New Member

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Hi Donal!

Quick clarification on the Windsor building. I am not using it as a reference point to the actual collapse (as some conspiracy sites do). I am merely referring to the reaction of the steel to the heat. That is, the gradual bending.
I could have used the reference to the toilet factory to make my point. That is all.

Thanks!

The gradual bending you see at the Windsor building was because the steel got hot and soft enough to sag under its own weight. Long before steel gets soft enough to sag, its load-bearing capacity diminishes (i.e. it weakens). If the steel happens to be bearing an enormous load (like a building, say) as it weakens, it will fail nearly instantaneously.

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Though right now I am reserving judgement, let me say that PDoh has had enough socks in here to lose a dozen to the dryer, and still clothe his feet for a week.

As for the "Mark of Woo", the first stage is present, but so it is almost all new arrivals. The truth will present itself sooner or later.

For now I am taking Hyperviolet on face value.

TAM

Thanks TAM, i appreciate that.

I have not come hear to cause problems, but to learn.

[Augustine]

Originally Posted by Garrette

You are correct; the CIA did have involvement.

But the CIA is not remotely equivalent to Military Intelligence. That's my point. If you are going to seriously discuss topics like this, you need to be clear about your terms.

To clarify: Military Intelligence (MI) is one branch (sub-branch) of the U.S. Army which, on a tactical level handles both security and intelligence analysis, as well as limited OPFOR (opposing forces) simulated play. At higher levels, it deals primarily with determination of collection requirements, tasking of organic collectors (primarily electronic and not human), and analysis of enormous amounts of collected data.

MI does not have operatives or agents in the sense the CIA does, nor does it get involved in training of foreign covert groups as the CIA did with Battalion 316 in El Salvador.

Hope that helps.

Absolutely correct, I would also add that Oliver North was an Infantry Officer, not an Intelligence Officer. Distrust of Military Intelligence supposedly because of Iran Contra is baseless.

[Without Rights]

Originally Posted by Minadin

I know it's early and that this is no way to treat a new member, so I apologize in advance if I am wrong, but I would like to take this opportunity to voice my "gut" feeling of , and dedicate it to P'Doh.

In the case that you're not the latest and greatest incarnation of that fool, however, welcome aboard, and would you mind telling us what you mean by "some government involvement" and what specifically makes you suspect this? We don't normally use "unanswered questions" to base any sort of belief upon; rather we strive to answer those questions with real evidence.

Do you have any evidence you would like to share, or is yours just a gut feeling, like mine, which you could admittedly be wrong about?

I thought I was P'doh?

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

I thought I was P'doh?

I am Kirk Douglas, I mean Spartacus.

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by Garrette

I am Kirk Douglas, I mean Spartacus.

Will the real Slim Shady please stand up?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

I thought I was P'doh?

False dilemma

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Allow for any part of the day to be MIHOP, and you end up needing almost everything else to be MIHOP, because losing any one link risks exposing the whole plot for all to see.

Excellent point!

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Originally Posted by scooby

No thats me remember?

Me too. I was P'doh for a while. I think it's a common greeting. A little paranoia.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

I thought I was P'doh?

lol...we could turn the PDoh Sock thing into the scene from "Sparticus"...

I am PDoh...No I am PDoh....I am PDoh.

TAM

Edit: DOh! (no P), seems great minds, with a touch of paranoia, think alike.

TAM

[Without Rights]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Thanks TAM, i appreciate that.

I have not come hear to cause problems, but to learn.

I forsee problems, although not caused by you. If you don't want to get attacked here then just nod your head and agree with everybody. If not, I hope you don't mind a barrage of insults coming from all directions. And that's coming from someone who isn't even sure what happened that fateful day.

[Horatius]

Okay, it's time to admit it - We're all PD'oh! The entire JREF forum is just a psychotic fantasy acting out in his head!

[Without Rights]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Me too. I was P'doh for a while. I think it's a common greeting. A little paranoia.

There might be only one truther in the world, and his name is P'doh.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Originally Posted by Augustine

Absolutely correct, I would also add that Oliver North was an Infantry Officer, not an Intelligence Officer. Distrust of Military Intelligence supposedly because of Iran Contra is baseless.

