FREE TAPATALK APP

SirPhilip · 3rd February 2006, 12:15 AM

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click

Any thoughts?

brodski · 3rd February 2006, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by SirPhilip

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click

Any thoughts?

thoghts? a whole 17 pages of them!

slingblade · 3rd February 2006, 12:42 AM

Hoax: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous.

Nope. It wasn't a hoax.

brodski · 3rd February 2006, 12:50 AM

Seriously, read through their "evidence", even if you take it all at face value, is it more probable that the US Govt made some mistakes, or that the US Govt murdered thousands of its own citizens?

Basically all they have are a few inconsistant statements and a lot of hand waving.

(I'd be more suspicious if everything was full accounted for, because reality doesn't work like that, people misspeak, they misremember, and are sometimes ill informed or confused- even in govt),
Its a classic PCT.

and dead wrong.

boooeee · 3rd February 2006, 12:53 AM

From the link:

Quote:

(PRWEB) - Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

Hmmmm.....I wonder who wrote this unbiased and thoughtful article?

Once again, from the link:

Quote:

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
James Fetzer
218 724-2706

This brilliant post has been brought to you by the distinguished scholar, boooeee (references available upon request).

epepke · 3rd February 2006, 01:01 AM

The twin towers never were there, Winston. And we've always been at war with Eurasia.

LostAngeles · 3rd February 2006, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by boooeee

From the link:

Hmmmm.....I wonder who wrote this unbiased and thoughtful article?

Once again, from the link:

This brilliant post has been brought to you by the distinguished scholar, boooeee (references available upon request).

Look at part of the link "bs_prweb"

That gives one major clue and one observation.

LostAngeles · 3rd February 2006, 01:44 AM

But more specfically:

Quote:

*In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

It is my understanding that the intense heat of the fires weakend the steel supporting the upper floors which caused the collapse of the buildings. As far as history goes, it can be a good predictor but under unusal and extreme circumstances... first time for everything, as they say.

Quote:

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

Are they certain its the exact same people or are they people with similar names? Could the BBC have made a mistake? When did they make this report?

Quote:

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

I heard that too and at the time I believe it was the Boeing 707 that was the standard. A modern 737 is much, much smaller than a 767, which, if I'm not mistaken, was the model flown into the WTC. Also, see answers about the fire.

Quote:

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

The fire was fed by the carpeting and furniture in the offices. Also, as I've said, I understood it to be simply that the steel was weakend enough that it could not suport the above floors.

Quote:

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

That depends on when it disappeared. They lost contact with all of the flights at some point during the attacks, didn't they?

Quote:

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

They also weren't smart enough to realize how lousy Logan security is to have only taken two planes. Snark aside, the Pentagon wasn't their orginal target, The White House or the Capitol building was, but they couldn't spot them as easily.

Quote:

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

How is it that it could not have been to shoot it down? Was Cheney possibly asking if the orders to shoot planes down still stood in the event of other attacks? Was he asking why that plane had not been shot down yet?

Quote:

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

Not sure. Possibly at what angle the plane came in, if it hit anything else coming in, or even speed?

Quote:

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

With a sledgehammer. I think what they're looking for is "Why?" and I have to ask, "Evidence? of this event?"

Quote:

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Uh, remember her answer about the 8/6/01 Presidential Daily Briefing to the Commission? Yeah. They don't answer questions too goodly sometimes in this adminstration.

(Anything I've erred on or am off base on, please correct. Most of this was done from what I remembered)

NeilC · 3rd February 2006, 01:47 AM

To be frank, seeing as you are not a structural engineer who has studied the construction of the towers closely whilst combining that with your detailed knowledge of aircraft physics and fire forensics......why attach much relevance to the feeling that the collapse was "odd"?

Lots of things I don't know much about strike me as odd - until I work them out and then they make sense.

What I would find very, very odd would be a president ordering the public slaughter of 3000 of his countrymen and then managing to cover it all up.

As for that article. It's presented as a news story but it's just the same old stuff rehashed.

You say it's not a bunch of conspiracy theorists but that is not correct. Fetzer is a well known conspiracy theorist, and not just on 9/11. Read this:

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When federal investigators released a report last month about the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone, some members of Congress hoped it would dispel talk that his plane was sabotaged.

It didn't.

In Internet chat groups, political Web sites and the published reports of several leftist academics, conspiracy theories about Wellstone's death last October maintain a life of their own, particularly in northern Minnesota.

