Anyone want to talk about the stratigic importance of central Asia,the Caspian Basin energy reserves or the trans-Afgani pipeline & their relation to 911?I thought not!It's because such subjects hit too close to the truth & the 'debunkers' are forbidden to discuss them lest someone should google it & discover our huge alterior motive for 911/77.
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
jimv1 said:
Yes - good for her. Except as opinions go it's a rather weak one. The basis for her argument, if it is that, is in effect 'there are lots of popular websites about it'. If lots of people believing something makes that thing a reality then you have to doff your cap to the Bush administration for fighting the war on terror (as well as Hitler for sorting out the Jewish cabal which ran Germany and wanted to rule the world, and so on).
jimv1 said:
Yes - that's how conspiracy theories usually start. It's also the basis for Christine Boutin's argument.
jimv1 said:
Actually the post (text from one of the few websites in Google's news section bothering to cover the story) doesn't refer to her as a 'conspiracy theorist' once in that article if indeed that term is pejorative at all. Also the fact that she's elected doesn't make her opinion valid otherwise you'd have to concede that it has less weight than the overwhelming majority of western politicians who don't share her view. With regards to pejorative language - I'd say there was far more of that in the output of the conspiracy theorist. In fact I'd say it was a neccessary part of the discourse as far as many conspiracies are concerned although they seem more touchy about less emotive language thatn their targets do when confronted with it (and it's usually a lot more vociferous in that direction).
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
waitew said:
Well if you can find something that hasn't been discussed on this thread or one of the many other threads related to this subject then feel free to post it. I think you'll find that it will have been discussed before although it might be the counter-arguments, far from having not been made, that might be the victim of selective filtering.
A
Anonymous
Guest
ted_bloody_maul said:
Well we've all seen Syriana - so we know about the pipeline anyway.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
I'm going to wait for its première on terrestrial TV.coldelephant said:
Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
ted_bloody_maul said:
Or Christianity for that matter. Agreed that the more people believe in something doesn't make it fact(er)....unless it's on conservapedia of course.
A
Anonymous
Guest
ted_bloody_maul said:
There again - Bush has made a lot of people believe in the war on terror, and Hitler did make a lot of Germans believe Jews were whatever he said they were.
For those who believe in the war on terror and for those who did believe what Hitler said, these things were real for them.
To get at Jim's point - a lot of Christians (whatever sect or variation or cult offshoot that they are) believe in what they do, so it is real for them.
When people are presented with decisions to make or choices to make, they will probably make those decisions or choices based on what they believe to be the given circumstances - what they see as reality.
They will have checked with the relevant sources to make sure they are going along the right (eous) path.
Then they make those decisions or choices.
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
coldelephant said:
Well that's beside the point. Anyone who says 'a lot of people believe it' to justify their opinion really doesn't have one.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Or they could have an ulterior motive 
Perhaps they venture this point of view in order to stall until they get something else; whilst nudging the thread so that they do not lose their place in the flow.
Perhaps they venture this point of view in order to stall until they get something else; whilst nudging the thread so that they do not lose their place in the flow.
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
coldelephant said:Or they could have an ulterior motive
Perhaps they venture this point of view in order to stall until they get something else; whilst nudging the thread so that they do not lose their place in the flow.
I don't see how this applies to Christine Boutin. :?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Didn't see her name mentioned before - thought we were talking about what Waitew said?
A
Anonymous
Guest
A
Anonymous
Guest
The thing I first found interesting about that site were the things the site inferred it had obtained and how much effort and money they had to spend to get it (considering most of the transcripts appear to consist of a bunch of people who do not know what is going on, who to call or even what to say).
After I had trawled through the transcripts a bit – I found myself wondering why some of the places were left inaudible on the transcripts (“We are on Pier <inaudible> at the World Trade Centre”).
Why bother? If I was of the persuasion, I could do a google and find out what piers were ‘at’ the World Trade Centre and what was located at each pier, and then guess which pier it was. So what?
Also, why were they all talking about a fire bomb if it was so blatantly obvious that it was in fact a passenger jet that crashed into the building? Surely somebody would have been told a plane crashed into the building and that it was not a fire bomb?
In one of the transcripts the tv is said to be broken, but then they have the radio, as well as the internet…I dunno.
The transcripts looked very unusual – a lot of detail in some places and a lack in others. Not all of the lines were of poor quality I’m sure, and there were obviously recordings which were cleaned up and analysed.
So why were there bits just missing out – not just the inaudible bits which were obviously audible but removed for security reasons – but other bits which meant that what people were saying made little sense at all?
Why would people not want to release the transcripts in full, and then offer these heavily edited transcripts when pushed further?
What security issues would be considered here?
