| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:42 pm Post subject: Star Wars beam weapons at WTC |
 |
|
Well, now Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have disowned thermite/thermate/high explosives in favour of secret
Beam Weapons :
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html
and don't forget Woods and Reynolds are highly qualified !
So now we have :
holograms
faked videos of planes
drones
missiles
military aircraft
commercial aircraft
in various combinations of CD with:
thermite/thermate/nano thermate
high explosives
mini nukes
beam weapons
It's hard to keep up 
Here's a deal Truthers - we critics go away for a month while you good folks debate exactly what your theory is, and why. When you've settled your internal spats we'll get talking again. Is that fair?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:53 pm Post subject: Re: Star Wars beam weapons at WTC |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | Well, now Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have disowned thermite/thermate/high explosives in favour of secret
Beam Weapons :
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html
and don't forget Woods and Reynolds are highly qualified !
So now we have :
holograms
faked videos of planes
drones
missiles
military aircraft
commercial aircraft
in various combinations of CD with:
thermite/thermate/nano thermate
high explosives
mini nukes
beam weapons
It's hard to keep up
Here's a deal Truthers - we critics go away for a month while you good folks debate exactly what your theory is, and why. When you've settled your internal spats we'll get talking again. Is that fair? |
Well firstly, nobody forces you to visit this site, so being here and aware of any of this is strictly your own choice.
Secondly, there is a huge array of phenomena that do not fit any one simple tidy explanation.
That's why we resist you and the other 'critics' incessant requests for 'theories', and why a full and proper investigation that includes all the facts is what the campaign is about.
The only thing that is agreed is that the Official Story is a wholly inadequate lie.
Does that make the situation clear? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject: Re: Star Wars beam weapons at WTC |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
The only thing that is agreed is that the Official Story is a wholly inadequate lie.
|
Can you point to a single lie in the official story, please? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ignatz, I think you underestimate the truthshirkers, they have absolutely no problem in believing a number of mutually conflicting impossible fantasies at the same time, the only thing they utterly reject is anything that might be considered to be part of the "official theory", that is heresy and must be rejected utterly.
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."
"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Lewis Carroll
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject: Re: Star Wars beam weapons at WTC |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | chek wrote: |
The only thing that is agreed is that the Official Story is a wholly inadequate lie.
|
Can you point to a single lie in the official story, please? |
You mean apart from Rice's 'nobody expected this' lie, the NORAD/FAA not informed lie, the Underwriters Laboratories lie, the buckling beams - no wait floor attachment lie, the low speed/no fuel airliner lie, the environmental all clear lie?
I can post some more, but that should give you something to get you started. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bicnarok
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 334
Location: Cydonia
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A few things I would liek to add to this.
#Not every daft theory like "no planes" is supported by the majority of the people on this forum
#Every time a new idea comes along its bound to be posted, so it can be debated.
#Because nothing much is hapenning at the moment wierd stuff is bound to turn up, like on any open forum.
#Just because someone in the US is qualified doesn´t mean they are correct, anyone can get a diploma nowadays. And seeing as most released scientific stuff is made up educated guess work anyway we should treat such "qualifed persons" as normal.
#There is no FIXED theory as far as I know, the only thing which is for sure is that something isn´t right. Its all not what it seems.
_________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind..." Bod Marley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bicnarok wrote: |
#Every time a new idea comes along its bound to be posted, so it can be debated. |
This is fair enough, except (apart from the no planes theory)no theories seem to get dropped when they're proved wrong
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Bicnarok wrote: |
#Every time a new idea comes along its bound to be posted, so it can be debated. |
This is fair enough, except (apart from the no planes theory)no theories seem to get dropped when they're proved wrong |
You haven't seen Ally's latest sig, have you?
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Ignatz, I think you underestimate the truthshirkers, they have absolutely no problem in believing a number of mutually conflicting impossible fantasies at the same time, the only thing they utterly reject is anything that might be considered to be part of the "official theory", that is heresy and must be rejected utterly.
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."