In one nasty exchange, a retired prosecutor from Duluth has threatened to take legal action against a University of Minnesota-Duluth philosophy professor who espouses the belief that the Bush White House had a hand in Wellstone's demise.

The former prosecutor, Thomas Bieter, alleges that the professor, Kennedy-assassination theorist JAMES FETZER, has committed "criminal defamation" by publishing articles suggesting a government coverup of the crash investigation. "

Fetzer is in fact one of the USA's best known conspiracy theorists.

MRC_Hans · 3rd February 2006, 01:47 AM

9/11 a hoax?
Let's see:

Evil gov't representative (EGR) #1: We need to have an excuse to spend a gazillion dollars and a few thousand soldier's lives on an invasion in some country, preferably on the far side of the planet. Any ideas?

EGR #2: Uhhm, why?

EGR #1: To keep the weapons industry going and to keep the public attention away from domestic problems, dummy!

EGR #2: But, wouldn't it be cheaper just to give some of the money to the weapons industry and use some for tax cuts? That should....

EGR #3: Hey! Stop that! We simply don't do things that way, and think of the example it would set. Now, go stand in a corner till you understand how to run a government!

EGR #2: [Shuffles over to corner and stands, sulking]

EGR #3: Good! Now, I second the motion. Any ideas?

EGR #4: I have an idea.

EGR #1: Let's hear it.

EGR #4: It seems that in Afganistan, there is some terrorist organisation that has made a couple of nasty things in the past. If we could make them make an attack on American ground, why, we could invade all of Afganistan, and nobody would protest.

EGR #3: Sounds good, but.. where is this Afmanisan?

EGR #4: Afganistan. Desert and mountaneous country the size of Texas, just west of Pakistan. Low organisation level, all Moslem ragheads.

EGR #2 (from corner): Didn't the Russians take a good beating there, a few years ago?

EGR #1: You are not permitted to speak, while in the corner!

EGR #3: Doesn't matter, the russies are grossly incompetent in guerilla warfare. But how do we get those terrorists to make an attack? Can they be bought?

EGR #4: Mmmm, that could be a problem. I think they are supported from Saudi Arabia, so they are already full of money.

EGR #2 (from corner): Could't we just fake it?

EGR #1: Now you are talking! You can return to the table.

EGR #4: Good idea! We'll place exlosives in some large buildings and blow them up.

EGR #3: Cool! But how do we make it look like the Afsancons did it?

EGR #4: Afganistans.. ehh Afgani, I think it is .. Never mind.

EGR #2: Mmmm, we'll have to fake a plane hijacking, no several, and ... fly the planes into the buildings, just as we blow them up!

EGR #1: How do we get anybody to do that?

EGR #3: We'll pay some guys with Amsani names to hijack planes, then remote control them to fly into the buildings.

EGR #4: Afgani. Great, and if we agree to pay them afterwards, we can save some money! And we're sure they don't sing.

EGR #1: What if one of the planes don't make it to the building?

EGR #2: We just blow it up anyway and call it collateral damage.

EGR #4: Or, we save the charges for a later opportunity.

EGR #1: OK! Let's us get into details. Buildings, logistics, timing.

.......

I think this is a very probable scenario

Hans

Nick Bogaerts · 3rd February 2006, 03:06 AM

Then there's the Popular Mechanics article which at least one person hasn't read.

MRC_Hans · 3rd February 2006, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Nick Bogaerts

Then there's the Popular Mechanics article which at least one person hasn't read.

Cool! Bookmarked

!

Hans

LostAngeles · 3rd February 2006, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Nick Bogaerts

Then there's the Popular Mechanics article which at least one person hasn't read.

Score! One-stop debunk for the lazy!

I mean...

No, I do mean the lazy. Sorry.

Johnny Pixels · 3rd February 2006, 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by SirPhilip

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours...

Any thoughts?

1) It wasn't fire alone, there were two aeroplanes that hit them if you remember.

2) A fire fuelled by something like jet fuel burns hotter and faster than a fire fuelled by something like carpets and wood.

Try comparing it to the other times that skyscrapers have been hit by jet planes rather than just having fires in them.
Like this:

When an aeroplane hit an apartment block in Amsterdam. Imagine if there were floors above the impact point, what would be holding them up now?

And remember, this is a concrete building, and concrete is fire proof. The WTC was a steel framed building.

TriangleMan · 3rd February 2006, 04:54 AM

This would be a good time to point SirPhilip to the ApolloHoax board. Despite the board's focus on the Apollo Hoax the engineers who hang out there have been pretty busy debunking 9/11 conspiracies, including a general 9/11 thread that is 85 pages long as well as a 10 page WTC7 thread. Chances are any 9/11 hoax "evidence" has already been debunked there.

corplinx · 3rd February 2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Was 9/11 A Hoax?

