Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is up with this thread? Non Americans discussing American business. CIA, FBI and the NSA all on one message board. Amazing what you can find out when you import the message board XLM a certain way. All those restricted private sand-boxed or cloud virtual drives until you pull them out of the working memory. China too, in mass. Maybe there watching the NSA. Not to mention a few other things, but I won't. Only Google is worse than this forum for monitoring. It's like a hornets nest for the gov's of four nations. All over this thread? Come on, what is up with this thread?
Hardly just my opinion. It is demonstrated to be true in threads like these on a regular basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum
My opinion is that if, outside the context of 9/11, you showed 100 people a video of a controlled demolition and a video of a natural collapse- a conservative 97 of them would see a difference. They would call the demolition an explosion and the collapse- a collapse.
And of those 100 people, it is likely that 97 of them would be completely unqualified to make the call.
I still contend an explosion can be caused with no explosives, no fuel, no fire, no accelerators, no bombs, no thermite, etc. and it will even sound like one. It could even look like one.
Hardly just my opinion. It is demonstrated to be true in threads like these on a regular basis.
And of those 100 people, it is likely that 97 of them would be completely unqualified to make the call.
Demonstrated to be true? The "demonstrations" from your view of things just don't hold up scientifically in any way.
LOL I guess your imagined 97 would be deaf and blind. And I mean NO insult to those who are, but they would have to use alternative methods to apprehend and process information.
I just mean that if you are going to make such a statement, then you must not trust yourself as to anything you see and hear. I realize that, in a split-second-happening, a banana in the "right" context scenario can become a gun to some. But the videos and facts of 9/11 can be observed over and over again, at a distance of years, which tends to remove some of the immediate panic and confusion.
Are you saying the rubble wasn't cleaned up and shipped out as quickly as it could possibly be done? Can you link to some official studies that were done on the actual rubble and remains?
We have eyewitness and other credible scientific evidence of molten metal, thermite/ate, steel that has been "cut", and hearing timed explosions- boom-boom-boom-boom-boom, to paraphrase one witness.
OF COURSE I am saying that. Won't argue over your definition of nine months as "quickly", that's your opinion.
The debris was taken to Fresh Kills for the sorting operations. I don't know if that's what you mean by "shipped out"--but yes, it was taken there by barge.
Let me ask you this--if you think all the WTC steel was disposed of, then where did NIST get the 200 pieces of steel they used for their investigation and that they returned to the Port Authority last fall? And all that WTC steel being held in Hangar 17 at JFK--where did that come from?
Just pointing out the dishonesty in the way your question was worded. Yep, some of the steel not needed for the investigation and analysis was sold to countries who aren't as particular about the standards of their building materials. This was covered in the press as it occurred. As a matter of fact, there was an interesting article by a north Jersey paper following a steel column on its journey to Bangladesh juxtaposed with the story of the man whose office contained that column and who survived the attacks.
I don't know if there are any links to what you call "official studies" or what specifically you think should have been "done" in these "official studies" but if I find anything of value, I will post them.
Not what you're looking for, but these might be of value to those truly interested in the recovery operation:
I still contend an explosion can be caused with no explosives, no fuel, no fire, no accelerators, no bombs, no thermite, etc. and it will even sound like one. It could even look like one.
I think that's interesting. Could you post an example or two?
If you are calling whatever you are referring to "an explosion"- then, of course, it would look and sound like an explosion.
Demonstrated to be true? The "demonstrations" from your view of things just don't hold up scientifically in any way.
Sorry... you really don't want to get into dueling science with me. It has never gone well for Guy, it is unlikely to go well with you.
For example, WTCs 1&2 don't even have the slightest resemblance to controlled demolitions. Yet it is a classic and ubiquitous Truther assertion that they look like controlled demolitions. Every Truther who makes that claim has demonstrated that they cannot tell the difference.
People with actual experience however, it see instantly.
WTC7 at least has more of a controlled demolition look to its collapse... until one pays attentions to the details of the collapse, it's sequence and its aftermath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum
LOL I guess your imagined 97 would be deaf and blind. And I mean NO insult to those who are, but they would have to use alternative methods to apprehend and process information.
No. Just ignorant... in the original non-pejorative meaning of the word "ignirant."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum
I just mean that if you are going to make such a statement, then you must not trust yourself as to anything you see and hear.
It depends on what it is I am seeing or hearing. I know full well that there are some things I am qualified to interpret properly, and others that I am not. When I see something extraordinary, I take extraordinary care to be skeptical of my own observations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum
I realize that, in a split-second-happening, a banana in the "right" context scenario can become a gun to some. But the videos and facts of 9/11 can be observed over and over again, at a distance of years, which tends to remove some of the immediate panic and confusion.