After I had trawled through the transcripts a bit – I found myself wondering why some of the places were left inaudible on the transcripts (“We are on Pier <inaudible> at the World Trade Centre”).
Why bother? If I was of the persuasion, I could do a google and find out what piers were ‘at’ the World Trade Centre and what was located at each pier, and then guess which pier it was. So what?
Also, why were they all talking about a fire bomb if it was so blatantly obvious that it was in fact a passenger jet that crashed into the building? Surely somebody would have been told a plane crashed into the building and that it was not a fire bomb?
In one of the transcripts the tv is said to be broken, but then they have the radio, as well as the internet…I dunno.
The transcripts looked very unusual – a lot of detail in some places and a lack in others. Not all of the lines were of poor quality I’m sure, and there were obviously recordings which were cleaned up and analysed.
So why were there bits just missing out – not just the inaudible bits which were obviously audible but removed for security reasons – but other bits which meant that what people were saying made little sense at all?
Why would people not want to release the transcripts in full, and then offer these heavily edited transcripts when pushed further?
What security issues would be considered here?
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
coldelephant said:
It wasn't to do with security. It was claimed that their release would be disrespectful to those who died and their famillies.
A
Anonymous
Guest
How does omitting which pier somebody was standing on from the transcripts help at all?
How does omitting any such details help?
I understand that they want this over and done with and put past so that they can get on with their lives, but I don't agree that omitting such details from the transcripts was to stop people getting upset.
How does omitting any such details help?
I understand that they want this over and done with and put past so that they can get on with their lives, but I don't agree that omitting such details from the transcripts was to stop people getting upset.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 623
coldelephant said:
How can you tell that the bits marked as inaudible were in fact audible but removed for security reasons? Isn't it possible they were actually inaudible? As you point out in the example about the pier it seems pointless to exclude it.
Incidentally my guess is that the pier referred to is one of the many piers that surround Manhatten. None of these are 'at' the WTC but some are near it. Unfortunatly there is no indication how long the inaudible portion is so we can't guess how much has been lost between 'pier' and 'at'.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Just including this articel. If its already on this thread, apologies.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_ ... odigo.html
It seems to suggest that someone knew the attacks were coming and texted a random person at the building.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_ ... odigo.html
It seems to suggest that someone knew the attacks were coming and texted a random person at the building.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Mike_Pratt33 said:
Because they look like they were removed, and I think they probably were.
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
New Bin Laden video out soon - I've already shown the Grecian 'before-and-after' shots to a colleague and he claims they're definitely not the same person. 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 406304.ece
Anyway, am I the only one getting a bit sick of Bin Laden doing this sort of thing at every anniveersary of 9/11? He's getting really boring and living on past glories. He's just basking in his past because his outfit's not done anything notable in ages like at world cups when Geoff Hurst gets wheeled out to talk about '66.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 406304.ece
Anyway, am I the only one getting a bit sick of Bin Laden doing this sort of thing at every anniveersary of 9/11? He's getting really boring and living on past glories. He's just basking in his past because his outfit's not done anything notable in ages like at world cups when Geoff Hurst gets wheeled out to talk about '66.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,991
I rather like this idea of virtual terrorism: it's not "al-qaeda planning another attack killing thousands" but "al-qaeda planning new video: experts warn CD release and DVD boxed set may follow".
In future we'll be arguing about was the most menacing leader, and who they should cast as the next one....
In future we'll be arguing about was the most menacing leader, and who they should cast as the next one....
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,580
wembley8 said:
It's just typical of modern politics, I'm afraid. These days even guys hiding out as goat herders in Pashtun villages leak to the press announcements about making announcements. It's all spin this, spin that, spin, spin, spin, how does my beard look, you're on in 5.
I don't know how Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson sleep in their bed at night. :x
Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
Following the links from that led me to
http://www.ae911truth.org/
This may answer some of Ted and Jerry's concerns that those questioning the official version have no architectural or engineering experience.
Richard Gage's whole presentation is here.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
This may answer some of Ted and Jerry's concerns that those questioning the official version have no architectural or engineering experience.
Richard Gage's whole presentation is here.
Dr. Hirschhorn issued a challenge to supporters of the official account of 9/11, “If those that believe the official 9/11 story - especially elected officials - trust their views, then let them support a serious effort to test the validity of the controlled demolition hypothesis. If they fear and reject doing so, then let us see that as suspicious and unacceptable.”
Flawed reasoning that, IMHO. After all, if those who don't subscribe to the demolition theory see no reason to test it's validity, that's hardly 'suspicious and unacceptable'. Perhaps they just think it's bunk, rather than have any 'fear' about it. The pro-demolition camp need to test the validity of the hypothesis in a fair and balanced way, then show their evidence for their claims.