No. End of discussion.

Mark · 3rd February 2006, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by corplinx

No. End of discussion.

Too bad you have me on ignore, because you would be able to read that I agree with you 100%.

bob_kark · 3rd February 2006, 10:41 AM

Thank you kindly conspiracy nut and of course Nick! Without your help, I wouldn't have this nice Popular Mechanics article to read.

NoZed Avenger · 3rd February 2006, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by SirPhilip

Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either[.]

Their theory is that 9/11 was caused by a govenrment consipracy, as far as I can tell.

Um. By definition, doesn't that mean that they are, in fact, consipiracy theorists?

Dr Adequate · 3rd February 2006, 11:33 AM

SkepticWiki on 9/11

Cylinder · 3rd February 2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

UL certifies molten steel as support members in occupied structures? Wow. I did not know that.

What these "distinguished experts" miss is what any blacksmith can tell you. Somewhere quite short of its liquid phase, there exists a happy point (for the blacksmith at least) at which steel becomes more easily malleable while retaining the ability to hold its own shape.

LostAngeles · 3rd February 2006, 01:49 PM

Also, it occurred to me last night about the guy who says debris from Flight 93 should have only covered a city block...

Are we certain he knows his sh*t?

rikzilla · 3rd February 2006, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by SirPhilip

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click

Any thoughts?

Yeah...my thought is that if you're "skeptical" about the collapse of the WTC and you feel the need to state plainly that you "aren't conspiracy theorists" then my considered opinion is that you're not a skeptic and you likely are a conspiracy theorist.

Those who label themselves "skeptics" while promoting nonsense are the most pernicious woos out there!

-z

SirPhilip · 3rd February 2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

To be frank, seeing as you are not a structural engineer who has studied the construction of the towers closely whilst combining that with your detailed knowledge of aircraft physics and fire forensics......why attach much relevance to the feeling that the collapse was "odd"?

Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think.

Quote:

Fetzer is in fact one of the USA's best known conspiracy theorists.

My bad. I Googled his name, he indeed has got a lot of flak for questionable statements. One conspiracy theorist...

Mycroft · 3rd February 2006, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by SirPhilip

Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think.

My bad. I Googled his name, he indeed has got a lot of flak for questionable statements. One conspiracy theorist...

The buildings were not in power such that they must be held in a high degree of scrutiny.

Ed · 3rd February 2006, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by SirPhilip

Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think.

Do us all a favor. Google "controlled demolition", find a site from the companies that do it for a living, read how it is done and then come back.

Cleon · 3rd February 2006, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by rikzilla

Yeah...my thought is that if you're "skeptical" about the collapse of the WTC and you feel the need to state plainly that you "aren't conspiracy theorists" then my considered opinion is that you're not a skeptic and you likely are a conspiracy theorist.

Those who label themselves "skeptics" while promoting nonsense are the most pernicious woos out there!

And you can bet a sizeable chunk of change that they use phrases like "True Skeptics" to describe themselves, and "pseudo-skeptics" to describe people who don't fall for their crap.

Cleon · 3rd February 2006, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Ed

Do us all a favor. Google "controlled demolition", find a site from the companies that do it for a living, read how it is done and then come back.

You'd think that, out of everybody in the WTC, at least one person would notice the guys carefully planting explosives at various places. And maybe, I dunno, say something about it?

"Hey, Bob, what's that guy doing with those explosives?"

SirPhilip · 3rd February 2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Um. By definition, doesn't that mean that they are, in fact, consipiracy theorists?

The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans. That's my take on it anyway. I sincerely hope that Bush isn't a monster, but psychopaths gravitate to positions of power and history is filled with them in politics.

Anti_Hypeman · 3rd February 2006, 02:43 PM

The connection between Saddam and 9/11 was a hoax.

DavidJames · 3rd February 2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by SirPhilip

The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans. That's my take on it anyway. I sincerely hope that Bush isn't a monster, but psychopaths gravitate to positions of power and history is filled with them in politics.

wow, you voted for Bush? With supporters like you

I voted against him twice, but "hardly a stretch"? sorry, I find it absolutely inconceivable. Follow the evidence, my friend, it will serve you well.