Do members of military intelligence wear a "military intelligence" badge and nametag? I would hope not. So how do we know he was not military intel?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

I forsee problems, although not caused by you. If you don't want to get attacked here then just nod your head and agree with everybody. If not, I hope you don't mind a barrage of insults coming from all directions. And that's coming from someone who isn't even sure what happened that fateful day.

Nobody, NOBODY knows what happened that fateful day. Except those who did it.

[Without Rights]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Okay, it's time to admit it - We're all PD'oh! The entire JREF forum is just a psychotic fantasy acting out in his head!

Whoa!!! That's deep.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Me too. I was P'doh for a while. I think it's a common greeting. A little paranoia.

Already been discussed.


There really isn't anything new going on, is there?

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

I forsee problems, although not caused by you. If you don't want to get attacked here then just nod your head and agree with everybody. If not, I hope you don't mind a barrage of insults coming from all directions. And that's coming from someone who isn't even sure what happened that fateful day.

While I cannot, and will not speak for all here, I try at least, to be helpful and free from antagonism unless someone starts to make accusations on something, in which case, like most here, I demand proof. If it is not presented, I consider the accusation useless at best, hurtful and slanderous at worst.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Okay, it's time to admit it - We're all PD'oh! The entire JREF forum is just a psychotic fantasy acting out in his head!

So maybe the JREF is PDoh's "Matrix".

LOL

TAM

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Do members of military intelligence wear a "military intelligence" badge and nametag? I would hope not. So how do we know he was not military intel?

Yes, they do. At least did with all the previous uniforms.

An Army officer chooses (or is assigned) a specific branch. In my case, I chose Military Intelligence. That meant my file read 35A (at first; then it was changed to 35D, though I also have training in 35C and 35E). It's not classified, and never was.

On my greens and blues, I wore the shiny Military Intelligence branch symbol.

On my field uniforms, the subdued cloth version of the Military Intelligence branch symbol was on my collar.

The latest uniforms (ACUs) no longer sport the branch symbols, but officers are still assigned based on their branches, and the branch is not classified.

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

I forsee problems, although not caused by you. If you don't want to get attacked here then just nod your head and agree with everybody. If not, I hope you don't mind a barrage of insults coming from all directions. And that's coming from someone who isn't even sure what happened that fateful day.

Well i have expressed my doubts over the official narrative and so far replies have been welcoming and informative. I am sincere in my questions and my skepticism, i expect to be challenged on my beliefs but treated fairly!

Hopefully no mud-slinging will occur

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Do members of military intelligence wear a "military intelligence" badge and nametag? I would hope not. So how do we know he was not military intel?

US Army Military Inteligence Insignia

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Redtail

http://home.comcast.net/%7Esmcdonald91/micrest.gif
US Army Military Inteligence Insignia

My beloved rose, sun, and dagger.

I'm no longer MI (having to switch first to PSYOP and then to CA to find Reserve positions), but I'm still quite fond of it.

[Without Rights]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

While I cannot, and will not speak for all here, I try at least, to be helpful and free from antagonism unless someone starts to make accusations on something, in which case, like most here, I demand proof. If it is not presented, I consider the accusation useless at best, hurtful and slanderous at worst.

TAM

Although we did argue, I consider you one of the more polite and intelligent JREFer's. Unfortunately this is not the standard. Some people only post when they have insults like this is ametuer night at the appollo. They might as well start with "your mama is so fat"

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Well i have expressed my doubts over the official narrative and so far replies have been welcoming and informative. I am sincere in my questions and my skepticism, i expect to be challenged on my beliefs but treated fairly!

Hopefully no mud-slinging will occur

My suggestion, would be...

(1) Do a search for a topic in the search section. If you do not find what you are looking for, or wish to debate a point, or some piece of information you have found,

(2) Start up a thread on a given topic.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

Although we did argue, I consider you one of the more polite and intelligent JREFer's. Unfortunately this is not the standard. Some people only post when they have insults like this is ametuer night at the appollo. They might as well start with "your mama is so fat"

Ya it happens...on both sides. On this side I call it suffering from Chronic Debunking Syndrom (CDS), though other names for it exist (lol). When you have an onslaught of "truthers" or others coming in asking the same questions, or even worse, making the same unfounded accusations, over and over, many of the more senior members here, and sometimes the newer ones, will become very annoyed and antagonist. They have answered these questions, and debated these same accusations 30, 40, 50 times already. It is unfortunate, but understood.

