9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

'False Flag 9/11 truthers'
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster

Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:39 pm Post subject: 'False Flag 9/11 truthers'

...Does anyone here suspect such individuals exist pushing absurd CT's, and if it were proven they do exist, what would it say about their paymasters 9/11 guilt or innocence?

DaveyJ
Minor Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject:

are you suggesting that the american goverment pays high level agents lots of money to post absurd theorys as CTs to help discredit the whole "truth movement" ________ vapir one Last edited by DaveyJ on Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:25 am; edited 1 time in total

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject: Re: 'False Flag 9/11 truthers'

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

...Does anyone here suspect such individuals exist pushing absurd CT's, and if it were proven they do exist, what would it say about their paymasters 9/11 guilt or innocence?

Absurd theories... You mean like thermite/controlled demolition?

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:13 pm Post subject:

DaveyJ wrote:

are you suggesting that the american goverment pays high level agents lots of money to post absurd theorys as CTs to help discredit the whole "truth movement"

While it's an absurd theory in itself, if believing such will get people to question the even more absurd theories, then I support it. Wink

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:15 pm Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

DaveyJ wrote:

are you suggesting that the american goverment pays high level agents lots of money to post absurd theorys as CTs to help discredit the whole "truth movement"

While it's an absurd theory in itself, if believing such will get people to question the even more absurd theories, then I support it. Wink

Are you really saying you really believe airplanes/ fires/ collapse is a believable theory?
Do tell.

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

chipmunk stew wrote:

DaveyJ wrote:

are you suggesting that the american goverment pays high level agents lots of money to post absurd theorys as CTs to help discredit the whole "truth movement"

While it's an absurd theory in itself, if believing such will get people to question the even more absurd theories, then I support it. Wink

Are you really saying you really believe airplanes/ fires/ collapse is a believable theory?
Do tell.

I'm really saying I really believe it's believable, yes.

DaveyJ
Minor Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:27 pm Post subject:

yup, afraid so ________ [URL=http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Dodge_Charger_(1999_concept)]Dodge Charger (1999 concept) history[/URL] Last edited by DaveyJ on Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:25 am; edited 1 time in total

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:

DaveyJ wrote:

yup, afraid so

In God's name then, why?
Because of some inbuilt respect for authority?
Because it ain't because of the scientific method, that's for sure.

DaveyJ
Minor Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject:

beacuse no one has provided a logical, scientific or beliveable alternative ________ hot box vaporizers Last edited by DaveyJ on Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:25 am; edited 1 time in total

SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster

Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:05 pm Post subject:

I've said it before but the question we should be asking is 'why won't the 'Organ grinder' answer any questions?'

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:16 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Because of some inbuilt respect for authority?

rofl - I cannot conceive that your disrespect for "authority" exceeds mine. Can't speak for the others here.

chek wrote:

[Because it ain't because of the scientific method, that's for sure.

Calculating the plastic moment of resistance of various thicknesses of steel at various temperatures is very scientific indeed.

But you can't have it both ways - talking of thermite when CD'ists don't even use the stuff to bring down steel-framed buildings is definitely very unscientific.

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

Because of some inbuilt respect for authority?

rofl - I cannot conceive that your disrespect for "authority" exceeds mine. Can't speak for the others here.

chek wrote:

[Because it ain't because of the scientific method, that's for sure.

As is thermite (or any other incendiary) that burns for six weeks.

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:36 pm Post subject:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

I've said it before but the question we should be asking is 'why won't the 'Organ grinder' answer any questions?'

He does. You just don't like his answers.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster

Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

I've said it before but the question we should be asking is 'why won't the 'Organ grinder' answer any questions?'

He does. You just don't like his answers.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

NIST? are they in the pay of the republican party neocon crazies then? I thought they were an independent body trying to find out why those three skyscrapers freefall collapsed. Having said that they would also have said the molten orange metal spewing from the south tower collapse point 911 could have been a thermite/ate reaction as well as molten aluminium mixed with office contents if they were truly neutral.

DaveyJ
Minor Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject:

spewing? i think thats a bit of an exaggeration, i think dribble, would be a better word. http://server3.uploadit.org/files/Kemics-tower3.JPG ________ extreme q Last edited by DaveyJ on Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:25 am; edited 1 time in total

SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster

Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:51 pm Post subject:

DaveyJ wrote:

spewing? i think thats a bit of an exaggeration, i think dribble, would be a better word.

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/Kemics-tower3.JPG

Are you a 'false flag debunker' or something? Rolling Eyes

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject:

DaveyJ wrote:

beacuse no one has provided a logical, scientific or beliveable alternative

You are joking, right?
Google earthquake destruction - or even better take a chunk of concrete to the top of a skyscraper and I GUARANTEE you will not see it or them turn into sub-100 micron powder.

You could lift the entire WTC 1300ft in the air and drop it and it won't happen. That's a GUARANTEE.

But if you find it entirely believable, I have to wonder why that is.

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

DaveyJ wrote:

beacuse no one has provided a logical, scientific or beliveable alternative

How much of the concrete in the rubble consisted of sub-100 micron particles? Cite your source.