Ranb · 3rd February 2006, 02:48 PM

James Fetzer is also part of http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html . I was surprised to see Eric Hufschmid's name on the list of members. So I wrote to them suggesting that they include Hufschmid's views on the Apollo landing hoax. I was serious in my letter, but he saw through my BS and suggested that I was foolish to believe that Americans had landed on the moon. For more on the moon hoax, see www.clavius.org .

Any organization that includes Fetzer and Hufschmid in their list of members has no credibility at all.

Ranb

Cleon · 3rd February 2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Ranb

James Fetzer is also part of http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html . I was surprised to see Eric Hufschmid's name on the list of members. So I wrote to them suggesting that they include Hufschmid's views on the Apollo landing hoax. I was serious in my letter, but he saw through my BS and suggested that I was foolish to believe that Americans had landed on the moon. For more on the moon hoax, see www.clavius.org .

Any organization that includes Fetzer and Hufschmid in their list of members has no credibility at all.

I'm usually suspicious of any group that has "Truth" (with a capital "T") right in the name. That's usually a pretty good indication they're full of it.

Combine a group calling for The Truth(tm), with some known nutters, spouting something widely regarded as conspiracy theory BS, and you wind up with...Yet Another Conspiracy Group. Yay!

Ed · 3rd February 2006, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by SirPhilip

The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans. That's my take on it anyway. I sincerely hope that Bush isn't a monster, but psychopaths gravitate to positions of power and history is filled with them in politics.

You are suggesting that an American President staged or was complicit in murder and treason for some ill defined oil motivation?

And the benefit is what? Money. Where is it? How precisely, in reasonably simple accounting terms, does Bush benefit? Where is the money? What does he do with it?

You go from "mounting distrust" to a "major sentiment" to murder to a post hoc diagnosis of psychopathy without a shred of evidence.

BTW, how does one keep a mega conspiracy secret when a sitting (or standing) president cannot get a simple little blow job without getting impeached?

SirPhilip · 3rd February 2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Do us all a favor. Google "controlled demolition", find a site from the companies that do it for a living, read how it is done and then come back.

Sure; a controlled demolition also means pre-planning and evaluating failure areas, not just placed explosives. Funny that, if you type "controlled demolition" into Google you get mostly links about the towers. I also don't discredit that the size of the towers concealing key charges either.

Your turn.

Ed · 3rd February 2006, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by SirPhilip

Sure; a controlled demolition also means pre-planning and evaluating failure areas, not just placed explosives. Funny that, if you type "controlled demolition" into Google you get mostly links about the towers. I also don't discredit that the size of the towers concealing key charges either.

Your turn.

You know what key charges would be required? Did you see the prep of the buildings? How? Who? Why? How was it covered up?

Dr Adequate · 3rd February 2006, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Ed

BTW, how does one keep a mega conspiracy secret when a sitting (or standing) president cannot get a simple little blow job without getting impeached?

Monica Lewinsky didn't know when to keep her mouth shut.

SirPhilip · 3rd February 2006, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Ed

You are suggesting that an American President staged or was complicit in murder and treason for some ill defined oil motivation?And the benefit is what? Money. Where is it? How precisely, in reasonably simple accounting terms, does Bush benefit? Where is the money? What does he do with it? You go from "mounting distrust" to a "major sentiment" to murder to a post hoc diagnosis of psychopathy without a shred of evidence.
BTW, how does one keep a mega conspiracy secret when a sitting (or standing) president cannot get a simple little blow job without getting impeached?

Point out what was declarative except "mounting distrust" and "major sentiment", both quite true.

Regnad Kcin · 3rd February 2006, 03:10 PM

And let's not forget the paranormal, hat-shaped object!!!

(!)

Ladewig · 3rd February 2006, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by SirPhilip

The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans.

Hardly a stretch?! WTF?! If you were Cheney or any of the other cabalists in on the most extensive, most horrific, most well-planned murderous conspiracy in the history of the world, would you let George "I'm misunderestimated" Bush in on the secret?! In 2001, the guy could barely read a teleprompter; flubbed simple questions that he didn't prepare for; and acted generally like a doofus. Why would anyone include Bush on a secret which if revealed would result in charges of treason and 3000 counts of murder? Please! If you're going to spin a story aboout conspiracies, at least make it believable.

Besides, if the powers that be were behind all this stuff, why did the president go into hiding by flying all over the midwest instead of returning directly to Washington. The puppet-masters could have raised Bush's popularity even more if they flew him directly to NYC or D.C. and let him give a speech with the smoking ruins in the background.