I see it from many of the senior LCF members when Oliver or others go over there and ask their questions, so it works both ways...and is understood.

TAM

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Nobody, NOBODY knows what happened that fateful day. Except those who did it.

I know. My children know. Most people I know, know.

Unless you mean we don't know every mechanical detail of every mechanical failure of every affected building.

Or we don't know every insignificant detail of every action of every member of the plotting group.

Or we don't have the actual written plan of the terrorists, notarized and hand-delivered to Loose Change.

There will always be something that escapes our knowledge, but in this particular event on that particular day, the sum of our knowledge far exceeds the gaps in it.

[Augustine]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Do members of military intelligence wear a "military intelligence" badge and nametag? I would hope not. So how do we know he was not military intel?

Military officers are assigned a branch or specialty. Oliver North was USMC, his specialty was 0302, or Infantry Officer. You also can look at his assignments over his career. He was an infantry officer. I have not read his autobiography, but perhaps you could read it for further research.

Do you accept that Oliver North was not military intel, and accept it as fact? "Skeptical critical" does not mean "perpetually doubting and disbelieving"; otherwise you are merely arbitrarily cherry-picking what you believe or believing nothing.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by skepticalcriticalguy

Nobody, NOBODY knows what happened that fateful day. Except those who did it.

Yep 19 dead terrorists.

Why are the passengers of flight 93 so much smarter than skepticalcriticalguy, withoutrights, pagan, scooby, et al.?

Because in minutes they figured out 9/11. Minutes! It has taken 5 years for the CTers to mess up 9/11 beyond recognition with lies and fraud.

Say hello to the 9/11 truhers! Hello liars.

Say hello to flight 93! Hello heroes!

Say good bye truthers. Good bye liars.

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by Donal

In order for you to be on the fence, there needs to be another side you believe to make a legitimate argument.

What are the two sides in the WTC 7 issue you are teetering between?

Sorry Donal - i missed this post earlier. Well, ive already said my points *for* the controlled demoltion theory, earlier. What i am teetering with is the firefighters expectation that it was goin to come down and thus built a collapse zone (as pointed out in Gravys WTC 7 paper). Also the fact that engineers state that the collapse could have happened as it did. I must respect their expertise and assume that then, yes it can happen as it did. As unusual as it may look to these eyes.

Let it be said : If the engineers had concluded it was explosives/bombs/shaped charges that took down WTC 7 i probably be sold on that conclusion. Purely because that conclusion would match my expectatation of how a CD looks and echo that analysis put forth by Jowenko.

I hope i have answered your question!

[Arus808]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

analysis put forth by Jowenko.

[/quote]

the point is that Jowenko's opinion can't be considered an analysis by any definition of the scientific method.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Sorry Donal - i missed this post earlier. Well, ive already said my points *for* the controlled demoltion theory, earlier. What i am teetering with is the firefighters expectation that it was goin to come down and thus built a collapse zone (as pointed out in Gravys WTC 7 paper). Also the fact that engineers state that the collapse could have happened as it did. I must respect their expertise and assume that then, yes it can happen as it did. As unusual as it may look to these eyes.

Let it be said : If the engineers had concluded it was explosives/bombs/shaped charges that took down WTC 7 i probably be sold on that conclusion. Purely because that conclusion would match my expectatation of how a CD looks and echo that analysis put forth by Jowenko.

I hope i have answered your question!

As mentioned above, it is a great leap to call what Jowenko has said on WTC7 an ANALYSIS.

TAM

[Without Rights]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Yep 19 dead terrorists.

Why are the passengers of flight 93 so much smarter than skepticalcriticalguy, withoutrights, pagan, scooby, et al.?

Because in minutes they figured out 9/11. Minutes! It has taken 5 years for the CTers to mess up 9/11 beyond recognition with lies and fraud.

Say hello to the 9/11 truhers! Hello liars.

Say hello to flight 93! Hello heroes!

Say good bye truthers. Good bye liars.

Hey T.A.M.

Case in point.

[Hyperviolet]

the point is that Jowenko's opinion can't be considered an analysis by any definition of the scientific method.[/quote]

I was referring to his 'analysis' as in his valued opinion as an expert, if you will.
Sorry for the confusion.

[VespaGuy]

Welcome to the forums, Hyperviolet.