And in that sober review, 9/11 Truthism is exposed as palpable nonsense.
What do we need to know. There were alot of threats, bush ignored them. We were attacked, bush sat on his ass. Bush's solution-attack someone else. Now 1000's of innocents are dead from our side. Maybe instead of sinking more money into an investigation, maybe we should just bring Georgie boy up on charges for all the people who lost their lives in Iraq when everyone knew they had nothing to do with 9/11. Even all of his people told him. He just wanted a reason to defend Daddy again because Saddam went after him.
You have a rather bizarre understanding regarding the secrecy of the project. Our efforts to achieve the bomb very widely known (by both our friends and enemies). And those civilians that were touched by the program in terms of its many facilities knew very well that they were connected to a secret weapons program.
The actual secrecy had to do with protecting the technology from exposure, not the fact that a project was underway. And even that was not so great as shown by the Soviet Union's success in obtaining the technology via espionage.
You cannot have used a much worse example.
Considering that your understanding is fantasy, not history, no. I sense no irony.
Spin baby spin ... the point you so desperately try to avoid is that indeed large scale operations can be kept secret, which was the point and the example shows just that ... you're trying to now categorize types of secrets ... fine ... spin all you want .... spin yourself into the ground for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
That's only because you are a conspiracy theorist, and thus incapable of the subtlety of thought necessary to actually make such distinctions.
Nope, sorry not theory ... just facts are what I look at ....
By the way ... that you believe the official story makes you the "conspiracy theorist" ... that's what the official story is ... a conspiracy theory.
I've adopted no such elaborate story about what exactly happened on 911, consequently I subscribe to no definitive theory ... you have, not me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Since you have actually demonstrated no such scenario, I'm not worried about it.
As I recall... the "9/11 Truth Movement" is self labeled.
But it is you official conspiracy theorists that have chosen to view the truth as a derogatory term ... that was the point. We are just fine with being seekers of the truth ... we think the truth is a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Some cousin of that.
That you are impressed with E. Howard Hunt's 'confession" is noted. It is quite imaginative. Unfortunately, it conforms with none of the actual evidence of the crime.
But let's try to keep the thread to one conspiracy theory at a time. I know you love them all, but try to focus.
I'm not diverting the issue ... you called out ALL OF THOSE conspiracy theories ... and I just corrected you, showing you that it's no longer just a baseless theory as you'd like to suggest. Just another example that conspiracies actually do exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
No. It's not.
Too bad you can't develop cancer from such injections. In fact, injections of cancer cells have been used experimentally in humans to boost the immune system. Don;t forget that Ruby also claimed that his prison cell was being poisoned with mustard gas, and that genocide against the Jews was being conducted in the very building in which he was incarcerated. He said that he could hear their screams.
Yes...he was a real nutcase.
On the contrary, cancer viruses do exist, and they do cause cancer which is why they are called cancer viruses .. clever huh? Now Ruby used the term cancer cells ... that's just semantics ... but if you wanted to give someone cancer ... you certainly could inject them with a boatload of cancer viruses, and that would do the trick on a suppressed immune system, which is also easy to facilitate.
The facts are, I have no idea what may or may not have been done to Jack Ruby ... I just thought it was interesting, and even more interested in the response. And you did not disappoint.
Once again, you make a definitively false claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Once again, some distant cousin of that. Because your description of events is largely false, and so can be dismissed out of the gate. A system that did not exist cannot be accused of having failed. And most of what you describe did not exist.
Oh just like that aye ... just false. Well, the Popular Mechanics nonsense doesn't pass junior science scrutiny ... they're hacks, and the Homeland Security Chief's relative worked on the hit piece ... and that is a fact. You can dismiss that just like you do everything else as an irrelevant coincidence. But rational people understand the concept of credibility and conflicts of interest, which was the point you bought up ... claiming that conspiracy theorists just don't know how to distinguish between credible and incredible. That claim applies much more to those who believe only the government is credible ... which is a pretty incredible mindset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
In other words, this "air defense system" you speak of is essentially imaginary. We had an air traffic control system on US soil... not an air defense system.
The reason the operation was so (but not completely) successful was it's tiny size. Only 19 hijackers. And yes, the system that existed then was very easy to elude.
Let's stop it all right here. And lets just focus on this nonsensical claim you just made. You really are "stepping on yourself" here. Good God man. Anyone that had any doubt before, should now be satisfied as to how out of touch with reality this is.
Our our Air Defenses Systems are imaginary? We only have Air Traffic Control and not defense? This is your reality? NORAD is imaginary too? Cheyenne Mountain is a figment of the imagination? And the Hundreds of Billions spent annually is imaginary also?
There is no point in wasting anymore time on this .... anyone with any sense does not need me to point out the absurdity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