3rd February 2006, 12:53 AM	#5
boooeee Dart Fener Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The Lando System Posts: 2,403	From the link: Quote: (PRWEB) - Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. Hmmmm.....I wonder who wrote this unbiased and thoughtful article? Once again, from the link: Quote: UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA James Fetzer 218 724-2706 This brilliant post has been brought to you by the distinguished scholar, boooeee (references available upon request).
	__________________ my nerdy sports blog: betting market analytics

3rd February 2006, 01:01 AM	#6
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,953	The twin towers never were there, Winston. And we've always been at war with Eurasia.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,953	__________________ "It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." -DavidByron

3rd February 2006, 01:30 AM	#7
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	Originally Posted by boooeee From the link: Hmmmm.....I wonder who wrote this unbiased and thoughtful article? Once again, from the link: This brilliant post has been brought to you by the distinguished scholar, boooeee (references available upon request). Look at part of the link "bs_prweb" That gives one major clue and one observation.
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

3rd February 2006, 01:44 AM	#8
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	But more specfically: Quote: In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible? It is my understanding that the intense heat of the fires weakend the steel supporting the upper floors which caused the collapse of the buildings. As far as history goes, it can be a good predictor but under unusal and extreme circumstances... first time for everything, as they say. Quote: The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible? Are they certain its the exact same people or are they people with similar names? Could the BBC have made a mistake? When did they make this report? Quote: * Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible? I heard that too and at the time I believe it was the Boeing 707 that was the standard. A modern 737 is much, much smaller than a 767, which, if I'm not mistaken, was the model flown into the WTC. Also, see answers about the fire. Quote: * Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible? The fire was fed by the carpeting and furniture in the offices. Also, as I've said, I understood it to be simply that the steel was weakend enough that it could not suport the above floors. Quote: Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible? That depends on when it disappeared. They lost contact with all of the flights at some point during the attacks, didn't they? Quote: * Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible? They also weren't smart enough to realize how lousy Logan security is to have only taken two planes. Snark aside, the Pentagon wasn't their orginal target, The White House or the Capitol building was, but they couldn't spot them as easily. Quote: * Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible? How is it that it could not have been to shoot it down? Was Cheney possibly asking if the orders to shoot planes down still stood in the event of other attacks? Was he asking why that plane had not been shot down yet? Quote: * A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible? Not sure. Possibly at what angle the plane came in, if it hit anything else coming in, or even speed? Quote: * A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible? With a sledgehammer. I think what they're looking for is "Why?" and I have to ask, "Evidence? of this event?" Quote: * The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible? Uh, remember her answer about the 8/6/01 Presidential Daily Briefing to the Commission? Yeah. They don't answer questions too goodly sometimes in this adminstration. (Anything I've erred on or am off base on, please correct. Most of this was done from what I remembered)
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

3rd February 2006, 01:47 AM	#10
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,604	9/11 a hoax? Let's see: Evil gov't representative (EGR) #1: We need to have an excuse to spend a gazillion dollars and a few thousand soldier's lives on an invasion in some country, preferably on the far side of the planet. Any ideas? EGR #2: Uhhm, why? EGR #1: To keep the weapons industry going and to keep the public attention away from domestic problems, dummy! EGR #2: But, wouldn't it be cheaper just to give some of the money to the weapons industry and use some for tax cuts? That should.... EGR #3: Hey! Stop that! We simply don't do things that way, and think of the example it would set. Now, go stand in a corner till you understand how to run a government! EGR #2: [Shuffles over to corner and stands, sulking] EGR #3: Good! Now, I second the motion. Any ideas? EGR #4: I have an idea. EGR #1: Let's hear it. EGR #4: It seems that in Afganistan, there is some terrorist organisation that has made a couple of nasty things in the past. If we could make them make an attack on American ground, why, we could invade all of Afganistan, and nobody would protest. EGR #3: Sounds good, but.. where is this Afmanisan? EGR #4: Afganistan. Desert and mountaneous country the size of Texas, just west of Pakistan. Low organisation level, all Moslem ragheads. EGR #2 (from corner): Didn't the Russians take a good beating there, a few years ago? EGR #1: You are not permitted to speak, while in the corner! EGR #3: Doesn't matter, the russies are grossly incompetent in guerilla warfare. But how do we get those terrorists to make an attack? Can they be bought? EGR #4: Mmmm, that could be a problem. I think they are supported from Saudi Arabia, so they are already full of money. EGR #2 (from corner): Could't we just fake it? EGR #1: Now you are talking! You can return to the table. EGR #4: Good idea! We'll place exlosives in some large buildings and blow them up. EGR #3: Cool! But how do we make it look like the Afsancons did it? EGR #4: Afganistans.. ehh Afgani, I think it is .. Never mind. EGR #2: Mmmm, we'll have to fake a plane hijacking, no several, and ... fly the planes into the buildings, just as we blow them up! EGR #1: How do we get anybody to do that? EGR #3: We'll pay some guys with Amsani names to hijack planes, then remote control them to fly into the buildings. EGR #4: Afgani. Great, and if we agree to pay them afterwards, we can save some money! And we're sure they don't sing. EGR #1: What if one of the planes don't make it to the building? EGR #2: We just blow it up anyway and call it collateral damage. EGR #4: Or, we save the charges for a later opportunity. EGR #1: OK! Let's us get into details. Buildings, logistics, timing. ....... I think this is a very probable scenario Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