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

As a stauch atheist and general skeptic for the most part i feel almost dirty being "conspiracy theorist" haha.. though i have to be honest with myself and beliefs.

It was this part of your post that caught my attention, because I find that the evolution vs creationism/ID debate is almost identical to the 9/11 conspiracy debate.

The '9/11 conspiracies' are just like creationism and ID.

Both creationism and 9/11 CTs have no concrete foundation, they simply are based on attacking the oposition. Creation arguments say "evolution isn't possible, therefore it must have been Creationism/ID". CTs say "The official story isn't possible, therefore it's an inside job". Neither creationists nor CTs have come up with a full explaination of their theory.

Both creationism and 9/11 CTs attack the 'holes' in the other position. Creationism attempts to exploit the 'missing' fossils as proof that evolution isn't true, just as CTs attempt to exploit 'missing' details of the official account (How come nobody knows how WTC7 collapsed? It's a conspiracy!)

Both creationism and 9/11 CTs have an extremely small handful of experts. Creationism has Behe and Dembski. CTs have Jones and wood. These experts appeal to the public through books and websites, rather than publishing their findings for peer-review. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution and the official account of 9/11.

Because of this, both creationists and 9/11 CT experts are largely ignored by the manistream scientific community. And, of course, this is spun by these camps to mean that the scientists are 'afraid' of these contradictory ideas, when in reality the scientific community disregards them so as not to lend them credibility. If their were valid arguments from creationists or cts, they could easily be submitted for peer-review, but they never are.

Both creationists and 9/11 CTs present the same arguments, over and over agian. Arguments that have been debunked over and over continue to resurface and take on a new life with each new individual. Neither creation nor 9/11 cts will be any closer to fact in 5, 10, or 100 years.

Both creationists and 9/11 CTs are immovable in their beliefs. Most will admit that NO evience can sway them that they are incorrect (I'm looking at you Dylan). Whereas, evolution can be disproven by a great number of things (scrambled fossil records, etc). The official 9/11 account can also be disproven in a number of ways (explosives found in buildings, verifiable insider confession, etc).

Both creationists and 9/11 CTs rely on the ignorance of the masses to further their 'theories'. They oversimplify their arguments and make it palatable to the masses. Creationists say things like "look at how comples the eye is! It was obviously designed", except that with the exception of a small few, the scientific community does not believe this to be so. CTs say "look at WTC7! It was obviously a controlled demolition.", except that with the exception of a small few, the scientific community does not believe this to be so.

Both creationists and 9/11 CTs knowingly lie to make their point. Creationists use quotes out of context to imply that mainstream science questions evolution, or that a top scientist believes in creation. CTs use quotes out of context to imply that bombs were seen in the buldings.

The list of similarities goes on and on. At some point, Hyperviolet, sit back and ask yourself what makes you accept evolution and reject Creationism/ID. Apply that same logic, that same thinking to the events of 9/11. You'll find that 9/11 Cts and creationists are very much alike.

I will ask you only one question: What evidence would convince you that 9/11 was not LIHOP or MIHOP?

Once again, welcome to the forum.

[Without Rights]

Originally Posted by Garrette

My beloved rose, sun, and dagger.

I'm no longer MI (having to switch first to PSYOP and then to CA to find Reserve positions), but I'm still quite fond of it.

A question for a MI guy. Is the National Security Council part of MI?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Why are the passengers of flight 93 so much smarter than skepticalcriticalguy, withoutrights, pagan, scooby, et al.?

Because they knew it really counted.

It's easy to sit around in your living room and play "What If" games involving terrorists vs. spooks vs. NWO vs. evil Lectroids from Planet 10, but when you're in the thick of it, and your choices actually matter, and will actually influence how the day will go, you don't have the luxury of playing What If. You toss aside all the garbage and act as best you see fit.

[Pardalis]

By the way Without Rights...

You stated:

Originally Posted by Without Rights

I don't think 911 was an inside job, but I question the official account, does that make me a CTer?

but a little while later...

Originally Posted by Without Rights

I can prove that a building CAN be brought down in the same manner seen on 9/11 with explosives.

I'm still waiting.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

A question for a MI guy. Is the National Security Council part of MI?

No.

