|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
15th September 2007, 11:50 PM | #81 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
|
|
15th September 2007, 11:58 PM | #82 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
|
No, it won't, considering that that site is a fraud: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=83483
How is having a CT subforum repugnant? This is a website about critical thinking, especially devoted to the promotion of science and the critical analysis of pseudo-science. CTs generally fall under the latter designation. |
16th September 2007, 12:07 AM | #83 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
|
Well, I'll admit you're a braver man than Anus Licker, his response wouldn't even acknowledge the original question.
Quote:
Why would a government in posession of such a device ever conspire to launch wars over a dirty, messy and far outclassed energy source? |
16th September 2007, 12:08 AM | #84 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
|
|
16th September 2007, 12:59 AM | #85 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 714
|
So wait, this extremely intellectual crowd here spams a website and joins with childish names, The webmasters catch on to it shut down the enrollment method you exposed (temporarily) and they remove the bogus enteries and you all sit here and joke about?
How does that make ae911 a fraud? |
16th September 2007, 01:16 AM | #86 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
|
We went to war with Iraq based on inadequate, misleading, and largely cherry-picked (by the Bush Admin.) intelligence. The official account of 9/11 is not based on faulty intelligence, but on massive investigations and sound science. NIST, for example, is not some shadowy government entity that does the will of the Bush administration. There are thousands of witnesses and scientists who corroborate the official version of the events of 9/11 and have no connection with the Bush administration whatsoever. Additionally, there are simply too many people who would have had to be involved in the conspiracy for it to have been kept a secret all this time. Where are the confessing low-level conspirators? Also, your Iraqi civilian death count is incorrect. The highest estimation of Iraqi casualties is from the Lancet study at about 650,000 in toto, i.e. all Iraqi deaths, including those of insurgents and Saddam's military personnel. Its methodology has also been questioned.
You're right, however, that we certainly wouldn't be in Afghanistan, and probably not in Iraq either, if 9/11 hadn't happened (though not because the Bush administration wouldn't have tried*; popular opinion just would not have supported it.) But this hardly proves that 9/11 was an inside job. Politicians exploit tragedies for their own purposes all the time. Why can't that be the case here? Nevertheless, you can bet we'd still be rattling swords with Iran. It could even be argued that if we weren't bogged down in Iraq we might have already bombed the sites of Iran's nuclear program by now. Hard to say, though. As for the Pearl Harbor CT, I don't think that's true and it certainly isn't the historical consensus, but I'll let the WWII junkies here deal with that claim. ETA: clarification. *with Iraq, I mean, not Afghanistan. |
16th September 2007, 01:26 AM | #87 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
|
Because they didn't remove all the bogus entries, even after that incident. At that point they did no verification at all, and that thread exposed this very obvious flaw. They still do very little verification, and you can see that a great number of entries have still not been verified at all (see the little asterisks). Considering this earlier unscrupulousness, why should anyone trust their verification methods at this point?
|
16th September 2007, 01:31 AM | #88 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 714
|
|
16th September 2007, 01:33 AM | #89 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 714
|
|
16th September 2007, 01:42 AM | #90 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
|
How else would it be exposed but by exploiting its lack of authenticity, and how is doing so fraudulent? It was, after all, done quite openly, with no intent to deceive (something that can't be said for Richard Gage & co.). Just to teach a lesson. They should be thankful for that.
|
16th September 2007, 01:55 AM | #91 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 714
|
The 1M figure came from the article in the LA Times (9/14). They said it was a high estimate, but since the new Iraq gov't won't tell and our military isn't keeping track (or doesn't care) are we gonna split hairs on whether its 500k dead or 1M dead!?!?!?
Assuming that this supposed inside job was carried out by elements w/in our military, no matter what the #'s of peeps involved (w/in reason) would not matter. Military runs on a chain of command, think compartmentalization......a lot boot lickers do not question orders given to them and are trained not to. A lot of operations could be done by different groups or teams in stages and none of them given enough info to put it all together. I'm not caliming to know how or what order things were done, but hopefully ya'll are catchin my drift. Or (better still for the perpetrators) if its a private military force ie., the Blackwater mercenaries, the cover-up would be that much easier. You gotta wonder where all that unaccounted $$$ ended up that the Pentagon lost. |
16th September 2007, 05:52 AM | #92 |
Based on a true story!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
|
It's not asking you to speculate. These weapons would have to produce a tremendous amount of energy to do the things you claim. That means they would need a huge energy source. I'm asking you to calculate this for yourself so you can see how ridiculously large such a weapon would be, and how outlandish the power requirements would be. Then maybe, having done this, you will see exactly how stupid this idea is. Directed energy beams of the power you're talking about are as real as saying my cookies are baked by elves in trees!
|
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom |
|
16th September 2007, 06:54 AM | #93 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
|
HereticHulk:
About the "dustified" steel: Each Twin Tower contained about 100,000 tonnes of structural steel which was about 20 % of the total mass of the building. If the steel was "dustified" we should find it in the WTC dust that drifted over Lower Manhattan after the towers collapsed. However, the USGS found an average of only about 1.6 wt % iron in its WTC dust samples. The main ingredients in the WTC dust were concrete, gypsum and MMVF (man-made vitreous fibers); slag wool was one of the major MMVFs which contains iron as does the aggregate in the concrete. Another source of iron in the WTC dust would be the floor pans which were either shredded or subject to chemical attack by acid fumes, etc, before, during or after the collapse of the towers. Thus the amount of iron found in the WTC dust is easy to explain without invoking DEWs. Finally, lots of more-or-less intact structural steel was recovered from the rubble pile, most of which still had the original brownish-orange primer paint visible on its surface. So, HereticHulk, how much steel do you believe was "dustified" by the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, and where is the physical evidence? |
16th September 2007, 07:41 AM | #94 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
|
Have ever ascertained what, strictly speaking, "dustification" is?