3rd February 2006, 12:15 AM	#1
SirPhilip Bittersweet Symphony Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Athens, Ohio Posts: 2,444	Was 9/11 A Hoax? In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click Any thoughts?

3rd February 2006, 12:18 AM	#2
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159	Originally Posted by SirPhilip In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click Any thoughts? thoghts? a whole 17 pages of them!
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159

3rd February 2006, 12:42 AM	#3
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Hoax: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous. Nope. It wasn't a hoax.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

3rd February 2006, 12:50 AM	#4
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159	Seriously, read through their "evidence", even if you take it all at face value, is it more probable that the US Govt made some mistakes, or that the US Govt murdered thousands of its own citizens? Basically all they have are a few inconsistant statements and a lot of hand waving. (I'd be more suspicious if everything was full accounted for, because reality doesn't work like that, people misspeak, they misremember, and are sometimes ill informed or confused- even in govt), Its a classic PCT. and dead wrong.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159

3rd February 2006, 01:47 AM	#9
NeilC Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,331	To be frank, seeing as you are not a structural engineer who has studied the construction of the towers closely whilst combining that with your detailed knowledge of aircraft physics and fire forensics......why attach much relevance to the feeling that the collapse was "odd"? Lots of things I don't know much about strike me as odd - until I work them out and then they make sense. What I would find very, very odd would be a president ordering the public slaughter of 3000 of his countrymen and then managing to cover it all up. As for that article. It's presented as a news story but it's just the same old stuff rehashed. You say it's not a bunch of conspiracy theorists but that is not correct. Fetzer is a well known conspiracy theorist, and not just on 9/11. Read this: "WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When federal investigators released a report last month about the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone, some members of Congress hoped it would dispel talk that his plane was sabotaged. It didn't. In Internet chat groups, political Web sites and the published reports of several leftist academics, conspiracy theories about Wellstone's death last October maintain a life of their own, particularly in northern Minnesota. In one nasty exchange, a retired prosecutor from Duluth has threatened to take legal action against a University of Minnesota-Duluth philosophy professor who espouses the belief that the Bush White House had a hand in Wellstone's demise. The former prosecutor, Thomas Bieter, alleges that the professor, Kennedy-assassination theorist JAMES FETZER, has committed "criminal defamation" by publishing articles suggesting a government coverup of the crash investigation. " Fetzer is in fact one of the USA's best known conspiracy theorists.

3rd February 2006, 03:06 AM	#11
Nick Bogaerts Muse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Didcot, Oxfordshire Posts: 617	Then there's the Popular Mechanics article which at least one person hasn't read.
	__________________ Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake. —Robert Bolt, A Man For All Seasons

3rd February 2006, 03:23 AM	#12
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,604	Originally Posted by Nick Bogaerts Then there's the Popular Mechanics article which at least one person hasn't read. Cool! Bookmarked ! Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

3rd February 2006, 03:28 AM	#13
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	Originally Posted by Nick Bogaerts Then there's the Popular Mechanics article which at least one person hasn't read. Score! One-stop debunk for the lazy! I mean... No, I do mean the lazy. Sorry.
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

3rd February 2006, 03:44 AM	#14
Johnny Pixels and The Electric Revolution Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 1,393	Originally Posted by SirPhilip In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours... Any thoughts? 1) It wasn't fire alone, there were two aeroplanes that hit them if you remember. 2) A fire fuelled by something like jet fuel burns hotter and faster than a fire fuelled by something like carpets and wood. Try comparing it to the other times that skyscrapers have been hit by jet planes rather than just having fires in them. Like this: When an aeroplane hit an apartment block in Amsterdam. Imagine if there were floors above the impact point, what would be holding them up now? And remember, this is a concrete building, and concrete is fire proof. The WTC was a steel framed building.
	__________________ "Now, cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good, When the levee breaks, mama, you got to move" The revolution needs YOU! www.stopsylvia.com

3rd February 2006, 04:54 AM	#15
TriangleMan Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Qatar (ya rly!) Posts: 1,211	This would be a good time to point SirPhilip to the ApolloHoax board. Despite the board's focus on the Apollo Hoax the engineers who hang out there have been pretty busy debunking 9/11 conspiracies, including a general 9/11 thread that is 85 pages long as well as a 10 page WTC7 thread. Chances are any 9/11 hoax "evidence" has already been debunked there.

3rd February 2006, 10:15 AM	#16
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Quote: Was 9/11 A Hoax? No. End of discussion.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

3rd February 2006, 10:18 AM	#17
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	Originally Posted by corplinx No. End of discussion. Too bad you have me on ignore, because you would be able to read that I agree with you 100%.
	__________________ "Give me immortality or give me death!"---The Firesign Theatre

3rd February 2006, 10:41 AM	#18
bob_kark Person of Hench Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Globalist H.Q., 25th floor, 5th room on the right. Posts: 4,172	Thank you kindly conspiracy nut and of course Nick! Without your help, I wouldn't have this nice Popular Mechanics article to read.

3rd February 2006, 11:01 AM	#19
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by SirPhilip Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either[.] Their theory is that 9/11 was caused by a govenrment consipracy, as far as I can tell. Um. By definition, doesn't that mean that they are, in fact, consipiracy theorists?

3rd February 2006, 11:33 AM	#20
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	SkepticWiki on 9/11

3rd February 2006, 01:28 PM	#21
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,932	Quote: Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible? UL certifies molten steel as support members in occupied structures? Wow. I did not know that. What these "distinguished experts" miss is what any blacksmith can tell you. Somewhere quite short of its liquid phase, there exists a happy point (for the blacksmith at least) at which steel becomes more easily malleable while retaining the ability to hold its own shape.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

3rd February 2006, 01:49 PM	#22
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,159	Also, it occurred to me last night about the guy who says debris from Flight 93 should have only covered a city block... Are we certain he knows his sh*t?
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

3rd February 2006, 01:53 PM	#23
rikzilla Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,001	Originally Posted by SirPhilip In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click Any thoughts? Yeah...my thought is that if you're "skeptical" about the collapse of the WTC and you feel the need to state plainly that you "aren't conspiracy theorists" then my considered opinion is that you're not a skeptic and you likely are a conspiracy theorist. Those who label themselves "skeptics" while promoting nonsense are the most pernicious woos out there! -z
	__________________ "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon." -Chancellor Gorkon "inside Mr .Skinny lives a big man" -pillory (18 Jan 2007)

3rd February 2006, 02:08 PM	#24
SirPhilip Bittersweet Symphony Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Athens, Ohio Posts: 2,444	Quote: To be frank, seeing as you are not a structural engineer who has studied the construction of the towers closely whilst combining that with your detailed knowledge of aircraft physics and fire forensics......why attach much relevance to the feeling that the collapse was "odd"? Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think. Quote: Fetzer is in fact one of the USA's best known conspiracy theorists. My bad. I Googled his name, he indeed has got a lot of flak for questionable statements. One conspiracy theorist...

3rd February 2006, 02:19 PM	#25
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,149	Originally Posted by SirPhilip Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think. My bad. I Googled his name, he indeed has got a lot of flak for questionable statements. One conspiracy theorist... The buildings were not in power such that they must be held in a high degree of scrutiny.
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

3rd February 2006, 02:25 PM	#26
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by SirPhilip Only because a commercial airliner laden with fuel slammed into it, and it then fell like a controlled demolition. It's entirely possible it was a cooincidence, but if history teaches us anything, it's that anyone in power must be held to a high degree of scrutiny. I'm a card-carrying conservative Republican who voted for Bush's second term by the way, so it's definitely not something I want to think. Do us all a favor. Google "controlled demolition", find a site from the companies that do it for a living, read how it is done and then come back.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

3rd February 2006, 02:28 PM	#27
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,611	Originally Posted by rikzilla Yeah...my thought is that if you're "skeptical" about the collapse of the WTC and you feel the need to state plainly that you "aren't conspiracy theorists" then my considered opinion is that you're not a skeptic and you likely are a conspiracy theorist. Those who label themselves "skeptics" while promoting nonsense are the most pernicious woos out there! And you can bet a sizeable chunk of change that they use phrases like "True Skeptics" to describe themselves, and "pseudo-skeptics" to describe people who don't fall for their crap.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

3rd February 2006, 02:30 PM	#28
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,611	Originally Posted by Ed Do us all a favor. Google "controlled demolition", find a site from the companies that do it for a living, read how it is done and then come back. You'd think that, out of everybody in the WTC, at least one person would notice the guys carefully planting explosives at various places. And maybe, I dunno, say something about it? "Hey, Bob, what's that guy doing with those explosives?"
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich Last edited by Cleon; 3rd February 2006 at 02:32 PM.