Alternatively, assume your premise that all or most of the concrete consisted of sub-100 micron particles is correct (it's not) without looking it up, then answer this: How much explosives (expressed in tons of TNT, for instance) would be required to convert a large percentage of the concrete into sub-100 micron particles? Show your work/citations.

edit: Forgive me if I don't consider your guarantee binding.

Last edited by chipmunk stew on Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:02 pm Post subject:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

That's like a science teacher being considered "neutral" because he says that life evolved over billions of years, but it was also magically regurgitated by a giant cosmic bat.

If by "neutral" you mean "insane", then you may have a point.

Last edited by aggle-rithm on Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject:

deleted because it could be interpreted as a violation of forum rules... Last edited by aggle-rithm on Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:06 pm; edited 1 time in total

DaveyJ
Minor Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject:

probably beacuse the entire construction wasnt made out of concrete, the majority of it was steel. Not all of the concrete was pulvierised to sub micron powder. What difference does it make if it was brought down by planes or by explosives, the expolsives were just supposed to weaken the structual integrity, either way it hits the ground, so what does the condition of concrete at ground zero have anything to do with wether explosives were used, explain please ________ free magento themes Last edited by DaveyJ on Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:25 am; edited 1 time in total

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

Because of some inbuilt respect for authority?

rofl - I cannot conceive that your disrespect for "authority" exceeds mine. Can't speak for the others here.

chek wrote:

[Because it ain't because of the scientific method, that's for sure.

Nobody knows the HOW of what was done - Stephen Jones has detected super-thermate trace elements. Whether it is standard industry practice or not is irrelevent - we know the technology is used by the military in anti-tank weapons to burn through steel.

You seem to have this fixation that somehow we know, or should know what was done that day. We don't.

We only know the tendered explanation and non-investigations were a sham, are absolutely ridiculous and explain nothing whatsoever.

How someone like MIT shill Professor Thomas Eager ever expects to be taken seriously in the academic world ever again beats me. But that's the way of the world these days.
But hopefully not for much longer.

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:08 pm Post subject:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

chipmunk stew wrote:

SHERITON HOTEL wrote:

I've said it before but the question we should be asking is 'why won't the 'Organ grinder' answer any questions?'

He does. You just don't like his answers.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

I wasn't aware that the "organ grinder" was another term for "republican party neocon crazies". What makes you think the "republican party neocon crazies" would be in a position to accurately answer any substantive questions?

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject:

DaveyJ wrote:

probably beacuse the entire construction wasnt made out of concrete, the majority of it was steel. Not all of the concrete was pulvierised to sub micron powder. What difference does it make if it was brought down by planes or by explosives, the expolsives were just supposed to weaken the structual integrity, either way it hits the ground, so what does the condition of concrete at ground zero have anything to do with wether explosives were used, explain please

It's indicative of how much energy was required to accomplish that process, and that far exceeds by an order of magnitude the available potential and kinetic gravitational energy. A true smoking gun.

Google Jim Hoffman and Jeff King if the calculations will mean anything to you.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Why do you find Steven Jones' conclusions more valid than Thomas Eager's?

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

DaveyJ wrote:

"It's indicative of how much energy was required to accomplish that process, and that far exceeds by an order of magnitude the available potential and kinetic gravitational energy."
Please quantify within an order of magnitude: a) the energy required and b) the energy available. (I am aware of a range of estimates for these, but I want to know which ones you are using.)

Then answer this: How much explosives would be required (expressed as tons of TNT) to make up for the energy deficit? Show your work/citations.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:22 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

I googled them, but couldn't find any calculations. I wonder why?

I would be more inclined to trust their expertise if they weren't electrical/software engineers (supposedly) speaking on a topic outside of their fields.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

chek wrote:

Yeah right, physicists, just one-trick ponies aren't they?
I understand Kevin Ryan was in charge of water standards, and Einstein was only a patent clerk. What would they know?

And regrettably I recognise the level and tenor of this type of pseudo-discussion and that's me.
I'm out of here.
Have fun!

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

aggle-rithm wrote:

chek wrote:

Well in your own private moments, then, for your own edification, I urge you:
--Check up on the premise that all the concrete was pulverized to sub-100 micron particles. I think you'll find it incorrect. If not:
--Check up on how much explosives would be required to cover the supposed energy deficit in the total pulverization/pyroclastic flow analyses. I think you'll find that the amount is absurdly high.

These are not trick questions. They are foundational premises.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

chek wrote:

Why do you find Steven Jones' conclusions more valid than Thomas Eager's?

Mainly because of the way Eager makes up his well respected though wrong non peer-reviewed theories-on-the-hoof about the softening temps of steel.
He's a quack who implies steel is a one grade material rather than a variable alloy, and his observations are not related even slightly to the limits of building quality structural steel.

Maybe it was those Japanese architects buying the cheap stuff down the flea-market instead, eh?

Whereas Jones shows why he comes to his conclusions, and uses a transparent and honest scientific method to explain his conclusions.

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 1 of 4

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum