, 04:27 PM

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

But you are as a "truth seeker" required to back up claims you make. Surely you must realise that?

As for the fresh investigation-issue, please make a contribution here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72940).

Cheers,
SLOB

HyJinX

29th January 2007, 04:28 PM

That's the most nonsensical thing I've ever read.

Awwwwe Man! I had high hopes that you'd be different than all the other ill-informed CTists.

You make claims...get whacked by logic and intellegence...and then just start throwing insults around.

Typical.

You're WAAAAYYYYY out of your league here, my friend. Get out before you dig yourself into a deeper hole.

Good day.

Lisa Simpson

29th January 2007, 04:28 PM

I knew this would be the kind of flaming I would receive.

This isn't flaming. It's asking you to prove your claims.

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

You are required to provide evidence for your claims. If I claimed that Darth Vader shot down the WTC with the Death Star, I would be required to prove that A. Darth Vader exists B. The Death Star exists C. Darth Vader was at the WTC with the Death Star.

The amout of swift responses I received here means I must have ruffled some feathers!

Cheers!

Actually, it just means we love to debate.

Arus808

29th January 2007, 04:29 PM

I knew this would be the kind of flaming I would receive.

wow, that's not even close to flaming. They are asking you legitimate questions and requiring you to back up your claims. So far , in your OP you've made a lot of assumptions and provide nothing to back up your claims.

What exactly are "conspiracy theory" websites?
Anything done by Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, the Scholars many websites, Steven Jones, Loose Change, any site with "truth" in its title. so on a so forth.

Its easier to just find credible ones like
The ASCE
NIST
FEMA
Implosionworld.com

The NIST and FEMA sites giving everyone's beloved "debris and fire" hypothesis - those themselves are CT sites! They back up the "official" conspiracy theory.

NIST and FEMA are not CT sites. Yes they propose a THEORY about what happened, but unlike CONSPIRACY Theories, they are backed by the evidence, and testimony. Everything is a theory because unless they were directly involved, nothing is absolute. As in any trial done in america; the prosecutor presents a THEORY about how a crime was comitted and if the defendant was the one that did it; the defense provides a DIFFERENT theory as to how that crime happened, to cast "reasonable doubt". It all depends on which theory is supported by EVIDENCE.

Popular Mechanics uses the 911-commission.gov as a source to back up its claims. That right there completely discredits it as "nonpolitical!"

911 commission is very credible and they are backed by the many scientists and engineers that helped investigate on their behalf, and of course checked by those that didn't work on the comission's behalf.

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

...anyone catch that mockingbird...or parrot....haven't we heard this before????

Anyone want to call "socks"?

WildCat

29th January 2007, 04:30 PM

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.
I see. And just who should conduct this investigation, since you seem to feel that the entire world's structural engineering and architect communities are excluded, since they overwhelmingly (99.999%) support the accepted theory of what brought the towers down?

mailman

29th January 2007, 04:31 PM

We are ALL on the direct payroll of the NWO
We are? :jaw-dropp

Where is my money then!

:D

Regards

Mailman

Arus808

29th January 2007, 04:31 PM

That's the most nonsensical thing I've ever read.

that isn't a review.

Please look up the term book report.. it seems that you missed the third grade. (a review is a little more than a overplayed book report).

Loss Leader

29th January 2007, 04:31 PM

Yes, well I can see why your review hasn't received a very warm reception. It's not very good. Here's why:

Anyone who has done serious research into 9/11 will come to the inescapable conclusion that rogue elements of the government orchestrated the attacks as a false flag operation to arouse patriotism so the nation would support a war of global domination.

That's almost the whole ballgame right threr, isn't it? You've made a statement of fact, claimed that such fact is inescapable and implied that anyone who disagrees has not been serious in her research. That's a very strong editorial bias on your part. Instead of reviewing whether the book had interesting information well-presented, you've just declared it wrong. Book reviews (and you should read a few dozen real ones in the New York Times) don't work like that.

These are the ones, who for decades, have believed America is the best thing for humanity since sliced bread.

You exaggerate for editorial effect but, of course, you just show your own bias in doing so. Anyone whom you are trying to win over would be put off by the implied accusation and by such accusation's one-dimensional simplicity.

However, the book's foreword was written by none other than GOP darling John McCain ...

The next two hundred words of your review have to do with the book's foreward. The foreward. It's not even actually part of the book. The amount of space you dedicate to debunking what amounts to the opinions of one reader (albeit an influential one) just show that you were unable to concentrate on the issues of fact in the book and were instead occupied with your own political prejudices.

In this instance, a "straw man" is when a true conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) is supported by bogus or unsubstantiated evidence.

One important thing to do in a review is to be right about facts. You do not correctly explain the strawman fallacy.

Even so, in speaking about the strawman arguments, you concede that some conspiracy claims are false. You don't tell the readers which ones, though, so you've set them up to wonder which you think are false and which you don't. It's like saying that half of my M&M's are poisoned but then not explaining how one could tell which is which.

However, PM is much less convincing, and much more transparent as a private-sector front for a government propaganda report

You have no evidence that Popular Mechanics is a front for the government and, of course, you presented none. Speaking authoritatively without evidence is known to some people as "lying."

However, to watch a video of the collapse of WTC7 and not realize it's controlled demolition, well, you are wearing blinders of denial.

No doubt, the readers of your review will wonder why they should disregard the work of engineers, researchers and scientists and believe a lay-person's interpretation of a video. Since you have not established your credentials, this "fact" which you so boldly state can be viewed as nothing more than a politically-motivated opinion.

(if they weren't EXACTLY free-fall speed, they were close enough)

Close enough for what? How far from free-fall would no longer be close enough? And how did you time the colapse of a building that starts 3/4 of the way up and disappears into a cloud of smoke and debris with 40 or so floors still to fall?

the fact that most all the concrete was pulverized into a very fine dust

You state this as a fact. Please provide your source.

coating all of Lower Manhattan in a nuclear winter

As though your review weren't poorly written enough, you have now confused the matter by throwing in the gratuitous word "nuclear." Of course we know that there was no nuclear component to the tragedy of that day. So why invoke the image? It only shows you to be less dedicated to facts and more to your political point of view than ever.

If the collapse was a progressive, gravity-induced collapse, and if the top of a tower broke off and fell sideways, where is the massive weight to supposedly pulverize the rest of the building, evenly and symmetrically, from the top down, into nothingness?

What source do you have that the building collapsed evenly and symmetrically? What source do you have that the building collapsed into nothingness? What source do you have that any of the top floors broke off and did not stay with the building for the collapse? You say this is a problem for debunkers but, as no section of upper floors were seen to break off and fall on their own, isn't it a problem for you instead?

Another outright lie concerns the thoroughness of our air defense system.

What is your source for this contention?

This book is for those grasping at straws, desparate to cling to anything that defends the official, commonly accepted account of 9/11.

End by insulting your audience? It's not the way I would have gone.

True researchers see it as such.

Since you never cited your credentials, what is it that distinguished the "true" researcher? I hope it's not the fact that he doesn't wear anything under his kilt.

All in all, a very poorly written review that deserves the derision that it has gotten.

parky76

29th January 2007, 04:33 PM

Dear Kameelyun, while I respect your opinion and your right to have one, I take great offense to your introduction.

Many of us have done a great amount of research into 9-11. We have seen Loose Change, 9-11 Mysteries, and In Plane Site. We have looked at the NIST report, the 9-11 Commission, the evidence from the Moussaui trial, and so on. And most of us, after looking at ALL the evidence, have come to the conclusion that 9-11 was indeed NOT an inside job.

This does not mean, that we are just "sheeple" accepting whatever the governmant throws us. This does not mean that we think America is God's gift to humanity. This does not mean that we think America has done no wrong and that everything we do is just and benevolent. And most importantly, this does not mean that we think George Bush is a swell president.

I can only speak for myself, but I believe Bush is maybe the worst president we have ever had. He has used the tragedy and memory of 9-11 to push an ultra-right wing agenda that most Americans disagree with. He has enacted laws and rules that before 9-11...would have been impossible. But that DOES NOT mean he orchestrated 9-11.

Leaders make use of crisis all the time. Be it a flood, an earthquake, a war, or terrorist attack, power hungry governmants will use a sudden loss of tranquility to further their agenda. But dishonestly making use of a crisis is NOT evidence of involvemant in the crisis.

The fact is that most of us who have looked at the evidence believe that it points to 19 wayward souls...and not a monumental governmant conspiracy. We are no less intelligent, open minded, or thoughtful then you. I think the only true difference is, is that we are NOT guided by ideology...or dreams of grandeur...and thats where the worlds of rational critical thinking...and conspiracy thinking...part company.

Arus808

29th January 2007, 04:33 PM

I called socks!

btw: i have a feeling that he didn't even read the book.

babazaroni

29th January 2007, 04:33 PM

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

As a truth seeker, you are required to prove the answers wrong or there is no need for a 'fresh' investigation.

ConspiRaider

29th January 2007, 04:34 PM

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

The amout of swift responses I received here means I must have ruffled some feathers!
You are not expected to have all the answers, as a truth seeker.

But if you are really a truth seeker - a true skeptic - then one of the basic tenets to which you must subscribe is deductive reasoning. You must eliminate that which CANNOT be true. In the 9/11 events, there is variance and complexity as to the elimination process.

A question: Why are you calling for a "fresh investigation"? Here's your quote:

In this instance, a "straw man" is when a true conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) is supported by bogus or unsubstantiated evidence.

"Conclusion" is the end of something. You stated that "9/11 was an inside job" is a true conclusion. According to your logic: No further investigation of any kind is necessary.

Firestone

29th January 2007, 04:36 PM

Timezones are so cruel! :(

Have fun here, this thread will be pages and pages long when I read it tomorrow morning!

Minadin

29th January 2007, 04:36 PM

The editors flat-out lie when they say that WTC7 was massively damaged when the damage was only minimal, especially in contrast to WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6.

This is patently incorrect. There was massive damage to all of those buildings. They all eventually had to be torn down. The main difference between building 7 and the others was two-fold. 1) How the damage looked, especially since it's the tallest buildings and most of the damage was lower down. 2) How it was built, the structural forces at work, and the type of damage sustained made the collapse inevitable. I'll try to address these two points mostly seperately.

Because the damage was lower down on WTC7, you don't see any clear pictures of it in a lot of the photos and videos that are paraded around online, especially on a lot of the conspiracy sites. Mostly, you see images on the top portion, on the sides that aren't billowing smoke (because there's not as much visible there). Those areas look relatively intact. Because of the tallness of WTC7, and its distance from WTC1 and WTC2, most of the major damage occurred on the lower floors. Due to the many medium-height buildings around the area, the images you see do not normally include the area where the most damge occurred - it's obscured by those buildings.

Unlike buildings 3, 4, and 5, WTC7 was a taller building, but it was also build on top of a Con-Ed substation, which remained until the building's collapse, and therefore had some weight transfer trusses between the two individual structures:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253245be8335c038f.gif

When you have 1 or 2 critical elements like that in a building, when they go, the whole system fails:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253245be8481d1883.gif

In the cases of buildings 3,4, and 5, it should be noted that most of the debris damage was taken at the top, (easier to view) but also that there was nothing peculiar about their structures at all, like there was in building 7. Most importantly, they still all sustained enough damage to need to be demolished.

WildCat

29th January 2007, 04:38 PM

Timezones are so cruel! :(

Have fun here, this thread will be pages and pages long when I read it tomorrow morning!
That's ok, you've seen it all before.

ConspiRaider

29th January 2007, 04:39 PM

We are? :jaw-dropp

Where is my money then!

:D

Regards

Mailman
Check's in the mail, mailman! ;)

CACTUSJACKmankin

29th January 2007, 04:39 PM

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation

Don't you think you are being a bit disingenuous when you say that you are asking questions? If you truly were only asking question, you would have to stop at that point, you couldn't then go on to conclusions. When you say that the gov't had a hand in 9/11 you aren't asking questions, you are giving answers.

How is the conspiracy so powerful that nobody has come foreward, yet so sloppy that basic physics and engineering(which from truthers is usually wrong) can unravel the whole thing?

Also, could you please explain why you think not a single reputable engineering organization or journal has come down on the side of the truthers. Are they all part of the conspiracy too?

DarkMagician

29th January 2007, 04:40 PM

Danggit, everything moves so quickly.

Nevermind

CptColumbo

29th January 2007, 04:44 PM

Horatius

29th January 2007, 04:45 PM

Anyone who has done serious research into 9/11 will come to the inescapable conclusion that rogue elements of the government orchestrated the attacks as a false flag operation to arouse patriotism so the nation would support a war of global domination.

Your first post, and right out the gate you're debunking yourself. Absolutely no one supports a US "war of global domination", and even if they did, the total mess in Iraq pretty much puts the lie to the ability of the US to even fight such a war, let alone have a realistic chance of winning it. So right away, your whole thesis of why they might have staged 9/11 falls apart.

Another hole in McCain's rhetoric: "To blame not a gang of terrorists but some conspiracy for September 11..." Well, first of all, REGARDLESS of WHO pulled off 9/11, they are TERRORISTS! What the victims of 9/11 experienced was terror. The terrorists might wear suits and ties, and their skin might be white, but if they are responsible for 9/11, they are terrorists. Second of all, a "conspiracy" is when two or more people agree in secret to do something illegal and/or immoral. So UNLESS ONE AND ONLY ONE PERSON pulled off 9/11... it was a "conspiracy." What's deeply sad here is the subtle racism: When McCain says "terrorists" he means "those brown guys that wear those funny turbans and bandanas." Little wonder then, that in the Iraq run-up, most of America couldn't see the difference between "Osama" and "Saddam."

And the only real argument you supply against the book is a piddly little critique of the language used? How is word choice any sort of proof that 9/11 was an inside job?

Pretty much everything else you've mentioned has been debunked many times before, and is currently being debunked by others here, so I'll just leave that part to them.....

Arkan_Wolfshade

29th January 2007, 04:46 PM

<snip>
Anyone who has done serious research into 9/11 will come to the inescapable conclusion that rogue elements of the government orchestrated the attacks as a false flag operation to arouse patriotism so the nation would support a war of global domination.

However, there is a very strong contingent of Americans who react emotionally, rather than rationally, to any argument suggesting government complicity on any level, let alone outright orchestration. These are the ones, who for decades, have believed America is the best thing for humanity since sliced bread. They believe our government would never murder its own people (even though they have NO trouble believing OTHER govts would kill THEIR own people), and anyone who thinks as such must be paranoid and even anti-American. Indeed, most of the positive Amazon reviews seem to be of this mentality. Such Americans, comfortable in their established paradigm of reality, will find comfort with this book.
poisoning the well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well) and appealing to emotions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion). Not relevant to a discussion of the facts.

When James Meigs, editor of PM, appears on media outlets such as the O'Reilly Factor, he reassures FOX's mainstream audience that PM is not a political organization, or an organization seeking a specific conclusion, et cetera. However, the book's foreword was written by none other than GOP darling John McCain, in which he states unequivocally: "Blaming some conspiracy within our government mars the memories of the victims... To blame not a gang of terrorists but some conspiracy for September 11 insults the police officers and firefighters who raced into the burning towers; the men and women who left for dangerous, distant lands to fight our enemies; and those who have fought in all the wars of our history." In other words, there is a political bias to this book:
That the forward of the book is written by a politician does not substantiate your claim that it is a bias book. To claim that it is politically biased, and that the contents of the book are wrong because of this is an abusive, and circumstantial personal attack (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#ad_hominem) and is a logical fallacy.

Questioning the true identity of the 9/11 perpetrators is tantamount to treason.
This is a straw man (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#straw_man) argument as neither the forward, nor the book itself, makes any such claim.

All of Popular Mechanics' "evidence" defends this forgone conclusion.
"scare" "quotes" do not a refutation make.

Another hole in McCain's rhetoric: "To blame not a gang of terrorists but some conspiracy for September 11..." Well, first of all, REGARDLESS of WHO pulled off 9/11, they are TERRORISTS! What the victims of 9/11 experienced was terror. The terrorists might wear suits and ties, and their skin might be white, but if they are responsible for 9/11, they are terrorists.
This is nothing but political diatribe on your part. It does nothing to support your claims.

Second of all, a "conspiracy" is when two or more people agree in secret to do something illegal and/or immoral. So UNLESS ONE AND ONLY ONE PERSON pulled off 9/11... it was a "conspiracy."
No. A "conspiracy theory" is not equivalent to a "theory which contains a conspiracy therein".

A "conspiracy theory" is a very specific thing. Definitions include, but are not limited to

A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political), social (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social), or historical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical) events) as a secret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy), and often deceptive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception), plot by a covert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert) alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition) of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories claim that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to an economics article in the 1920s, but it was only in the 1960s that it entered popular usage. It entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary) as late as 1997. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#_note-0)
The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_culture) to identify a type of folklore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklore) similar to an urban legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend), especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological) flaws.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#_note-1) The term is also used pejoratively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative) to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.
The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28political%29) claim. However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) genre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre) that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.
Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Controversies). Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academics), politicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicians), psychologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologists), and the media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media) cuts across traditional left-right political lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Main Entry: conspiracy theory
Function: noun
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
- conspiracy theorist noun
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory

conspiracy theory (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861688240/conspiracy_theory.html)
- belief that event is plot: a belief that a particular event is the result of a secret plot rather than the actions of an individual person or chance
(http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861688240/conspiracy_theory.html)
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=conspiracy+theory

This is different from a theory (in the scientific sense) that contains a conspiracy

Conspiracy (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552634/Conspiracy.html)*
Conspiracy, in law, agreement between persons to do something illegal or criminal. In this offense, the mere agreement of the conspirators is... (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552634/Conspiracy.html)
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=conspiracy

Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?conspi04.wav=conspiracy'))
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiring) together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspirators) b : a group of conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspirators)
synonym see PLOT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/plot)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conspiracy

In the criminal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law), a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person) to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt) which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrence), the actus reus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus) is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_%28law%29).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29

To equate the two terms is equivocation (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#equivocation).

What's deeply sad here is the subtle racism: When McCain says "terrorists" he means "those brown guys that wear those funny turbans and bandanas." Little wonder then, that in the Iraq run-up, most of America couldn't see the difference between "Osama" and "Saddam."
No. When McCain said, "terrorists", he meant terrorists. You know, the militant Islamic extremists that carried out the attack. Attempting to suggest that he is making a racist remark is just more personal attacks (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#ad_hominem) on your part and does nothing to substantiate your claims.

As far as the book itself is concerned, the only instances in which it does correctly expose erroneous 9/11 Truth arguments are when the original arguments were "straw men." In this instance, a "straw man" is when a true conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) is supported by bogus or unsubstantiated evidence.
You appear to be confused as to what a straw man fallacy is; please read the following links:
http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#straw_man
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#strawman
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Once the particular erroneous argument is debunked, some will conclude that ALL arguments in the Truth Movement have been debunked, or can be debunked just as easily. In other words, the "straw man" ends up smearing the whole movement in the minds of many Truth Seekers. The most classic example is the "pod theory," which asserts that a missile pod was attached to the underbelly of the plane the hit the second tower, and that based on frame-by-frame analysis of the impact, a "flash" can be seen a millisecond before contact. This argument was popularized in the first major 9/11 conspiracy video "In Plane Site," a film which was a breakthrough in 2004 but is now considered old hat, especially as portions of it have been discredited.
The claims they address are claims made by people in the 9/11 CFist movement. That not all the people in the movement believe them is moot. PM is not making the claims up out of thin air. Neither do they make any such claim as "all claims in movie X are wrong because they got item Y wrong". If you feel they do, then please provide the exact quote and page #

However, PM is much less convincing, and much more transparent as a private-sector front for a government propaganda report, when it tries to explain how fire brought down the WTC buildings. The editors flat-out lie when they say that WTC7 was massively damaged when the damage was only minimal,
Evidence?

especially in contrast to WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Please show how all the buildings are equally comparable, when WTC 7 was of different structural design.

What's funny is that even the govt's own report, the NIST report, admits that the "fire theory" was especially unlikely for WTC7.
Citation?

However, PM attempts to convince the reader that debris from the Twin Towers created an internal fire in WTC7, which ignited several fuel tanks in the basement, causing the steel structure to collapse. If the reader chooses to believe this (because s/he doesn't want to believe that the govt caused 9/11), well, that proves that ultimately it's all about what a person is willing to believe. However, to watch a video of the collapse of WTC7 and not realize it's controlled demolition, well, you are wearing blinders of denial.
Your opinion, based upon watching a video, is not objective, verifiable evidence. Please provide such evidence, or admit that the above is nothing more than uneducated opinion on your part.

Popular Mechanics, in attempting to cover up the WTC towers' collapse, purports that gravity caused the buildings to weaken and fall. However, they do not account for not only the very rapid collapses (if they weren't EXACTLY free-fall speed, they were close enough),
Define "close enough". Explain how this supports your claim of CD

but more importantly, the fact that most all the concrete was pulverized into a very fine dust, coating all of Lower Manhattan in a nuclear winter.
Evidence? Because I think (http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!9E151F6EB6C7A35D!304.entry) you're wrong (http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!9E151F6EB6C7A35D!306.entry).

Here's another good example of a straw man, in which PM distorts what truth seekers say: PM says (I'm paraphrasing here), "The conspiracy theorists claim that the towers fell into their own footprint like a demolition. This is not true. Look at the South Tower. The top clearly falls over sideways." This distortion is a classic example of PM's "debunking." First: yes, the top of the South Tower did break off and fall sideways. This, however, raises a major problem for defenders of the official collapse theory: If the collapse was a progressive, gravity-induced collapse, and if the top of a tower broke off and fell sideways, where is the massive weight to supposedly pulverize the rest of the building, evenly and symmetrically, from the top down, into nothingness?
I'll defer to our resident engineers and architects, such as R. Mackey and The Architect, to explain this to you, though I would highly suggest you make use of the Search feature and read what they have already written on this topic.

Another outright lie concerns the thoroughness of our air defense system. PM claims that only one airplane (Payne Stewart's ill-fated private jet) was intercepted in the decade prior to 9/11. Not true. Sixty-seven of them occurred in just the one year before 9/11 alone. The 'one intercept' lie serves to back another one of PM's lies: that the Airforce was previously only trained to handle foreign attacks, coming from beyond our borders, and that the U.S. continental mainland was a defenseless donut-hole. Blatant falsehood.
I'll defer to Gumboot to explain this to you, though I would highly suggest you make use of the Search feature and read what he has already written on this topic.

WilliamSeger

29th January 2007, 04:47 PM

Anyone who has done serious research into 9/11 will come to the inescapable conclusion that rogue elements of the government orchestrated the attacks as a false flag operation to arouse patriotism so the nation would support a war of global domination.

Just a general comment on your preface: I always find it amusing when "truthers" claim "inescapable conclusions" or "overwhelming evidence" but somehow can't even come to agreement about what those "conclusions" are. Did real planes fly into the buildings, or did they not? If they were real planes, were they the commercial flights claimed by the FAA or were they substitutes? If there is "overwhelming evidence" that the towers were intentionally demolished, was it by conventional explosives, thermite, or Death Star beam weapons? If the conclusions are so inescapable, why is it "you guys" can't seem to agree on even the basic details?

Merko

29th January 2007, 04:47 PM

babazaroni

29th January 2007, 04:48 PM

Arus808

29th January 2007, 04:48 PM

If you want to point out any specific errors in the PM book, I have my copy in front of me, just mention a page number and paragraph. I also am in occasional contact with one of the journalists on the original article, so he can clarify any questions not immediately obvious. We can work through this slowly and carefully, and maybe both learn something.

well, can you address pages 40-41? That is the ongoing "discussion" at the Amazon.com review for this book.

seems that the pseudo-engineers who read this book, think that pages 40-41 makes the entire book false.

Low Sales Rank is Telling--This Book is a Fraud, January 20, 2007
Reviewer:G. Espada (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3SDTOIOFZ3XII/ref=cm_cr_auth/002-0857743-2659265) (Somerville, MA USA) - See all my reviews (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3SDTOIOFZ3XII/ref=cm_cr_auth/002-0857743-2659265?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview)
http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/reputation/c7y_badge_rn_1.gif (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=cm_rn_bdg_help/002-0857743-2659265?ie=UTF8&nodeId=14279681&pop-up=1#RN) A young fellow handed me this book while I was in public explaining to people the problems with the official story. It was light reading, and it didn't take me long to get to pages 40-41, where the authors claim that three "experts" who support the official account, told them that "they believed" that the molten steel discovered by workers on the rubble pile of the twin towers could have resulted from the fires underneath the rubble growing hotter and hotter to the point of melting the steel. Why? Because they were covered, and not exposed to the air which would have cooled them. Well, except that fire needs air to burn, and no fire can burn any hotter than whatever is fueling it can burn. What exactly in those rubble piles was burning at a temperature of 2800 degrees, required to melt steel? Jet fuel itself can only burn at 1800, and that when mixed in ideal proportion with... air. To quote David Ray Griffin, whose incredibly detailed and painstakingly researched books all far outsell this one, "such a desperate lie is a sure sign of a cover-up." If you enjoy being taken for a fool, buy this book. If you want to know what happened on 9/11, assume that everything in it, like the example I've cited is pure dishonest cover-up of a shocking truth.

Minadin

29th January 2007, 04:49 PM

And the only real argument you supply against the book is a piddly little critique of the language used?

It's not really even a part of the book, it's the forward . . . to the hardcover edition.

Gravy

29th January 2007, 04:50 PM

Hi, kameelyun.

No, I don't think you've ruffled any feathers here. We see opinion pieces like yours all the time here and are not impressed. Your factual knowledge of the subject matter is poor.

It's important to remember that in order for your call for a new investigation to be taken seriously, you must present evidence that matches or exceeds the quality of evidence for the claim you're trying to refute. I suggest picking one "official version" claim that you think is especially vulnerable and bringing all your guns to bear on that.

You may want to use the search function here before starting a new discussion thread: we've discussed most of the major 9/11 topics ad nauseum.

As for building 7, before continuing with that argument you may want to read the first responder accounts of the damage and fires in my paper here (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf) (link will download PDF).

Panoply_Prefect

29th January 2007, 04:54 PM

*brings out big bag of popcorn*

CptColumbo

29th January 2007, 04:56 PM

well, can you address pages 40-41? That is the ongoing "discussion" at the Amazon.com review for this book.

seems that the pseudo-engineers who read this book, think that pages 40-41 makes the entire book false.
They are saying that ..the fires were confined and lost minimal heat to the atmosphere.
They are not saying that the area was air tight.

Pardalis

29th January 2007, 04:56 PM

*brings out big bag of popcorn*

More a puke bag.

(it's going to be a wild ride)

Horatius

29th January 2007, 04:56 PM

I knew this would be the kind of flaming I would receive.

Flames? What flames? Flames would be if we said something like:

"You [rule8]ing [rule8]s are nothing more than a bunch of [rule8]s who'd [rule8] a penguin with a flaming [rule8]. Go [rule8] you father in the [rule8], you [rule8] sniffing [rule8]bite. Why don't you pay your [rule8] to [rule8] you in the [rule8]hole while they [rule8] your eyeless skull?"

See, that's a flame. What we've been doing is debunking you with reason, facts and logic.

So go [rule8] a penguin, [rule8]bite.

;)

JimBenArm

29th January 2007, 04:58 PM

*YAWN*
Boring! Same old stuff, different poster.
Got it. We're shills, sheeple, deluded, can't see the truth, yada, yada.

Try posting something that actually backs up this drivel.

Thank you.

Arus808

29th January 2007, 04:59 PM

They are not saying that the area was air tight.

And that's how you address whatever questions you have Kameelyun.

Give a specific point, anything you have question about. Do not add your own "interpretation" or guesswork...just give a point that you have trouble understanding or have question on.

Pardalis

29th January 2007, 05:01 PM

BTW, happy bday Jim!

:hbd:

(boy, there's alot of skeptics born in January!)

ConspiRaider

29th January 2007, 05:02 PM

*YAWN*
Boring! Same old stuff, different poster.
Got it. We're shills, sheeple, deluded, can't see the truth, yada, yada.

Try posting something that actually backs up this drivel.

Thank you.
Did you mention gatekeepers?

And HAPPY BIRTHDAY, sub driver Jim! Hope it's great, and hope you have another 50 or so twice as good!

DiskoVilante

29th January 2007, 05:04 PM

This isn't flaming. It's asking you to prove your claims.

You are required to provide evidence for your claims. If I claimed that Darth Vader shot down the WTC with the Death Star, I would be required to prove that A. Darth Vader exists B. The Death Star exists C. Darth Vader was at the WTC with the Death Star.

Ahhahhahahaha...I'm using this from now on when I debate people.

Arkan_Wolfshade

29th January 2007, 05:06 PM

Ahhahhahahaha...I'm using this from now on when I debate people.
Oh pu-lease, everyone knows Vadar isn't bright enough to pull something like that off. It would have had to have been Admiral Thrawn.

ConspiRaider

29th January 2007, 05:08 PM

Oh pu-lease, everyone knows Vadar isn't bright enough to pull something like that off. It would have had to have been Admiral Thrawn.
I find your lack of faith disturbing...

Azure

29th January 2007, 05:09 PM

Remember guys and gals....we have all been duped by the government if we believe 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

Hilarious. :boggled:

defaultdotxbe

29th January 2007, 05:10 PM

Oh pu-lease, everyone knows Vadar isn't bright enough to pull something like that off. It would have had to have been Admiral Thrawn.
yeah right, like some blue cave-alien could do 9/11

Lisa Simpson

29th January 2007, 05:10 PM

Oh pu-lease, everyone knows Vadar isn't bright enough to pull something like that off. It would have had to have been Admiral Thrawn.

Not smart enough?!?! Hello? Alderaan?

I thought people would be happy I didn't use a Star Trek reference this time.

FramerDave

29th January 2007, 05:10 PM

I knew this would be the kind of flaming I would receive.

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers.

This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

When one makes a claim, especially an extraordinary claim, evidence must be shown. You are not being flamed, you are merely being asked to provide evidence. That's all.

Nobody expects you to have all the answers. We do expect you to give us some evidence once in a while. Evidence that can be looked at and scrutinized, not mere innuendo and speculation.

Who are you calling upon for an investigation? Have you written your elected officials? Have you contacted all the media outlets?

Brainache

29th January 2007, 05:11 PM

In situations like this I like to quote Robyn Williams: "De De Ja Ja Vu Vu"

Kiwiwriter

29th January 2007, 05:13 PM

[QUOTE=kameelyun;2297546]I knew this would be the kind of flaming I would receive.

Well, it would seem you certainly have more than your share of preconceived notions! And this isn't flaming, mate. Flaming would involve personal attacks.

What exactly are "conspiracy theory" websites?

They're the ones that not only blame 9/11 on the US government, but say the Moon landing was faked, the Holocaust never happened, and that the Masons or Jews control the world, all based on little more than the web site's author's personal lunacy.

The NIST and FEMA sites giving everyone's beloved "debris and fire" hypothesis - those themselves are CT sites! They back up the "official" conspiracy theory.

Maybe because the "official conspiracy theory" passes all the science, history, logic, and laugh tests.

Popular Mechanics uses the 911-commission.gov as a source to back up its claims. That right there completely discredits it as "nonpolitical!"

Maybe because the 911 commission did its job reasonably properly, with qualified experts who had the actual evidence and background to study the situation. And the guys at PM had more of the same, and probably a bigger budget and more time, too.

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

You don't seem to be required to have any background, experience, learning, or quals in the subject, either. More importantly, who's going to do this "fresh investigation?" A crackpot who also believes the Holocaust didn't happen?

Besides, why should I have to do YOUR term paper? You're asking the questions, go do the research and present your theory, backed up by better evidence than the "Loose Change" website.

It always cracks me up that CTers want someone else to do their work. I guess you guys think we're the WPA or something. Wrong, we're the NWO.

The amout of swift responses I received here means I must have ruffled some feathers!

Cheers!

No, it's just that you haven't studied this outfit too well...we're a bunch of irreverent and smart folks who can recognize a stupid bill of goods and a lazy and hackneyed argument when we see one. You should go through this particular section of the site and see all the other folks we've carried off in the tumbrels, like 28thKingdom. You present the same old nonsense and act as if you're the first person to stumble on to it in human history, so we just burst out laughing, and then give the same answers we've given the other suckers...I mean applicants.

So, I'm more interested in your pathology than your theories...how did you become a conspiracy theorist. What's your grievance against the government? What do you think about Jews? Masons? NASA? How old are you? Can you give me any evidence that the US has launched any previous "false flag" attacks on its own citizens? Why would a democracy engage in such measures? What line of work are you in? Have you ever been out of your parents' basement? Do you know what the Zimmermann Telegram is? If the government is able to launch such massive conspiracies and control everything so neatly, how come the war in Iraq is such a mess, and the Republicans lost the 2006 Congressional elections? Do you know anything about chance and random event theories? How about Occam's Razor? Have you studied any philosophy besides Nietzsche? Are you familiar with Kant and Descartes? Do you think the FBI and CIA have wiretapped your phone? Do you regard yourself as the leading fighter against world conspiracies? Do you think that the Communists and the capitalists are working together to destroy the world? Why are they doing so? Why haven't they done it before?

Have fun!

WilliamSeger

29th January 2007, 05:13 PM

However, there is a very strong contingent of Americans who react emotionally, rather than rationally, to any argument suggesting government complicity on any level, let alone outright orchestration.

There are certainly some that fit that description, but you're just fooling yourself (in a self-congratulatory way) to think that's an accurate description of any substantial part of the resistance to the "9/11 truth movement." The major problem I have with the "inside job" hyptheses I've heard so far is lack or rationality in them, starting with the premise all the way through the details.

Why would anyone plan such a huge, ridiculously elaborate and complicated, and extremely risky hoax (in terms of failure and getting caught), when they could have done something much simpler, with fewer people required, with far less risk of either failure or being caught, and didn't need to involve any sort of incredible illusion -- it could be exactly what it appeared to be except for who did it -- and still achieve the same objective that you claim? For example, why not just park a few huge truck bombs around and set them off simultaneously, then just blame it on al Qaeda? (For that matter, why blame it on al Qaeda if they were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq? This is one gigantic hole in the entire premise, since it's pretty clear that the Bush adminstration wasn't too concerned with al Qaeda, bin Laden, or Afghanistan.)

This is, of course, not any kind of evidence that it wasn't an "inside job," but it is the basic reason, I think, that most rational people find that hypothesis to be highly implausible, to say the least. Which simply means, if you want rational people to accept your highly implausible hypothesis over one that seems far more plausible, then you definitely need some very convincing evidence. Got any?

Arkan_Wolfshade

29th January 2007, 05:14 PM

Not smart enough?!?! Hello? Alderaan?

I thought people would be happy I didn't use a Star Trek reference this time.
pfft, it was the Emperor's idea, and Tarkin (sp?) carried it out. Vadar was just their to do his "make it so" impersonation. :D

Cl1mh4224rd

29th January 2007, 05:15 PM

Please allow us to examine the evidence you have for the 67 intercept claim.
Oh! Oh! http://911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html

What do you mean that's "not the right evidence"? :(

CptColumbo

29th January 2007, 05:19 PM

[QUOTE]
Have you ever been out of your parents' basement? Do you know what the Zimmermann Telegram is?

Oh, oh, oh. Mistah Kotter, I know!

Brainache

29th January 2007, 05:19 PM

Maybe we should set up CT Bingo.

I bet we will shortly see mention of "Northwoods" and "USS Liberty", followed shortly by "Patriot Act" and "Black Ops CIA".

Loss Leader

29th January 2007, 05:23 PM

Not smart enough?!?! Hello? Alderaan?

I thought people would be happy I didn't use a Star Trek reference this time.

It's like bringing me McDonalds and saying you thought I'd be happy you didn't bring me Burger King. Let me say it one more time: Battlestar Galactica, Stargate or Farscape references only.

Now, if your example had been about Ba'al blowing up WTC7 from a Go'auld mothership in orbit, I would be happy.

ConspiRaider

29th January 2007, 05:23 PM

pfft, it was the Emperor's idea, and Tarkin (sp?) carried it out. Vadar was just their to do his "make it so" impersonation. :D
Yeah but didn't Darthy "let" Luke and Friends "escape" from the Death Star so's they could follow 'em and then blow up the rebs on that moon? He even sacrificed some Imperial fighters to complete the ruse. Of course Leia saw right through it. But still - the Darthster definitely showed some chutzpah with that little trick...

Lisa Simpson

29th January 2007, 05:25 PM

It's like bringing me McDonalds and saying you thought I'd be happy you didn't bring me Burger King. Let me say it one more time: Battlestar Galactica, Stargate or Farscape references only.

Now, if your example had been about Ba'al blowing up WTC7 from a Go'auld mothership in orbit, I would be happy.

Sorry, but I am a Deputy Admin. See that? Deputy Admin. And I say, Star Trek, Star Wars and Doctor Who.

twinstead

29th January 2007, 05:25 PM

kemeelyun. Gotta bring your 'A' game here.

Are you prepared?

Loss Leader

29th January 2007, 05:26 PM

We're getting away from the subject.

It's not about whether Kameelyun is a bad CTist, it's about whether Kameelyun is a bad reviewer of books.

Loss Leader

29th January 2007, 05:28 PM

Sorry, but I am a Deputy Admin. See that? Deputy Admin. And I say, Star Trek, Star Wars and Doctor Who.

I don't know much about a Tardis, but I know someone who's a 'tard.

Too far? Did I take it too far?

Kiwiwriter

29th January 2007, 05:28 PM

[QUOTE=Kiwiwriter;2297750]

Oh, oh, oh. Mistah Kotter, I know!

That's the attitude I'm trying to eliminate! Now, did I ever tell you about my Uncle Manny? :D

Brainache

29th January 2007, 05:30 PM

We're getting away from the subject.

It's not about whether Kameelyun is a bad CTist, it's about whether Kameelyun is a bad reviewer of books.

Quite right LL. I'd like to see his review of Catcher In The Rye, just to "compare and contrast" or maybe Day Of The Triffids. (Do kids still read those books at school these days?)

stateofgrace

29th January 2007, 05:30 PM

I look forward to you "ruffling some more feathers", kameelyun. :rolleyes:

:popcorn1

Incidentally what do you reckon happened on 911?

twinstead

29th January 2007, 05:32 PM

I look forward to you "ruffling some more feathers", kameelyun. :rolleyes:

:popcorn1

Incidentally what do you reckon happened on 911?

Perhaps kameelyun thinks we are a bunch of uneducated 13 year olds?

Kiwiwriter

29th January 2007, 05:33 PM

We're getting away from the subject.

It's not about whether Kameelyun is a bad CTist, it's about whether Kameelyun is a bad reviewer of books.

Well, all CTers are bad CTers, so there shouldn't be much debate there. But as for his book reviews...that one stank, but I'll reserve judgment on the rest until he shares them with us. I'd like to see his views on the movie "Capricorn One," next. I still say OJ Simpson did it! :D

Kiwiwriter

29th January 2007, 05:34 PM

Perhaps kameelyun thinks we are a bunch of uneducated 13 year olds?

He studied this website and its membership about as well as he studied 9/11. :D

CHF

29th January 2007, 05:36 PM

CHF

29th January 2007, 05:38 PM

However, to watch a video of the collapse of WTC7 and not realize it's controlled demolition, well, you are wearing blinders of denial.

Care to explain why the demo charges were so quiet?

ConspiRaider

29th January 2007, 05:39 PM

Well, all CTers are bad CTers, so there shouldn't be much debate there. But as for his book reviews...that one stank, but I'll reserve judgment on the rest until he shares them with us. I'd like to see his views on the movie "Capricorn One," next. I still say OJ Simpson did it! :D
I think it was Hal Holbrook. Him being Deep Throat and all.

Oh wait. It WAS Holbrook in Capricorn One!!!

Never mind.

Brainache

29th January 2007, 05:41 PM

I think it was Hal Holbrook. Him being Deep Throat and all.

Oh wait. It WAS Holbrook in Capricorn One!!!

Never mind.

And James Brolin if my memory serves. Hmmm no wonder he and Babs buy the BS.

twinstead

29th January 2007, 05:41 PM

Care to explain why the demo charges were so quiet?

Hushaboom

Kiwiwriter

29th January 2007, 05:43 PM

I think it was Hal Holbrook. Him being Deep Throat and all.

Oh wait. It WAS Holbrook in Capricorn One!!!

Never mind.

Hal Holbrook was the evil guy in Capricorn One and All the President's Men! That's the link! He's behind it all!

Brilliant!

Oh, and back to the original thread...if the omnipotent NWO could whip up such a brilliant "false flag" operation to plunge the US into war and dictatorship, how come they did such a bad job it, hey? I mean, they didn't make the killers Iraqis, they didn't plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they didn't slam the fourth plane into the White House or some other target, they didn't jail all the Democrats, they didn't shut down criticism of the war and Gitmo, and they left all the CTers alive and whining.

For an omnipotent operation, the NWO is pretty inept...I mean, heck, you think they could have come up with a better war leader than George W. Bush, fercryinoutloud. :boggled:

Lisa Simpson

29th January 2007, 05:43 PM

And James Brolin if my memory serves. Hmmm no wonder he and Babs buy the BS.

And Sam Waterston. Mmmm...Sam Waterston.

twinstead

29th January 2007, 05:45 PM

For an omnipotent operation, the NWO is pretty inept...I mean, heck, you think they could have come up with a better war leader than George W. Bush, fercryinoutloud. :boggled:

Hey. I thought that whole deer in the headlamps thing at the Florida school was a stroke of genius!

Arus808

29th January 2007, 05:46 PM

hmm...only three posts and he runs away...

Kiwiwriter

29th January 2007, 05:51 PM

hmm...only three posts and he runs away...

But like Willie Nelson's "Highwayman," (playing on my computer just now) there'll be another one coming here soon enough to challenge us.

The tumbrels await! :)

ConspiRaider

29th January 2007, 05:55 PM

Hal Holbrook was the evil guy in Capricorn One and All the President's Men! That's the link! He's behind it all!

Brilliant!

Oh, and back to the original thread...if the omnipotent NWO could whip up such a brilliant "false flag" operation to plunge the US into war and dictatorship, how come they did such a bad job it, hey? I mean, they didn't make the killers Iraqis, they didn't plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they didn't slam the fourth plane into the White House or some other target, they didn't jail all the Democrats, they didn't shut down criticism of the war and Gitmo, and they left all the CTers alive and whining.

For an omnipotent operation, the NWO is pretty inept...I mean, heck, you think they could have come up with a better war leader than George W. Bush, fercryinoutloud. :boggled:
Yep, Kiwi.

I love how the originators of the CT debunk themselves. Groaningly, I linked to the Guns-n-Butter interview with Indira Singh awhile ago. Same groaningly reluctant attitude when I struggled through a Webster Tarpley radio show. Anyway Singh is going on about how Building 7 would be "pulled" and how PTech was used to run all the FAA computers and just kept going on and on about how everything was corrupt, everything was interconnected, The Gov did it all... Then she mentions about how she's in fear for her life and blah blah blah...

Exactly, Indira! Why are you still alive?!? Why would The Gov horribly kill thousands in a televised spectacle - but leave you alive to uncover the whole dastardly plot?

WildCat

29th January 2007, 05:58 PM

Enjoy your jokes while you can guys. Any second now kameelyun is gonna come back and blow us all away with his troofer facts.

ConspiRaider

29th January 2007, 06:02 PM

Enjoy your jokes while you can guys. Any second now kameelyun is gonna come back and blow us all away with his troofer facts.
You saw through that, huh? That false bravado? Nervous little jokey-poohs whilst we dreadingly peer at the active users board for the kameelyun smackdown?

You, WildCat, are good. Get a plush office, a couch, a receptionist and a couple or three dozen patients and start a therapy practice on the side.

SezMe

29th January 2007, 06:05 PM

I knew this would be the kind of flaming I would receive.
Flaming? FLAMING?? People welcome you to the forum, ask you specific questions in a direct but polite manner and mention the need for evidence (shame on them, this being a skeptics forum) and you call that flaming?

Sheeeesh.

ETA: Late to the party, I see. No matter - the point bears emphasis.

CptColumbo

29th January 2007, 06:05 PM

And Sam Waterston. Mmmm...Sam Waterston.

How could you forget OJ?

Brainster

29th January 2007, 06:06 PM

When James Meigs, editor of PM, appears on media outlets such as the O'Reilly Factor, he reassures FOX's mainstream audience that PM is not a political organization, or an organization seeking a specific conclusion, et cetera. However, the book's foreword was written by none other than GOP darling John McCain....

You mean perhaps media darling John McCain? In a recent poll of Republican US bloggers (http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2007_01_21.PHP#007239), John McCain was the second LEAST desired presidential nominee. Full disclosure: I was one of those polled.)

Another hole in McCain's rhetoric: "To blame not a gang of terrorists but some conspiracy for September 11..." Well, first of all, REGARDLESS of WHO pulled off 9/11, they are TERRORISTS!

Ah, we agree!

As far as the book itself is concerned, the only instances in which it does correctly expose erroneous 9/11 Truth arguments are when the original arguments were "straw men." In this instance, a "straw man" is when a true conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) is supported by bogus or unsubstantiated evidence. Once the particular erroneous argument is debunked, some will conclude that ALL arguments in the Truth Movement have been debunked, or can be debunked just as easily. In other words, the "straw man" ends up smearing the whole movement in the minds of many Truth Seekers. The most classic example is the "pod theory," which asserts that a missile pod was attached to the underbelly of the plane the hit the second tower, and that based on frame-by-frame analysis of the impact, a "flash" can be seen a millisecond before contact. This argument was popularized in the first major 9/11 conspiracy video "In Plane Site," a film which was a breakthrough in 2004 but is now considered old hat, especially as portions of it have been discredited.

Do us a huge favor? Please list all the strawman arguments that you agree are ridiculous and unsupported, like the pod theory?

Does it concern you that a film was a breakthrough in 2004 but now is discredited? Does it concern you that Loose Change, which was the breakthrough film of 2006 is now derided as containing errors and conclusions which are not supported by the evidence as admitted by Dylan Avery, the writer/director/creator of the film?

pomeroo

29th January 2007, 06:12 PM

[quote=kameelyun;2297546]I knew this would be the kind of flaming I would receive.

You are not being flamed. People are pointing out that you are yet another empty-headed conspiracy liar peddling a line of thoroughly debunked myths.

What exactly are "conspiracy theory" websites?

They're the ones that recycle the same bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright lies over and over and over ...

The NIST and FEMA sites giving everyone's beloved "debris and fire" hypothesis - those themselves are CT sites! They back up the "official" conspiracy theory.

NIST has published ten thousand pages covering every conceivable aspect of the collapses of the Twin Towers. We can assume that you haven't even read the FAQ. What errors made by the two hundred researchers call the NIST Report into question? Are there any errors you'd care to point out for us?

Popular Mechanics uses the 911-commission.gov as a source to back up its claims. That right there completely discredits it as "nonpolitical!"

What exactly is the bias of a commission consisting of Republicans mostly supportive of Bush's policies and Democrats strongly opposed to them? Perhaps Richard ben-Veniste is in the tank for the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy?

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers. This is why we're calling for a fresh investigation.

No, you are the antithesis of a truth-seeker. You are wedded to an absurd, wildly implausible fantasy that is contradicted by ALL the evidence. Your beliefs are unfalsifiable.

The amout of swift responses I received here means I must have ruffled some feathers!

Cheers!

You bored us silly with the same tired, fact-free crap.

T.A.M.

29th January 2007, 06:19 PM

Another truther hit and run I see.

It actually reminds me more of the dog taking a crap in the house, then running and hiding, knowing he has left crap, and fearing the repercussions. I have much more compassion for the dog, as most of them rarely know better.

Next time, Chamelion, just keep your crap for somewhere else if you are going to just leave it here and then run with your tail between your legs.

TAM

Alareth

29th January 2007, 06:25 PM

Sorry, but I am a Deputy Admin. See that? Deputy Admin. And I say, Star Trek, Star Wars and Doctor Who.

Here Lisa, special Star Trek just for you (http://www.devilducky.com/media/48608). :)

Lisa Simpson

29th January 2007, 06:30 PM

That was great. Thanks!

ConspiRaider

29th January 2007, 06:45 PM

Here Lisa, special Star Trek just for you (http://www.devilducky.com/media/48608). :)
Terrific! Thanks much!

(And don't tell Lisa that I'm a trekker (TOS only) and have all 80 episodes on DVD and was reading the James Blish adaptations as fast as he could publish them.)

njslim

29th January 2007, 08:03 PM

The editors flat-out lie when they say that WTC7 was massively damaged when the damage was only minimal, especially in contrast to WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6.

WTC 3 (Mariott Hotel) not damaged??? WTF? Considering that WTC 3 was
crushed first by the South Tower (WTC 2) which split the building in half
30 minutes what was left was flattened by the North Tower (WTC 1)
A relative of a member of my fire department died in WTC 3 (along with about
40 other FDNY members) Michael Quilty who was in command of Ladder 11
He and his entire crew were killed in the collapse. Such ignorant remarks
really anger me.

Run along troll!!!

Loss Leader

29th January 2007, 08:41 PM

Here Lisa, special Star Trek just for you (http://www.devilducky.com/media/48608). :)

Great video. I think I caught most of the clips from The Trouble With Tribbles and I, Mudd. Also featured: Mirror, Mirror; Miri; The Naked Time; The Menagerie; The Squire of Gothos; The Return of the Archons; Operation: Annihilate!; Journey to Babel; and either Bread and Circuses or Plato's Stepchildren.

ConspiRaider

29th January 2007, 09:14 PM

Great video. I think I caught most of the clips from The Trouble With Tribbles and I, Mudd. Also featured: Mirror, Mirror; Miri; The Naked Time; The Menagerie; The Squire of Gothos; The Return of the Archons; Operation: Annihilate!; Journey to Babel; and either Bread and Circuses or Plato's Stepchildren.
Plato's Stepchildren. Also I picked up Shore Leave and The Paradise Syndrome and Wolf In The Fold and Day Of The Dove and Devil In The Dark and By Any Other Name and The Conscience Of The King and The Way To Eden and Whom Gods Destroy and Arena and Balance Of Terror and A Piece Of The Action.

Brainache

29th January 2007, 09:24 PM

So, Popular Mechanics, are those the guys who fix your car for the same price as they quote and don't leave grease stains on the upholstery?

LashL

29th January 2007, 09:31 PM

This thread is another example of what I just LOVE about this place. By that I mean that no matter when some fly by night wannabe twoofer comes along and posts his/her nonsense, by the time some of us even see a particular thread, in light of time zones, work constraints, etc., it's been well and truly and thoroughly debunked. And those of us who missed the twoofer nonsense in the first place get to just enjoy reading all of the great work you've done.

*sigh* I love this place!

kookbreaker

29th January 2007, 09:39 PM

Once again, a troother armed with only their arrogance, their inflated sense of worth, and a host of unfounded assertions comes smashing flat into the juggernaut of debunking of JREF.

Seriously, its like attacking a Tank with a handful of grapes.

kookbreaker

29th January 2007, 09:40 PM

CurtC

29th January 2007, 10:14 PM

That's just great, folks - we had a plaything all lined up, and you all had to go and scare him off with all your fancy demands for evidence and critical thinking.

It's not really even a part of the book, it's the forward . . . to the hardcover edition.Well, it's the foreword, with an e in the middle and two o's.

ConspiRaider

29th January 2007, 10:32 PM

So, Popular Mechanics, are those the guys who fix your car for the same price as they quote and don't leave grease stains on the upholstery?
Yes. Once when I turned my back, they placed a flower pot of thermite on the hood and tried to burn the engine, just for amusement. I reported them to the head mechanic, that's how cross I was with them.

I once came back for my car from these decidedly UNpopular mechanics and they burned the paint off of only HALF the car! They were these really short mechanics, almost like - er - Elves. Anyway I complained and they gave the interior a thorough vacuuming and debunking.

SezMe

29th January 2007, 10:41 PM

So, Popular Mechanics, are those the guys who fix your car for the same price as they quote and don't leave grease stains on the upholstery?
I'm trying to figure out why your car mechanic is on your couch. Is, by any chance, your wife home during the day? ;)

babazaroni

29th January 2007, 10:47 PM

In another non-911 forum, the CT'ers howl with ROFLMAO's when the Popular Mechanics debunking is mentioned.

Wonder how these guys would react if Scientific American had done the debunking?

ConspiRaider

29th January 2007, 10:56 PM

In another non-911 forum, the CT'ers howl with ROFLMAO's when the Popular Mechanics debunking is mentioned.

Wonder how these guys would react if Scientific American had done the debunking?
Zero difference. These adolescent-brained guys are exactly like creationists. They'll greedily lap up the end results of science and technology as long as none of their precious beliefs are threatened by same. Once that happens? HERESY! DERISION! SHILLS!

CptColumbo

29th January 2007, 11:17 PM

I enjoy when they try to debunk the article (now book) by claiming that the actions of William Randolph Hearst (dead for over 50 years) over 100 years ago, somehow has a bearing and influence on the magazine today.

Minadin

29th January 2007, 11:34 PM

Well, it's the foreword, with an e in the middle and two o's.

Have it your way. As a skeptic, I would rather be corrected than be wrong. I'll do my best to use the correct spelling in the furure.

~enigma~

30th January 2007, 12:27 AM

most all the concrete was pulverized into a very fine dust, coating all of Lower Manhattan in a nuclear winter.Do you know what a nuclear winter is? A dust cloud is not a nuclear winter nor is it remotely similar to a nuclear winter. What you did by using the term, intentionally or unintentionally (I say it was intentional), is attempt to instill a fear reaction into readers and hope that this would cause them to flock to your beliefs. I am ready to play Penn Jillete on you but the forum will not tolerate it so instead I will just say I will never consider anything you write nor should any rational human.

Arus808

30th January 2007, 12:53 AM

what he posted here , is word for word his posted review at amazon.com.

again, its not a review in any sense of the word, since its obvious he read only the first 20 pages.

~enigma~

30th January 2007, 01:00 AM

what he posted here , is word for word his posted review at amazon.com.

again, its not a review in any sense of the word, since its obvious he read only the first 20 pages.
Regardless what it is or what he read. He is an (PLEASE Lisa and Darat...let me go Penn & Teller on this guy) and no rational human should read his trash. Just not the ease which one could fit his "review" into the P&T episode where Eric Hufschmid appeared. Nuclear winter...really weak. Shows the total lack of respect HE has for the people that do read his review. What does he expect, everybody to throw out their brains and believe his stupid nonsense?

MortFurd

30th January 2007, 01:57 AM

Snip...

As far as the book itself is concerned, the only instances in which it does correctly expose erroneous 9/11 Truth arguments are when the original arguments were "straw men." In this instance, a "straw man" is when a true conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) is supported by bogus or unsubstantiated evidence. Once the particular erroneous argument is debunked, some will conclude that ALL arguments in the Truth Movement have been debunked, or can be debunked just as easily. In other words, the "straw man" ends up smearing the whole movement in the minds of many Truth Seekers. The most classic example is the "pod theory," which asserts that a missile pod was attached to the underbelly of the plane the hit the second tower, and that based on frame-by-frame analysis of the impact, a "flash" can be seen a millisecond before contact. This argument was popularized in the first major 9/11 conspiracy video "In Plane Site," a film which was a breakthrough in 2004 but is now considered old hat, especially as portions of it have been discredited.

I'll leave the more major debunking to the folks here who more used to dealing with the irrationalities of the CT mindset.

The bolded section is discredited for a simple, clear reason. American television video runs at 30 frames per second. A single frame is therefore 33.33 milliseconds long, making it impossible for timing to be determined down to the millisecond.

Another correction:
A "Strawman" argument would be when you opponent presents an incorrect picture of your argument, and then demolishes it instead of countering your real argument.

Learn about technology before using it, and learn the meanings of the terms you use before you embarass yourself. It does NOT help your arguments when you show yourself to be unknowledgeable about the subject.

ETA:
Dang! I ddin't notice that the thread was already three pages long. Sorry for the late post.

Brainache

30th January 2007, 02:10 AM

I'm trying to figure out why your car mechanic is on your couch. Is, by any chance, your wife home during the day? ;)

I was of course referring to the seat upholstery in the car.

If I had a wife she would be out working to keep me in the style to which I plan to become accustomed.

So is the kameelyun coming back? I was so looking forward to finding out all about demolitions, missiles, covert ops, shoot down orders, false flag ops, patsies and Rudy Guliani's secret bunker. I can never get enough of all that stuff.:hypnodisk

gumboot

30th January 2007, 02:18 AM

Another outright lie concerns the thoroughness of our air defense system. PM claims that only one airplane (Payne Stewart's ill-fated private jet) was intercepted in the decade prior to 9/11. Not true. Sixty-seven of them occurred in just the one year before 9/11 alone. The 'one intercept' lie serves to back another one of PM's lies: that the Airforce was previously only trained to handle foreign attacks, coming from beyond our borders, and that the U.S. continental mainland was a defenseless donut-hole. Blatant falsehood.

I just thought I'd jump on this particular one because it's something I'm familiar with.

Kameelyun, to begin with, you are confusing the nature of the intercepts. NORAD's duty is to intercept aircraft inside the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) which is a narrow band across the water at the coastline of north america. Intercepts inside the ADIZ are indeed routine and happen frequently.

However, none of the aircraft hijacked on 9/11 at any stage entered, nor were scheduled to enter the ADIZ. Thus in comparing NORAD's intercept performance, you must compare them to a time when NORAD intercepted a flight OUTSIDE the ADIZ. Obviously NORAD won't intercept aircraft over international waters (because they have no legal right to) so in this instance we're talking about the airspace directly over the US itself.

In the 10 years prior to 9/11 the intercept of Payne Stewart's learjet was INDEED the ONLY intercept performed by NORAD over the continental United States (and outside the ADIZ).

In regard to your second claim of falsehood, the above points demonstrate your lack of knowledge in this regard. There is no regular standing proceedure for military protection of US airspace outside the ADIZ, and there never has. In the event of a full scale attack/war a special military situation occurs which essentially hands all US airspace over to military control, making all of North America a temporary ADIZ (temporary ADIZs are also implemented in other situations such as surrounding Air Force One).

You demonstrate a significant lack of knowledge and understanding in this particular subject area.

-Gumboot

Arkan_Wolfshade

30th January 2007, 02:56 AM

<snip> (PLEASE Lisa and Darat...let me go Penn & Teller on this guy) <snip>
Oh, heck no. If Darat, Lisa, and JMercer don't let me go P&T on Lyte Trip, you don't get to go P&T on the newbie.

Panoply_Prefect

30th January 2007, 03:07 AM

Here I go to bed safely sure that tomorrow will bring a couple of new posts by the threadmaker followed by at least ten more pages, only to come here with a fresh cup of morning coffee, realising Elvis has truly left the building.

DISSSAPPPOOOINTEEED!

kameelyun

30th January 2007, 08:50 AM

I just had a normal away-from-the-monitor life after 6 p.m. yesterday.

I have no idea what James Randi's views are on 9/11, but one thing is pretty clear. This forum is for true believers of the official conspiracy theory.

I will admit I was wrong about one thing... most of the initial first few responses to my thread were not "flames" as such. However, even those posts were of a "Provide evidence, and I bet you can't, haha."

However, dare I leave my computer for a few hours, and the flames do start to pour on. "May I pull a Penn and Teller on this guy?" Smearers of 9/11 Truth love to call us "twoofers," a name intended to spread derision and even waves of hate.

As a "twoofer," my mission is to educate as many people as I can about the existense of the collapse of WTC 7. Outside this forum, most people who know about WTC 7 are of the "inside job" belief, but most people I talk to in real life still haven't heard of WTC 7. I don't see my "mission" as one of converting OCT true believers. I clearly am not going to change the minds of anyone on this board who disregard Steve Jones' work, who is a physicist... Oh, I'm sorry, his specialty is cold fusion, which makes him totally unqualified to talk about the collapse of buildings.

The first Popular Mechanics article was before Steven Jones burst on the scene. Was Popular Mechanics interested in studying Steven Jones' findings? No, as soon as Jones gains traction, PM simply expands their article into a book, summarily dismisses Jones' work as misguided and inaccurate.

I knew within a few posts I would get the "what are your engineering qualifications?" My answer is: none, other than that I am a concerned citizen. Also, having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger: If the demolition is so obvious that even a non-scientist can call on it with certainty... you get my point.

I'm not an expert on fire or smoke either. Maybe the black stuff emanating from the WTC wasn't really smoke. It just "looked" like smoke. You know the "air pressure" coming from WTC 7 as it collapses? MAN, they look like blast points!

Looks like us "twoofers" have our opinion and the JREF members have theirs. This probably will be my last post in this thread. Cheers!

Pardalis

30th January 2007, 08:53 AM

The first Popular Mechanics article was before Steven Jones burst on the scene.

That's a funny way to say it.

Buckaroo

30th January 2007, 08:55 AM

This probably will be my last post in this thread. Cheers!

Can't take the heat, eh?.

Pardalis

30th January 2007, 09:00 AM

Here's some literature that might help you, kameleon.

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

Gravy

30th January 2007, 09:02 AM

I will admit I was wrong about one thing... most of the initial first few responses to my thread were not "flames" as such. However, even those posts were of a "Provide evidence, and I bet you can't, haha."Shocking, isn't it? It's almost as if you stumbled on a site populated by critical thinkers! Good luck with your delusions. We'll always be here if you're interested in discussing evidence.

Minadin

30th January 2007, 09:10 AM

having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger

Yeah, I would imagine that it would. Not being burdened by facts, education, or experience, might make me more free to believe that structures behave in the way that some truthers seem to think they do. Of course, I would be mistaken, I just wouldn't know it.

mortimer

30th January 2007, 09:10 AM

I have no idea what James Randi's views are on 9/11, but one thing is pretty clear. This forum is for true believers of the official conspiracy theory.

We are true believers in evidence, wherever that evidence may lead. You, on the other hand, have reached a conclusion first, and then have searched for evidence that supports that conclusion. Unfortunately for you, it seems you've found none.

stateofgrace

30th January 2007, 09:11 AM

I just had a normal away-from-the-monitor life after 6 p.m. yesterday.

I have no idea what James Randi's views are on 9/11, but one thing is pretty clear. This forum is for true believers of the official conspiracy theory.

I will admit I was wrong about one thing... most of the initial first few responses to my thread were not "flames" as such. However, even those posts were of a "Provide evidence, and I bet you can't, haha."

However, dare I leave my computer for a few hours, and the flames do start to pour on. "May I pull a Penn and Teller on this guy?" Smearers of 9/11 Truth love to call us "twoofers," a name intended to spread derision and even waves of hate.

As a "twoofer," my mission is to educate as many people as I can about the existense of the collapse of WTC 7. Outside this forum, most people who know about WTC 7 are of the "inside job" belief, but most people I talk to in real life still haven't heard of WTC 7. I don't see my "mission" as one of converting OCT true believers. I clearly am not going to change the minds of anyone on this board who disregard Steve Jones' work, who is a physicist... Oh, I'm sorry, his specialty is cold fusion, which makes him totally unqualified to talk about the collapse of buildings.

The first Popular Mechanics article was before Steven Jones burst on the scene. Was Popular Mechanics interested in studying Steven Jones' findings? No, as soon as Jones gains traction, PM simply expands their article into a book, summarily dismisses Jones' work as misguided and inaccurate.

I knew within a few posts I would get the "what are your engineering qualifications?" My answer is: none, other than that I am a concerned citizen. Also, having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger: If the demolition is so obvious that even a non-scientist can call on it with certainty... you get my point.

I'm not an expert on fire or smoke either. Maybe the black stuff emanating from the WTC wasn't really smoke. It just "looked" like smoke. You know the "air pressure" coming from WTC 7 as it collapses? MAN, they look like blast points!

Looks like us "twoofers" have our opinion and the JREF members have theirs. This probably will be my last post in this thread. Cheers!

Good luck with your mission. Personally I tent to listen to people who are qualified and who are experts in their fields.

You being a non expert are in no position to validate Jones paper which as been debunked to death, nor are you in a position to make ludicrous claims that you cannot back up. But don't let that stop you spreading your lies; don't let that stop you converting the gullible and naive to your way of thinking.

Pathetic.

Overman

30th January 2007, 09:15 AM

At least he/she ran away quick, and this thread might stay under 200 posts!

Yeah for server space!