3rd February 2006, 02:40 PM	#29
SirPhilip Bittersweet Symphony Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Athens, Ohio Posts: 2,444	Quote: Um. By definition, doesn't that mean that they are, in fact, consipiracy theorists? The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans. That's my take on it anyway. I sincerely hope that Bush isn't a monster, but psychopaths gravitate to positions of power and history is filled with them in politics.

3rd February 2006, 02:43 PM	#30
Anti_Hypeman Death Dealing Doom Machine Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,011	The connection between Saddam and 9/11 was a hoax.

3rd February 2006, 02:44 PM	#31
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,118	Originally Posted by SirPhilip The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans. That's my take on it anyway. I sincerely hope that Bush isn't a monster, but psychopaths gravitate to positions of power and history is filled with them in politics. wow, you voted for Bush? With supporters like you I voted against him twice, but "hardly a stretch"? sorry, I find it absolutely inconceivable. Follow the evidence, my friend, it will serve you well.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

3rd February 2006, 02:48 PM	#32
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,207	James Fetzer is also part of http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html . I was surprised to see Eric Hufschmid's name on the list of members. So I wrote to them suggesting that they include Hufschmid's views on the Apollo landing hoax. I was serious in my letter, but he saw through my BS and suggested that I was foolish to believe that Americans had landed on the moon. For more on the moon hoax, see www.clavius.org . Any organization that includes Fetzer and Hufschmid in their list of members has no credibility at all. Ranb

3rd February 2006, 02:53 PM	#33
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,611	Originally Posted by Ranb James Fetzer is also part of http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html . I was surprised to see Eric Hufschmid's name on the list of members. So I wrote to them suggesting that they include Hufschmid's views on the Apollo landing hoax. I was serious in my letter, but he saw through my BS and suggested that I was foolish to believe that Americans had landed on the moon. For more on the moon hoax, see www.clavius.org . Any organization that includes Fetzer and Hufschmid in their list of members has no credibility at all. I'm usually suspicious of any group that has "Truth" (with a capital "T") right in the name. That's usually a pretty good indication they're full of it. Combine a group calling for The Truth(tm), with some known nutters, spouting something widely regarded as conspiracy theory BS, and you wind up with...Yet Another Conspiracy Group. Yay!
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

3rd February 2006, 02:55 PM	#34
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by SirPhilip The article lists them as "distinguished experts and scholars", so you can forgive me for making that impulsive distinction. A conspiracy theorist, in my view, is someone who panders sensationalism as nonfiction for a living. With the mounting distrust of the Bush administration, people are becoming increasingly more suspicious of Bush's character. A major anti-Bush sentiment is his supposed "blood for oil" motive. Assuming this was actually the motivation, or something equally amoral, it is hardly a stretch that he'd be in on a staged attack that killed 3000 other Americans. That's my take on it anyway. I sincerely hope that Bush isn't a monster, but psychopaths gravitate to positions of power and history is filled with them in politics. You are suggesting that an American President staged or was complicit in murder and treason for some ill defined oil motivation? And the benefit is what? Money. Where is it? How precisely, in reasonably simple accounting terms, does Bush benefit? Where is the money? What does he do with it? You go from "mounting distrust" to a "major sentiment" to murder to a post hoc diagnosis of psychopathy without a shred of evidence. BTW, how does one keep a mega conspiracy secret when a sitting (or standing) president cannot get a simple little blow job without getting impeached?
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

3rd February 2006, 03:00 PM	#35
SirPhilip Bittersweet Symphony Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Athens, Ohio Posts: 2,444	Quote: Do us all a favor. Google "controlled demolition", find a site from the companies that do it for a living, read how it is done and then come back. Sure; a controlled demolition also means pre-planning and evaluating failure areas, not just placed explosives. Funny that, if you type "controlled demolition" into Google you get mostly links about the towers. I also don't discredit that the size of the towers concealing key charges either. Your turn.