MI has one meaning and one meaning only: It is that specialty within the US Army dealing with the analysis (and partly the collection) of data about the enemy, potential enemies, and the environment in which friendly forces might operate. It has nothing to do with James Bond type issues, and only deals with national level issues insofar as they impinge upon national level military/army operations and contingencies. It is purely military, though on infrequent occasions it will deal with civilian agencies.

If you want a realistic idea of what MI does (as opposed to the Hollywood portrayal of it) think about a civilian "Business Intelligence Analyst." Very nearly the same thing but applied in a different milieu.

The NSC is the President's forum whose principle duties involve advising the President on national level security matters. It is almost completely civilian, though the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a seat on it.

ETA: I have been too restrictive in insisting that MI belongs only to the Army. The Air Force and Marines have equivalents, as does the Navy though the Navy, I think, has a different name for it.

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by VespaGuy

Welcome to the forums, Hyperviolet.



It was this part of your post that caught my attention, because I find that the evolution vs creationism/ID debate is almost identical to the 9/11 conspiracy debate.

The '9/11 conspiracies' are just like creationism and ID.

Both creationism and 9/11 CTs have no concrete foundation, they simply are based on attacking the oposition. Creation arguments say "evolution isn't possible, therefore it must have been Creationism/ID". CTs say "The official story isn't possible, therefore it's an inside job". Neither creationists nor CTs have come up with a full explaination of their theory.

Both creationism and 9/11 CTs attack the 'holes' in the other position. Creationism attempts to exploit the 'missing' fossils as proof that evolution isn't true, just as CTs attempt to exploit 'missing' details of the official account (How come nobody knows how WTC7 collapsed? It's a conspiracy!)

Both creationism and 9/11 CTs have an extremely small handful of experts. Creationism has Behe and Dembski. CTs have Jones and wood. These experts appeal to the public through books and websites, rather than publishing their findings for peer-review. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution and the official account of 9/11.

Because of this, both creationists and 9/11 CT experts are largely ignored by the manistream scientific community. And, of course, this is spun by these camps to mean that the scientists are 'afraid' of these contradictory ideas, when in reality the scientific community disregards them so as not to lend them credibility. If their were valid arguments from creationists or cts, they could easily be submitted for peer-review, but they never are.

Both creationists and 9/11 CTs present the same arguments, over and over agian. Arguments that have been debunked over and over continue to resurface and take on a new life with each new individual. Neither creation nor 9/11 cts will be any closer to fact in 5, 10, or 100 years.

Both creationists and 9/11 CTs are immovable in their beliefs. Most will admit that NO evience can sway them that they are incorrect (I'm looking at you Dylan). Whereas, evolution can be disproven by a great number of things (scrambled fossil records, etc). The official 9/11 account can also be disproven in a number of ways (explosives found in buildings, verifiable insider confession, etc).

Both creationists and 9/11 CTs rely on the ignorance of the masses to further their 'theories'. They oversimplify their arguments and make it palatable to the masses. Creationists say things like "look at how comples the eye is! It was obviously designed", except that with the exception of a small few, the scientific community does not believe this to be so. CTs say "look at WTC7! It was obviously a controlled demolition.", except that with the exception of a small few, the scientific community does not believe this to be so.

Both creationists and 9/11 CTs knowingly lie to make their point. Creationists use quotes out of context to imply that mainstream science questions evolution, or that a top scientist believes in creation. CTs use quotes out of context to imply that bombs were seen in the buldings.

The list of similarities goes on and on. At some point, Hyperviolet, sit back and ask yourself what makes you accept evolution and reject Creationism/ID. Apply that same logic, that same thinking to the events of 9/11. You'll find that 9/11 Cts and creationists are very much alike.

I will ask you only one question: What evidence would convince you that 9/11 was not LIHOP or MIHOP?

Once again, welcome to the forum.

Thanks for the welcome, Vespa!

As i have stated in a previous post. My *beliefs* parrallel that of a creationist or one who believes in Intelligent Design, and it bothers me! Haha However, from everything i have read on September 11th i do feel that some kind of coverup is in play.

What would convince me that 9/11 was not LIHOP or MIHOP? Probably, an independant investigation of the attack by those who have nothing to gain or lose which followed all the leads including funding, ISI... everything and came to the conclusion that there was no foul play. An investigation that the family members could all agree was throrough with no questions skipped. Coupled with a solid analysis of WTC 7 collapse (which NIST are currently working on as we speak)