CurtC

30th January 2007, 09:17 AM

Welcome back, kameelyun. If the people on this board are "true believers," that's only because we've already evaluated all the evidence that we can find, and have reached an inescapable conclusion. If you have new evidence, everyone here stands willing to change his mind. But so far, you have presented zero evidence, just a bunch of asssertions.

I have no idea what James Randi's views are on 9/11, but one thing is pretty clear. This forum is for true believers of the official conspiracy theory.Randi has said very little about 9/11, but even if he came out today and said he fully believes the Troother theories, the people here would still demand evidence. That's the deal about skeptics - our major characteristic is not that we disbelieve the "common wisdom," but that we demand evidence for every claim, and will go whichever way the evidence leads. At least, that's the ideal we strive for.

I knew within a few posts I would get the "what are your engineering qualifications?" My answer is: none, other than that I am a concerned citizen. Also, having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger: If the demolition is so obvious that even a non-scientist can call on it with certainty... you get my point.So your point is that a handful of non-experts can see the obviousness of the MIHOP scenario, but every real expert in the whole world can't see it? You do see what's wrong with this, right?

If you want to run away, that's fine. But if you want to test your ideas with people who really know how to evaluate evidence, hang around.

beachnut

30th January 2007, 09:17 AM

As a "twoofer," my mission is to educate as many people as I can about the existense of the collapse of WTC 7. Outside this forum, most people who know about WTC 7 are of the "inside job" belief, but most people I talk to in real life still haven't heard of WTC 7. I don't see my "mission" as one of converting OCT true believers. I clearly am not going to change the minds of anyone on this board who disregard Steve Jones' work, who is a physicist... Oh, I'm sorry, his specialty is cold fusion, which makes him totally unqualified to talk about the collapse of buildings.

The first Popular Mechanics article was before Steven Jones burst on the scene. Was Popular Mechanics interested in studying Steven Jones' findings? No, as soon as Jones gains traction, PM simply expands their article into a book, summarily dismisses Jones' work as misguided and inaccurate.

I knew within a few posts I would get the "what are your engineering qualifications?" My answer is: none, other than that I am a concerned citizen. Also, having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger: If the demolition is so obvious that even a non-scientist can call on it with certainty... you get my point.

I'm not an expert on fire or smoke either. Maybe the black stuff emanating from the WTC wasn't really smoke. It just "looked" like smoke. You know the "air pressure" coming from WTC 7 as it collapses? MAN, they look like blast points!

Looks like us "twoofers" have our opinion and the JREF members have theirs. This probably will be my last post in this thread. Cheers!

Poor kid; buildings burn and fall down. It happens all around the world you are just blind to it. Go ask some firemen and engineers. Remember the so called truth movement that has no facts or evidence also only has 0.00067 percent of all US engineers on board. Meaning you CTers are wrong. Go ask some engineers since you are making up lies why not know you are doing so.

Steven Jones? Dr Thermite Jones; have you even read his first paper? He has no facts. His paper changes each time he learns he can not bring down a building with thermite. He added RDX after he talked to CD experts. Ask him how it happen and he gives you the standard "I do not know" we need a new investigation". I thought he was able to do investigation. Is he qualified to study 9/11? NO. He hates bush and the war in Iraq which is due to violations of a ceasefire. He can not even think straight after all those years. Where was Dr Jones in 2001 when thousands of engineers and scientist were studying the WTC steel and collapse outside the "official story"? These engineers etal were making improvements in steel, fire protection, and structures to help us in the future. Where was Dr Jones? You have failed to research 9/11 to know there are more studies to buy than there are in the truth movement.

You do not have to be an engineer to be smart enough to know what happen on 9/11. No the air is not a blast from an explosion. A blast would have ripped out many windows. Why? Since in normal CD you see some blast effects coming from the carefully covered explosives so they do not send objects thousands of feet. Did I say thousands? YES In the WTC there were no explosives planted, if there were they would have blasted out many windows. You see if explosive were planted they could not have place the covering on them, it would stop the elevators from working and you would have mattress sized objects in people offices. So the air is air pressure you can tell how it acts. You have failed to study that.

You should go back to school. Some people with only a fifth grade math and science skills are not as dumb to become a CTer who stops thinking and joins the dumbest nut cases I have seen in my whole life. If you fall for the lies of 9/11 truth there is no hope for you when the insurance man comes let alone the vacuum salesman.

Next time bring just facts. Bet you can not find one! You messed up your NORAD lies and you have no facts on anything. Good luck finishing High School you will need it.

It may be safe now to say you have left?

Pardalis

30th January 2007, 09:19 AM

Also, having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger: If the demolition is so obvious that even a non-scientist can call on it with certainty... you get my point.
See this animal?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888644bed1fba333b.jpg

Could you tell me just by looking at this animal if it is more closely related to this animal,
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886453ba22b48c43.jpg

or this one?http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886453ba20b93c41.jpg

~enigma~

30th January 2007, 09:20 AM

This forum is for true believers of the official conspiracy theory.This forum is for everybody but if they ignore science they will get called on it. If you don't like getting called on science you can always try to apply some or your free to post elswhere where people accept your bs.

and the flames do start to pour on. "May I pull a Penn and Teller on this guy?"A flame would have been if I went P&T on you without asking. Besides, you deserve it for your inhuman attempt to instill fear with your use of a term you can't even define.

In the words of Anne Robinson "You are the weakest link...Goodbye."

babazaroni

30th January 2007, 09:29 AM

Kameelyun, since you do not have any response to our take on the '67 intercept' myth, we will assume your view on this has been changed.

Try not to actually put such a specific claim in your reviews in the future, as this just opens you up for embarrassment. Stick to broad generalities, common sense and feelings.

uk_dave

30th January 2007, 09:32 AM

I knew within a few posts I would get the "what are your engineering qualifications?" My answer is: none, other than that I am a concerned citizen. Also, having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger: If the demolition is so obvious that even a non-scientist can call on it with certainty... you get my point.

I'm not an expert on fire or smoke either. Maybe the black stuff emanating from the WTC wasn't really smoke. It just "looked" like smoke. You know the "air pressure" coming from WTC 7 as it collapses? MAN, they look like blast points!

Looks like us "twoofers" have our opinion and the JREF members have theirs. This probably will be my last post in this thread. Cheers!

That's actually very very funny.

So a non-scientist can call it but scientists and experts don't.
And that really doesn't ring any alarm bells for you?
Could it possibly be that your assumptions are wrong and that a little technical knowledge might be beneficial to your perception of events?

Just put that thought in the background there...... you know, that maybe...just maybe, you're not always right about things you have no training or technical expertise about.

Just consider the possibility..... :cool:

Arkan_Wolfshade

30th January 2007, 09:35 AM

Ah yes, the good old standby of addressing the less substantive posts, ignore the more substantive posts, and go off in a huff.

Horatius

30th January 2007, 09:41 AM

I will admit I was wrong about one thing... most of the initial first few responses to my thread were not "flames" as such. However, even those posts were of a "Provide evidence, and I bet you can't, haha."

Nice to see you can admit a mistake. Too bad you then turn around and commit another two right away. Your "flames" comment was post 13 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2297546#post2297546), and none of the posts prior to that could be considered to be "flames", nor did any of them make any sort of "haha" type comments. There was one that could be read as slightly snarky, but as he seems to have dealt with you before, you can't really use that prior history to judge the rest of us.

Either you're deliberately lying to try and make us look bad (and failing miserably at it), or you're reading our posts with your head full of preconceived notions, and this colours the tone you read them with. Please do try and avoid both these behaviours.

I clearly am not going to change the minds of anyone on this board who disregard Steve Jones' work, who is a physicist... Oh, I'm sorry, his specialty is cold fusion, which makes him totally unqualified to talk about the collapse of buildings.

So nice to see you acknowledge that Jones' isn't qualtified to address the collapses of the buildings. Too bad you were trying to be sarcastic in doing so.

You twoofers (derision! hate! :) ) really need to learn that it takes a lot of relevant education to be able to comment intelligently on such complicated topics.

I knew within a few posts I would get the "what are your engineering qualifications?" My answer is: none, other than that I am a concerned citizen. Also, having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger: If the demolition is so obvious that even a non-scientist can call on it with certainty... you get my point.

I'm not an expert on fire or smoke either. Maybe the black stuff emanating from the WTC wasn't really smoke. It just "looked" like smoke. You know the "air pressure" coming from WTC 7 as it collapses? MAN, they look like blast points!

See? You have no expertise, or even any experience at all of any of the topics you need to understand these issues. You also have none of the skills that you would need to determine which "experts" you should listen to. So you end up getting everything wrong. Yet your twoofer arrogance makes you incapable of seeing or acknowledging this.

Looks like us "twoofers" have our opinion and the JREF members have theirs. This probably will be my last post in this thread. Cheers!

And now you try the old "everyone's opinions are equally valid" schtick. Nope, not going to fly here. People like R.Mackey, Architect and others (like all the guys at PM) really do know more than you about these issues. Their expert opinions, and our opinions based on their expert analyses, really are better than the twoofer crap.

pgwenthold

30th January 2007, 09:54 AM

As always, I find it interesting that every time a new person shows up with the latest, greatest case for doubting the "official story," for some reason they come out with the same old crap that we've seen hundreds of times as if they are showing us something we hadn't seen or considered.

Wow, the old "WTC7 wasn't really damaged and obviously a controlled demolition" claim.

The 67 intercepts nonsense is so common that it is addressed as part of 911 myths.

Of course, we do get to see Pardilis's standard response to the "I'm not an engineer and even I can see it was a CD" claim. I always like that one.

Horatius

30th January 2007, 10:00 AM

As always, I find it interesting that every time a new person shows up with the latest, greatest case for doubting the "official story," for some reason they come out with the same old crap that we've seen hundreds of times as if they are showing us something we hadn't seen or considered.

It's one of the reasons we here at JREF deal with all the woo topics. This is exactly like Christian missionaries trying to convert atheists. They act as if we simply must not have ever heard of the Bible, or Jesus, because if we had, we'd obviously be believers. It seems to completely boggle their minds to consider the possibility that someone may be familiar with the best of their arguments, but still be unconvinced.

Really, none of the woos have any new tricks. It's all part of the same non-rational continuum. Only the details of the particular woo changes.

Spins

30th January 2007, 10:02 AM

Another outright lie concerns the thoroughness of our air defense system. PM claims that only one airplane (Payne Stewart's ill-fated private jet) was intercepted in the decade prior to 9/11. Not true. Sixty-seven of them occurred in just the one year before 9/11 alone. The 'one intercept' lie serves to back another one of PM's lies: that the Airforce was previously only trained to handle foreign attacks, coming from beyond our borders, and that the U.S. continental mainland was a defenseless donut-hole. Blatant falsehood.Why did you post this, don't you realize it was thoroughly debunked as CT nonsense ages ago? Are you stuck in some sort of 2005 tin-foil time warp or something?

Anyways I know gumboot has already explained why you are wrong but here is a quote from an excellent article about the ADIZ and TFR before and since 9/11...

Terms like Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and temporary flight restriction (TFR) quickly came into widespread use among the general-aviation pilot group. Those terms had been around for years. Military fighters and the ADIZ protected American coasts from intrusions by Russian Bear Bombers throughout the Cold War. TFRs were used for presidential security and other extraordinary events. But they weren’t part of a pilot’s everyday life. You didn’t get intercepted and forced down if you flew through a TFR.

Today, things are different. There’s an ADIZ that surrounds Washington, D.C. In the four years after 9/11, it was violated over 1,000 times. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) has scrambled fighters for intercepts within U.S. borders over 1,600 times. In the year previous to 9/11, NORAD intercepted airplanes in the ADIZ only 67 times, none of which occurred within the U.S. borders. In 2003, the prohibited area that surrounds Camp David in Maryland was violated over 80 times, and the prohibited area called P-49, which surrounds the Bush ranch in Texas, was violated more than 140 times. For each violation, a standard 60-day suspension awaits the transgressor.

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2005/oct/busting_tfr.html (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2005/oct/busting_tfr.html)
Worth a read if you haven't seen it before.

DavidJames

30th January 2007, 10:10 AM

The subject for the postNo, I didn't run away...
The last line of the post
This probably will be my last post in this thread. Cheers!Tin Hatters say the funniest things.

DavidJames

30th January 2007, 10:11 AM

sleahead

30th January 2007, 10:24 AM

Smearers of 9/11 Truth love to call us "twoofers," a name intended to spread derision and even waves of hate.

I call you Twoofers, Troofers, Troothers and 9/11 Deniers. I do not do so to spread derision or cause offence. It's just that the word truth, correctly spelled, has no association to anything your movement says or does.

DavidJames

30th January 2007, 10:27 AM

Smearers of 9/11 Truth love to call us "twoofers," a name intended to spread derision and even waves of hate.Typical CTists, gets panties in a bunch over getting called a name, but has no problems accusing innocent people of murder.

kameelyun, are you 11?

stateofgrace

30th January 2007, 10:30 AM

I am a concerned citizen.

I would like to add to my post to you kameelyun.

If you were a concerned citizen you would not spread lies about this dreadful event. You would educate yourself, you would read the reports that many independent experts have put together for you. This has been done for you for your future safety and security.