Seems like a truther magic word, to me. Made up hocus-pocus to sound official while applying pseudoscience. |
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire |
|
16th September 2007, 08:27 AM | #95 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
|
|
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." |
|
16th September 2007, 09:01 AM | #96 |
Critical Doofus
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,421
|
|
__________________
"You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet |
|
16th September 2007, 09:18 AM | #97 |
Drunken Shikigami
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
|
|
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein |
|
16th September 2007, 09:38 AM | #98 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
|
My biggest issue with AE911 is their dubious use of the term "engineer".
They are engaged in spin. The 'truth' movement has been embarrassed for a long time by questions about why no architects and structural engineers support their claims. Well now they have their architect. But they are being less than honest in claiming mechanical engineers and electrical engineers as being the professionals whose opinions about a structural collapse should be listened to. If AE911 was honest, they would only have architects and structural engineers as their base. But, like I say, they spin this and they undoubtedly spin their knowledge of the wtc towers and the collapse. |
16th September 2007, 09:41 AM | #99 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
|
|
16th September 2007, 10:00 AM | #100 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
|
Perhaps the biggest flaw with AE911 is that none of their structural engineers appear to have written a damn thing about the WTC collapses.
|
16th September 2007, 10:55 AM | #101 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,892
|
Quote:
|
16th September 2007, 10:58 AM | #102 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
|
16th September 2007, 11:55 AM | #103 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,682
|
|
16th September 2007, 12:09 PM | #104 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 496
|
|
16th September 2007, 12:55 PM | #105 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
16th September 2007, 01:03 PM | #106 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
|
16th September 2007, 01:05 PM | #107 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
|
16th September 2007, 01:17 PM | #108 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
|
I strongly doubt that anybody here believes that you have any interest in the truth. There is no such animal as "the government's story." That belief is absurd. Crimes usually have motives. Your estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths has been exposed as wildly implausible. No "lies" got us involved in the Middle East. Why not actually attempt to read the PNAC paper? I understand that I'm making a, heh-heh, heretical suggestion, but you'll find that nobody was proposing to conquer the world. Really. Pearl Harbor was not allowed to happen. That is the verdict of historians who have studied the event. If we had been aware that a sneak attack was in the works, don't you think we might have alerted our forces and prevented the destruction of much of the Pacific fleet? We could have fought back effectively and still have preserved an excuse to go to war with Japan. Incidentally, Hitler really did want to conquer the world. Would letting him achieve his aim have been a good idea? How did we trick him into declaring war on us when his pact with Japan did not require him to do so? They are frauds and charlatans who display contempt for reason and evidence. They spit on the graves of the jihadists' victims to hawk their worthless DVDs. They are cowardly liars who flee from opportunities to defend the preposterous nonsense they promote. They betray the principles of their professions and lack even a shred of common decency. Other than that, I guess they're okay. |
16th September 2007, 01:31 PM | #109 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 496
|
Well some of them are pretty crazy.
|
16th September 2007, 03:34 PM | #110 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 714
|
from PNAC:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
facts of Pearl Harbor have recently been sufficiently exposed by books from Robert Stinnett & George Victor (respectively) for anyone who cares to transcend the myth. http://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Tru...9217578&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Pearl-Harbor-M...5/lewrockwell/ FDR knew that the American public and Congress would not support participation in WW2. history repeats! |
16th September 2007, 03:44 PM | #111 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 714
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1rT4bszWg
Quote:
so, where did money go? what was it used for? |
16th September 2007, 03:44 PM | #112 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 821
|
|
16th September 2007, 03:53 PM | #113 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 496
|
It didn't go anywhere, they just couldn't track it. And it was initially "lost" by the clinton administration
Quote:
|
16th September 2007, 03:57 PM | #114 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 714
|
Pictures of dustification and if this isn't a pyroclastic flow, what is?
http://static.scribd.com/docs/4vmze1swjhwq1.swf Also, if the floor joist were heated and being pulled in from the sagging and pulling the facade inwards to initiate the collapse, why do we see parts of the facade (falling?) up and outwards. which would imply an explosion? |
16th September 2007, 03:59 PM | #115 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 714
|
wow, you convinced me!
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/ Lets not turn this into a Bush vs. Clinton thing. They are peas in a pod! |
16th September 2007, 04:03 PM | #116 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
|
16th September 2007, 04:04 PM | #117 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
|
16th September 2007, 04:04 PM | #118 | |||
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,718
|
This is:
|
|||
16th September 2007, 04:05 PM | #119 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 496
|
|
16th September 2007, 04:05 PM | #120 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|