Flawed reasoning that, IMHO. After all, if those who don't subscribe to the demolition theory see no reason to test it's validity, that's hardly 'suspicious and unacceptable'. Perhaps they just think it's bunk, rather than have any 'fear' about it. The pro-demolition camp need to test the validity of the hypothesis in a fair and balanced way, then show their evidence for their claims.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Jerry_B said:
IMO your argument is hugely flawed Jerry
The reason why is that in order to be able to accept something like the controlled demolition theory - you and many others require proof, and for that reason the theory must be subject to the same scientific and extremely thorough tests that the official 9/11 theory should have gone through.
Granted they only used scale models, computer models and computer simulations coupled with years of experience and knowledge, and then threw some witness testimonies in (which of course are not reliable) - but at least they put some effort into it after all of the materials from the wreckage had been taken away (it was taken away quickly AFIK).
Nope, in order to even pay attention to the theory it must have evidence to make it stand up and to make it believable it must no longer be theory but fact - it has to be fact because nobody will ever believe the theory no matter how much pressure is put behind it by whoever.
To make it fact it has to be proven to be true.
So your point is what, exactly? If there is enough proof there to support the demolition hypothesis, it should be published and (if necessary) peer-reviewed. And by 'published' I don't mean 'put on a website somewhere' After all, I'd like to see how they explain the way the demolition charges were set up, and what evidence they may have for this taking place. For starters
After all, I'd like to see how they explain the way the demolition charges were set up, and what evidence they may have for this taking place. For starters
Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
Jerry_B said:So your point is what, exactly? If there is enough proof there to support the demolition hypothesis, it should be published and (if necessary) peer-reviewed. And by 'published' I don't mean 'put on a website somewhere'
What have you got against websites?
There is a website (link above) where architects and engineers are questioning the official line and have the relevant qualifications you've been looking for. They are coming to the conclusion that some of the problems associated with the collapse of ALL towers can be answered by the demolition theory whereas the official line seems to struggle with say, the atomisation of building contents, slicing of girders at exactly the correct angle used in professional demolition work and the grim, tiny pieces of the unfortunate occupants scattered across rooftops in the surrounding area.
In an argument that could go either way, Richard Gage claims that there are a handful of demolition companies in the world that could do a successful job like this....yet by complete chance, fire did it to 3 buildings and one of those was not impacted at all.
Their main concerns are...
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
10. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
Timble2
Imaginary Person
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,048
- Location
- In a Liminal Zone
jimv1 said:
Once the structure passes its failure point it's hardly likely to fall slowly with several thousand tonnes of building dropping into the struture below.
How can you tell the difference between the sound of explosions and the sound of structural joints snapping?
Down is the course of least resistance, the structure was built for more or less static loads, not the top quarter suddenly dropping into the rest. Freefall is plain wrong, try timing the collapses.
Or items inside the buildings exploding in the fire or windows blowing out as it starts to buckle, or blown out by changes in air pressure.
The top of the building punched into the bottom, where are the peice going to go apart from down and if you look at the picture theres some enornous peices.
Whoever wrote this has no idea what the word pyroclastic means.
Urban legend, though probably found hot metal, because fires burned in the rubble for days
All the chemicals he found would normally be found in a building, also they'd have been contaminated by cutting tools used by the actual demolition teams.
I don't know what this means and I suspect neither do a lot of people who cite it, so I'll pass.
One Dutch demolition expert who saw the film of WTC 7, but had no other information.
We're talking WTC 7 are we? The buildings has been bombarded by debris, burning for hours, I suspect the fire department have a fair idea when a buildings going to come down.
The media "foreknowledge" is probably confusion about what had come down. Until 9/11, I suspect very few people who didn't actually work there realised that the WTC comprised more than the twin towers or had any idea what the smaller buildings around them were called.
The tops of the tower were too heavy topple as soon as failure started the increased forces would have sheared through the girders holding the rest of the floor(s) an the entire structure comes down vertically. If you watch the films the tops of the towers tilt and then drop more or less straight down tearing the structure apart as they drop.
I've seen steel structure buckle in fires fuelled by bales of hay, let alone in a fire fuelled by aviation fuel and all the combustables in the building. Steel loses a lot of its strength before it begins to soften, let alone melt.
4 None with the same structure as the twin towers and they hadn't been had a been weakened by the impact of a fully loaded airliner at around 500mph.
BTW Thermate (or thermite) isn't a high tech incendary, any schoolkid with a bit of chemistry and a complete disregard for personal safety can make it from iron oxide (rust) and powdered aluminium. Some recipes add a nitrate (barium nitrate IRRC) and sulphur, when it's intended for use as an incendary device rather than welding.
It's also very bulky and tend to burn downwards, which makes it a lousy choice for a covert column cutting device. And it can be a sod to ignite.