If you were a concerned citizen you would not indulge in paranoid fantasies and accuse your fellow countrymen of mass murder.

You would not stand shoulder to should with a group of individuals that laughably call themselves the truth movement. A movement so devoid of any form of humanity it openly mocks the final messages from victims to their families.

If you were a concerned citizen you would condemn totally people when tell you the passengers did not exist, that drone planes hit the Towers, that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and the Flight 93 was not real. You would condemn totally idiots who try to tell that all the evidence is fake, crash sites are faked and that human remains and DNA was planted. You would dismiss this rubbish out of hand and you would roundly condemn the ghouls and idiots that profit from this dreadful event by promoting such lies.

If you was a concerned citizen you would not promote your unsubstantiated claims that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, but rather would read the NIST interim report and wait for the final report, which is being prepared for you by independent experts. You would read the accounts of the fire men that were there and you would take onboard their accounts of this building and what happened to it

You are not concerned; you simply want to spread complete lies about this event. This is not what concerned citizens do; this is what internet kooks do.

uruk

30th January 2007, 10:36 AM

I just had a normal away-from-the-monitor life after 6 p.m. yesterday.

I have no idea what James Randi's views are on 9/11, but one thing is pretty clear. This forum is for true believers of the official conspiracy theory. Well most here believe the "official" explination because it has scientific evidence backing it up. If there is irrefutable scientific evidence to show that the "official" explination is incorrect I think you would see opinions here change rather quickly.

I will admit I was wrong about one thing... most of the initial first few responses to my thread were not "flames" as such. However, even those posts were of a "Provide evidence, and I bet you can't, haha." Well "provide evidence" is pretty much the standard response around here. It only stand to reason when some one is making a claim.
The "I bet you can't, ha ha" is either due to the requisite persecution syndrome most CT'rs have or the irritation that some of the veteran posters here have due to the same argumnets being rehashed over and over again.

However, dare I leave my computer for a few hours, and the flames do start to pour on. "May I pull a Penn and Teller on this guy?" Smearers of 9/11 Truth love to call us "twoofers," a name intended to spread derision and even waves of hate. As does the term "shill" likewise.

As a "twoofer," my mission is to educate as many people as I can about the existense of the collapse of WTC 7. Outside this forum, most people who know about WTC 7 are of the "inside job" belief, but most people I talk to in real life still haven't heard of WTC 7. I don't see my "mission" as one of converting OCT true believers. . Nothing wrong with having a mission, just be sure about your info.
I clearly am not going to change the minds of anyone on this board who disregard Steve Jones' work, who is a physicist... Oh, I'm sorry, his specialty is cold fusion, which makes him totally unqualified to talk about the collapse of buildings Well you would'nt expect an astrophysicist to have exactly the same knowledge and experiance as a nuclear physicist would you?
You wouldn't let a pediotrist do heart surgery on you would you? I mean, they're both doctors and everything.

The first Popular Mechanics article was before Steven Jones burst on the scene. Was Popular Mechanics interested in studying Steven Jones' findings? No, as soon as Jones gains traction, PM simply expands their article into a book, summarily dismisses Jones' work as misguided and inaccurate. Probably because they read Jones's stuff and found the glaring errors in his work.
Just because you get people to believe you does not mean that you are right.

I knew within a few posts I would get the "what are your engineering qualifications?" My answer is: none, other than that I am a concerned citizen. Also, having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger: If the demolition is so obvious that even a non-scientist can call on it with certainty... you get my point. I hope you see what's wrong with your last two statements. Observing an event without having special knowlege of the mechanics of that event means that your not getting the full picture which can lead to misinterpretation. A non-scientist observing an event can only make an interpretation based on his/her limited knowledge.

Many years ago people thought the sun orbited the earth because that is what they observed when they applied "common sense" to thier observation. They had no special knowlege of what they were seeing. It wasn't untill people who gain that special knowlege discovered that the truth was not what "common sense" made us believe was happening.

So, what is obvious to a non-scientist may not be the truth.

I'm not an expert on fire or smoke either. Maybe the black stuff emanating from the WTC wasn't really smoke. It just "looked" like smoke. You know the "air pressure" coming from WTC 7 as it collapses? MAN, they look like blast points! "looks like" may not be "what is".
magicians "look like" they are defying the laws of physics.

Looks like us "twoofers" have our opinion and the JREF members have theirs. This probably will be my last post in this thread. Cheers!
True, just be sure of what your basing your opinion on.

ZouPrime

30th January 2007, 10:38 AM

I knew within a few posts I would get the "what are your engineering qualifications?" My answer is: none, other than that I am a concerned citizen. Also, having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger: If the demolition is so obvious that even a non-scientist can call on it with certainty... you get my point.

This sentence is so wrong. Yet, I've seen many conspiracy theorists use this angle. This is so revealing.

Tell me, what's more plausible? That your ignorance stops you from analysing the collapse of the WTC7 objectively, or that the vast majority of professionals who have studied the subject, including very credible publications such as PM or groups such as NIST who have access to vast amount of resources and expertise somewhat missed what appears "obvious" to the layman?

This is so incredibly, so amazingly arrogant.

Maybe you should read this, and reconsider your whole approach to Epistemology:
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
I can't resist from copying here a portion of the summary:
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in the domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.

Loss Leader

30th January 2007, 10:39 AM

Also, having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger: If the demolition is so obvious that even a non-scientist can call on it with certainty... you get my point.

What a very strange thing to say.

It appears obvious to me that the earth is fixed and unmovable and that the sun orbits around us. There is not the slightest feeling of motion as I stand on the earth but the sun clearly and obviously moves through the sky, disappears for about the same amount of time, and then shows up on the other side.

Moreover, I have no drect knowledge that this is not true. Sure, I've been told the earth revolves around the sun and I've been shown diagrams of how that is supposed to work. But all of those sources were experts. I have never seen the earth moving. And if these experts are so stupid as to just disregard what is obvious to the rest of us ...

Your point that your lack of expertise makes you a better judge of the events of 9/11 has no logical foundation ... unless you believe the earth is unmoving at the center of the universe.

Oh, and be sure to disregard anything your doctor tells you. He's an expert and if it's obvious to you that those sores are normal, you probably don't need the AZT.

ConspiRaider

30th January 2007, 10:40 AM

Well kameelyun -

You certainly can't say I didn't warn you. What I told you is what I tell everyone on the Randi Rhodes Message Board: If you really want to run your theories by the professionals, the JREF forum is the place to do it. I was right, wasn't I? I always mention that JREF is the place where conspiracy theories go to die. A fitting end, applied by logicians and professionals.

Background: The Randi Rhodes Message Board spawns from the NYC-based Randi Rhodes radio talk show, one of the few that is NOT rabid right-wing talk in this country. I like Randi's show immensely, and post frequently on her message board. Probably 2,000 of my posts have been dedicated to fighting the 9/11 woo factor, and that is where I saw kameelyun's post of his Popular Mechanics review.

I knew within a few posts I would get the "what are your engineering qualifications?" My answer is: none, other than that I am a concerned citizen. Also, having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger: If the demolition is so obvious that even a non-scientist can call on it with certainty... you get my point.

No, we don't get your point because it is couched within a statement that is overflowing with absurdity. The arrogance you project is astounding. Essentially what you are saying is: The less I know, the wiser I is. Memorize these 3 words: Knowledge is power. Get your knowledge and expertise on controlled demolition together, make your case, set it out on the back porch and see if the cat licks it up.

TellyKNeasuss

30th January 2007, 10:47 AM

Horatius

30th January 2007, 11:00 AM

Memorize these 3 words: Knowledge is power. Get your knowledge and expertise on controlled demolition together, make your case, set it out on the back porch and see if the cat licks it up.

Okay, this may be me showing my ignorance, but here goes:

Is the cat licking it up supposed to be a good thing, or a bad thing?!?!?

These quaint regionalisms can be so confusing!

Minadin

30th January 2007, 11:06 AM

And now you try the old "everyone's opinions are equally valid" schtick. Nope, not going to fly here. People like R.Mackey, Architect and others (like all the guys at PM) really do know more than you about these issues. Their expert opinions, and our opinions based on their expert analyses, really are better than the twoofer crap.

That earned a square on my play-at-home scorecard!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253245bf877da60b8.gif

The argument's not dead till I say "Bingo", durn it. Come on, Kameelyun.

aggle-rithm

30th January 2007, 11:06 AM

aggle-rithm

30th January 2007, 11:08 AM

Okay, this may be me showing my ignorance, but here goes:

Is the cat licking it up supposed to be a good thing, or a bad thing?!?!?

These quaint regionalisms can be so confusing!

Then run it up the flagpole and see if the cat salutes it.

Christophera

30th January 2007, 11:08 AM

They believe our government would never murder its own people (even though they have NO trouble believing OTHER govts would kill THEIR own people), and anyone who thinks as such must be paranoid and even anti-American.

Above is the only thing I object to. Otherwise it's alright.

It is generalizing, a cognitive distortion to say, "our government" and what it does is removes the ideals behind this nation from the peoples grasp. Those ideals are to be found through "our government". How are we to do this if we believe they are killing us?

Our government has been infiltrated. Many governments have been infiltrated.

In the below thread there are clues as to how this infiltration is conducted.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69171&page=6

aggle-rithm

30th January 2007, 11:11 AM

It is generalizing, a cognitive distortion to say, "our government" and what it does is removes the ideals behind this nation from the peoples grasp.

You a David Burns (http://www.feelinggood.com/) fan?

Horatius

30th January 2007, 11:12 AM

Then run it up the flagpole and see if the cat salutes it.

I didn't want to do this, but now I have to. As my mother always said, that fits you like a slap in the mouth!

ConspiRaider

30th January 2007, 11:15 AM

Okay, this may be me showing my ignorance, but here goes:

Is the cat licking it up supposed to be a good thing, or a bad thing?!?!?

These quaint regionalisms can be so confusing!
:D

It's a good thing. True, we Midwesterners in the USA are known for our quaint sayings. On the other hand we produced folks like Thomas Alva Edison and the Wright Brothers. Whaddya gonna do? You take the bitter with the better...

Peephole

30th January 2007, 11:16 AM

The editors flat-out lie when they say that WTC7 was massively damaged when the damage was only minimal, especially in contrast to WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6.
No, sir. You're the liar here.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/wtc_p200009-1.jpg

Horatius

30th January 2007, 11:21 AM

:D

It's a good thing. True, we Midwesterners in the USA are known for our quaint sayings. On the other hand we produced folks like Thomas Alva Edison and the Wright Brothers. Whaddya gonna do? You take the bitter with the better...

Well okay then. I guess I'll have to go take a picture of my cat licking something up, for the next time this comes up :)

Then I'll get a picture of my mother slapping someone in the mouth....

A W Smith

30th January 2007, 11:22 AM

I am a concerned citizen.
You are? of the USA?

Cheers!
Pardon me. I think your Union Jack is showing.

Quad4_72

30th January 2007, 11:32 AM

Wow. I have never seen someone who ran away from the internet so fast...Kameelyun, you come in here presenting everyone with recycled CF garbage and you don't even stick around to defend yourself. You have not presented one piece of evidence to back up a single one of your claims. Did you just read some CF websites and just simply recap everything that they said? Did you look at any of the evidence yourself?

I noticed that you said you did it like a book report. The kind that you do in school. Well you see kameelyun, when you do a book report in school, you use credible sources. Going to CF websites is not considered credible sources. They all have their own personal belief about 9/11 and their own agendas. The fact that you are just recapping what other CFs have said goes to show what kind of researcher and critical thinker you are. When you care to debate with facts, feel free to come back. Until then, enjoy fantasy land.

Arus808

30th January 2007, 11:35 AM

too bad we can't get "reviews" removed from Amazon.com that are patently false.

HyJinX

30th January 2007, 11:36 AM

Well okay then. I guess I'll have to go take a picture of my cat licking something up, for the next time this comes up :)

Then I'll get a picture of my mother slapping someone in the mouth....

Or you could just get a picture of your mother slapping your cat in the mouth. Whatcha think?

pgwenthold

30th January 2007, 11:54 AM

Background: The Randi Rhodes Message Board spawns from the NYC-based Randi Rhodes radio talk show, one of the few that is NOT rabid right-wing talk in this country. I like Randi's show immensely, and post frequently on her message board. Probably 2,000 of my posts have been dedicated to fighting the 9/11 woo factor, and that is where I saw kameelyun's post of his Popular Mechanics review.

Has Randi made her position clear on the issue? Whenever I hear the topic come up, she seems to hedge a lot, but sounds more sympathetic than not. I know she is a big fan of that group of widows who keeps asking for another review.

OTOH, Randi got nothing on Rachel Maddow, by far the best on Air America.

BTW, did you hear Al Franken is quitting as of Feb 14? Speculation is that it is in preparation for a senate bid.

aggle-rithm

30th January 2007, 11:54 AM

Wow. I have never seen someone who ran away from the internet so fast...

It didn't take him long to realize he had brought a whiffle bat to a gun fight.

Pretty smart, for a troofer!

Horatius

30th January 2007, 12:06 PM

Or you could just get a picture of your mother slapping your cat in the mouth. Whatcha think?

Nah, slapping the cat is my Dad's hobby. In his defence, biting my Dad is the cat's hobby, and he started it, so it all works out....

Loss Leader

30th January 2007, 12:08 PM

Our government has been infiltrated. Many governments have been infiltrated.

In the below thread there are clues as to how this infiltration is conducted.

So Christopher's only objection is that the review wasn't crazy enough.

Horatius

30th January 2007, 12:09 PM

It didn't take him long to realize he had brought a whiffle bat to a gun fight.

Pretty smart, for a troofer!

I'm reminded of the South Park episode where Cartman finally decides to kill Kyle.

"What are you doing?"

"I'm killing you, Kyle. I could only afford a whiffle bat, so it will take some time....." Thwap! Thwap!

Kiwiwriter

30th January 2007, 12:17 PM

Jeez, that's too bad. I think the only question of mine that he answered was that he has no technical expertise in engineering or fires at all.

Well, by that logic, since I have no experience or knowledge of juggling chainsaws, I should go out and set up a school to teach the subject.

"Those who can't, teach!"

Well, he had a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it came to pass.

johnny karate

30th January 2007, 12:34 PM

Background: The Randi Rhodes Message Board spawns from the NYC-based Randi Rhodes radio talk show

And here I thought that you and kameelyun were just big Ozzy Osbourne fans.

I imagined posts like this:

"Yeah, that guitar solo in 'Crazy Train' is pretty bitchin', but what's the deal with WTC7?"

Lurker

30th January 2007, 12:47 PM

kameelyun:

Too bad you're gone now. As a fellow seeker of truth like you, I heard that you were involved in the death of Vince Foster. Now, as a seeker of truth it is not my responsibility to provide any evidence of my claim, but my role is just to spur on an investigation.

Someone should investigate you.

How do you like your logic, kameelyun ?

Lurker

SezMe

30th January 2007, 02:22 PM

too bad we can't get "reviews" removed from Amazon.com that are patently false.
Actually, the author can take steps to get a review removed. My mate has twice had reviews removed after demonstating why they should not be allowed. So while I think you are right that we could not get it removed, it still might be possible.

Architect

30th January 2007, 02:53 PM

uk_dave

30th January 2007, 03:10 PM

Okahy Kameelyun

I AM a qualified architect who works on tall buildings and has also studied structures AND fire engineering at university for several years (they're part of the compuslory core curriculum).

What aspects of these would you like to discuss as regards the collapse of the WTC?

Och now, be away with you... Kameelyun don't need no experts...he/she/it has 'common sense'
:D

Architect

30th January 2007, 03:16 PM

Och now, be away with you... Kameelyun don't need no experts...he/she/it has 'common sense'
:D

Let's give the man a chance.

Back at work today at last. MAAAAN the eejit clients have gone and changed things while I was off!!! You'd think they were their buildings or something!!!! :eek:

Kiwiwriter

30th January 2007, 04:32 PM

Och now, be away with you... Kameelyun don't need no experts...he/she/it has 'common sense'
:D

Experts? Experts? We don't need no stinkin' experts! :D

T.A.M.

30th January 2007, 05:39 PM

Yet another hit and run...

Now he reminds me of the big "Goalie Hitman" in that scene in "The Running Man". You know, the one where arnold is on the ice, and then out of the darkness he is checked by the hockey player combatant. Then in an instant the guy is gone...then out of nowhere another check...then gone again...

TAM

Azure

30th January 2007, 06:35 PM

What a troll.

Usually I would say, "don't feed the trolls"...but seriously.

At least he is funny, although very, very ignorant.

ConspiRaider

30th January 2007, 07:20 PM

Has Randi made her position clear on the issue? Whenever I hear the topic come up, she seems to hedge a lot, but sounds more sympathetic than not. I know she is a big fan of that group of widows who keeps asking for another review.

OTOH, Randi got nothing on Rachel Maddow, by far the best on Air America.

BTW, did you hear Al Franken is quitting as of Feb 14? Speculation is that it is in preparation for a senate bid.
This is the one area where Randi R. vacillates - unusual for her, since typically a listener knows EXACTLY where she stands on issues. She seems to skew towards the woos, much to my disappointment. I've started threads on her board directly criticizing her endorsement of 9/11 woo - and then have to take hasty cover from the outrage pouring from her loyal fan base. But I'll do it for the same reason I'm here, for the same reason y'all are here. Accuracy is paramount concerning 9/11. There are too many sensibilities involved.

I don't listen to Rachel Maddow, don't care for her. Nor Sam Seder.

Franken I'll miss. He's starting his Senator from Minnesota bid for 2008. Franken took no callers but had terrific guests. Very sharp folks.

Mike Malloy caught on at Nova M Radio and he's terrific. Except when - yep - he endorses this 9/11 woo-woo crapola.

Randi R. is far and away my favorite, which is where my consternation comes from when she occasionally slips into "inside job" mode. Basically they'll call me every name in the book when I chastise her on her forum - you oughtta see some of the stuff. Oh well. Sometimes, truth hurts. But it's the MOST important thing.

Yer allowed to swear on Randi's forum. And man, do they ever :)

gopi

30th January 2007, 08:16 PM

The bolded section is discredited for a simple, clear reason. American television video runs at 30 frames per second. A single frame is therefore 33.33 milliseconds long, making it impossible for timing to be determined down to the millisecond.

Just to be pedantic...
NTSC runs at 30/1.001, or about 29.97 frames per second. However, it's interlaced.
The field rate is double that, 59.94 fields per second.
You get the odd lines, then the even, then the odd, etc.
Every odd/even pair of fields makes up a frame at around 30/second.

Interlacing is why you often get jagged lines when you watch video on a computer if it came from an interlaced source.
So, the actual number is 16.68ms.

I'm really curious why the original poster said "a millisecond before." My guess is that a millisecond just sounds like a short period of time or something.

CptColumbo

30th January 2007, 11:12 PM

I will post this again.
If you want to point out any specific errors in the PM book/article I have my copy in front of me, just mention a page number and paragraph. I also am in occasional contact with one of the journalists on the original article, so he can clarify any questions not immediately obvious. We can work through this slowly and carefully, and maybe both learn something.

Given your admitted lack of experience and education in the necessary fields, perhaps someone here can put the science in terms you can understand. Just tell us what the specific problems are. We are here to educate. It's part of the title JREF for cryin' out loud.

If they are purely political and idealogical problems, there is not much we can do about that.

robinson

31st January 2007, 09:34 AM

Has this been posted here? I just heard it, and while I almost never read these threads, I thought of this one, and here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WULRQCgvsdE

Interesting exchange. Fuel for the fire? Or debunked?

robinson

31st January 2007, 09:35 AM

I did do a search on the thread first, and found no youtube links.

Alareth

31st January 2007, 10:22 AM

This thread has become pointless as our "fact filled" new friend has pulled a TS1234 and moved on to a new topic in another thread.

robinson

31st January 2007, 10:28 AM

I consider all of them pointless, but the audio I linked to was pretty damn interesting. The evasion was almost woo like. Surprising.

aggle-rithm

31st January 2007, 10:48 AM

Nah, slapping the cat is my Dad's hobby.

I don't think I've ever heard that particular euphamism.

beachnut

31st January 2007, 10:50 AM

That earned a square on my play-at-home scorecard!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253245bf877da60b8.gif

The argument's not dead till I say "Bingo", durn it. Come on, Kameelyun.

Have you posted/can you post a clean set of BINGO cards? I was going to play when I have time as I read and try to develope lessons plans to stop terminal stupidity from occuring in the future.

Belz...

31st January 2007, 10:50 AM

My own voice. I did lots of reading and then put it all into my own words...

Lots of reading. Little comprehending.

You sure read my review very quickly, having replied within a minute of my posting.

We can tell when we've seen an argument before.

The editors flat-out lie when they say that WTC7 was massively damaged when the damage was only minimal, especially in contrast to WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6.

The experts and eyewitnesses seem to disagree with you, for some reason.

I knew this would be the kind of flaming I would receive.

Well at least you're not completely deluded.

Of course, you've never seen some real flaming, but we'll let that slide for now.

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers.

As the claimant, you ARE required to prove your assertions, however.

The amout of swift responses I received here means I must have ruffled some feathers!

Non sequitur.

Belz...

31st January 2007, 10:59 AM

See this animal?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888644bed1fba333b.jpg

Could you tell me just by looking at this animal if it is more closely related to this animal,
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886453ba22b48c43.jpg

or this one?http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886453ba20b93c41.jpg

Tell me!! Tell ME!!

Belz...

31st January 2007, 11:00 AM

I have no idea what James Randi's views are on 9/11, but one thing is pretty clear. This forum is for true believers of the official conspiracy theory.

Not a matter of belief.

However, even those posts were of a "Provide evidence, and I bet you can't, haha."

Well in science evidence tends to be important.

As a "twoofer," my mission is to educate as many people as I can about the existense of the collapse of WTC 7.

You might want to start with yourself, then.

I clearly am not going to change the minds of anyone on this board who disregard Steve Jones' work, who is a physicist... Oh, I'm sorry, his specialty is cold fusion, which makes him totally unqualified to talk about the collapse of buildings.

Indeed, indeed it does.

I knew within a few posts I would get the "what are your engineering qualifications?" My answer is: none, other than that I am a concerned citizen.

... with no way of telling whether a building collapse looks like a CD or not.

Also, having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger: If the demolition is so obvious that even a non-scientist can call on it with certainty... you get my point.

No. Because those with actual qualifications disagree with you.

You know the "air pressure" coming from WTC 7 as it collapses? MAN, they look like blast points!

No, they don't. Again with the lack of knowledge.

Minadin

31st January 2007, 11:02 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253245bf877dcd575.gif

Enjoy.

beachnut

31st January 2007, 11:06 AM

Enjoy.

thanks

Wolverine

31st January 2007, 11:11 AM

:D

Outstanding, Minadin.

Minadin

31st January 2007, 11:44 AM

Thanks, I should point out again that I'm not the originator of that idea, I merely modified some of the squares to more widely apply to all / woo type arguments, since the original one was made on a toy fan / collector website. I'll see if I can find the links to the originals.

Edit:

Where I found it:

http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20060405.html

progressquest

31st January 2007, 12:00 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253245bf877dcd575.gif

Enjoy.

But we can't all have the same copy or else everyone wins at the same time!

aggle-rithm

31st January 2007, 12:02 PM

So, are we going to start debunking Popular Mechanics soon?

DarkMagician

31st January 2007, 12:37 PM

But we can't all have the same copy or else everyone wins at the same time!

Eeeh, I'll mix mine up a little.

Horatius

31st January 2007, 12:57 PM

So, are we going to start debunking Popular Mechanics soon?

That would be a "NO!" on that....

firecoins

31st January 2007, 01:10 PM

I was walking by a newstand and there was Popular Mechanics. I am pretty sure it exists. Ill take a picture next time.

HyJinX

31st January 2007, 01:23 PM

I was walking by a newstand and there was Popular Mechanics. I am pretty sure it exists. Ill take a picture next time.

A picture is too risky. You better videotape it.

Arkan_Wolfshade

31st January 2007, 01:24 PM

A picture is too risky. You better videotape it.
pfft, it'll still be out of focus, and with jerky camera movements.

HyJinX

31st January 2007, 01:27 PM

pfft, it'll still be out of focus, and with jerky camera movements.

Maybe Firecoins could interview the editor to validate the authenticity of the publication?

NAH...the crappy photo and video is proof-positive. Plus the editor is a paid shill. That rag supports PNAC and the rest of the NEOCONZIS.

PM+Neocons=inside job. It's so obvious.

robinson

31st January 2007, 11:42 PM

I consider all of them pointless, but the audio I linked to was pretty damn interesting. The evasion was almost woo like. Surprising.

Dog Town

31st January 2007, 11:53 PM

. Plus the editor is a paid shill.

Yeah, he's the first cousin of homey defense! A twoofer said it, it must be twooo! LMFAO alot!

robinson

31st January 2007, 11:56 PM

The evasion is woo like. How strange.

Gravy

1st February 2007, 12:19 AM

The evasion is woo like. How strange.I listened to the audio. Coburn handles the questions very poorly. The host is entirely wrong in his assertions. The caller is technically correct that "pull" is a demolition term. It is used in conventional demolition circles to mean attaching cables to a portion of a building and physically pulling it down. It is not a term used for explosive demolitions, which is the distinction Coburn should have made.

The DNA of 10 hijackers was matched to profiles from samples found in motel rooms, rental cars, etc. There was no DNA of relatives to match it to. An interesting fact is that remains from two brothers was recovered at the Pentagon and identified as fraternal by DNA analysis. The only brothers who died there on 9/11? Two of the hijackers.

robinson

1st February 2007, 12:22 AM

Thanks.

Dog Town

1st February 2007, 12:26 AM

The evasion is woo like. How strange.

What evasion? You meant to say, lack of research by the questioner. Is woo like, I guess...

robinson

1st February 2007, 09:04 AM

No, the evading of the question about DNA evidence. I guess he just didn't know the answer. Unlike Gravy, who seems to know the answer.