"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Lewis Carroll |
Please allow me to show you up by quoting aristotle:
| Quote: | | "It is the mark of the educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" |
It seems clear to me that it is the lack of the courage to do just that which lets critics down so badly
Equally the lack of imagination to consider that, should the 9/11 story be a deception (as in, for example, the most likely hypothesis that it was a joint Al-Queda/Neo Con operation), there is equally an interest in propogating red herrings and false trails as there is in issuing blanket denials. Spot the way in which the majority of posters use caution and a carefull approach towards accepting anything at face value: which neither critics or conspiraloons do (critics just delude themselves that they do  )
| AS wrote: | | Can you point to a single lie in the official story, please? |
Easily, Prior knowledge: denial of which by the administration is a matter of public record and which has been exposed as a total lie
Now, will you dispute that or run away and try to blather about methodology?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Easily, Prior knowledge: denial of which by the administration is a matter of public record and which has been exposed as a total lie
Now, will you dispute that or run away and try to blather about methodology? |
Equivocation fallacy. Look it up (I already know that you won't, nor will you undergo the intellectual exercise to discover what it means, how it relates, and how your above statement is based on a logical fallacy... but.. whatever)
If knowing, on September 10th, that Osama Bin Ladin wanted to kill Americans counts as "prior knowledge", then I'm guilty too. It's proof of no part of the 9-11 truth movement, beyond their ability to mis-weigh evidence and draw literally mind-boggling conclusions based on logical fallacies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | Ignatz, I think you underestimate the truthshirkers, they have absolutely no problem in believing a number of mutually conflicting impossible fantasies at the same time, the only thing they utterly reject is anything that might be considered to be part of the "official theory", that is heresy and must be rejected utterly.
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again, draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."
"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Lewis Carroll |
Please allow me to show you up by quoting aristotle:
| Quote: | | "It is the mark of the educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" |
It seems clear to me that it is the lack of the courage to do just that which lets critics down so badly
Equally the lack of imagination to consider that, should the 9/11 story be a deception (as in, for example, the most likely hypothesis that it was a joint Al-Queda/Neo Con operation), there is equally an interest in propogating red herrings and false trails as there is in issuing blanket denials. Spot the way in which the majority of posters use caution and a carefull approach towards accepting anything at face value: which neither critics or conspiraloons do (critics just delude themselves that they do )
| AS wrote: | | Can you point to a single lie in the official story, please? |
Easily, Prior knowledge: denial of which by the administration is a matter of public record and which has been exposed as a total lie
Now, will you dispute that or run away and try to blather about methodology? |
Poor John, unfortunately your fellow conspiracists let you down so very badly. They do not just entertain thoughts, they fall in love with them and defend them to the death against any attacks. Caution and a careful approach are, sadly, unknown to them, and they are very fickle keeping two or more theories on the go at the same time, and then suddenly dumping any they get tired with. Dear old smelly feet at one moment was bounding all over Judy Woods and beam weapons like an eager puppy, then a few posts later he is calling her a shill. (Mind you everyone is a shill to Patrick!)
With a bit more imagination, you could perhaps see that falling to act on particular warnings amongst the thousands received is much more likely to be inefficiency than a deliberate act, and is very different from having prior knowledge.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | John White wrote: |
Easily, Prior knowledge: denial of which by the administration is a matter of public record and which has been exposed as a total lie
Now, will you dispute that or run away and try to blather about methodology? |
Equivocation fallacy. Look it up (I already know that you won't, nor will you undergo the intellectual exercise to discover what it means, how it relates, and how your above statement is based on a logical fallacy... but.. whatever)
If knowing, on September 10th, that Osama Bin Ladin wanted to kill Americans counts as "prior knowledge", then I'm guilty too. It's proof of no part of the 9-11 truth movement, beyond their ability to mis-weigh evidence and draw literally mind-boggling conclusions based on logical fallacies. |
You asked for a lie, you got one
I'll call that a "running away fallacy" 
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't get a lie. Why aren't you paying attention. The official story has well documented what the government knew and when, in general terms. The official story contains no lies on this issue. Feel free to find one.
Zero for one. Hey, but at least you are trying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Poor John, unfortunately your fellow conspiracists let you down so very badly. They do not just entertain thoughts, they fall in love with them and defend them to the death against any attacks. Caution and a careful approach are, sadly, unknown to them, and they are very fickle keeping two or more theories on the go at the same time, and then suddenly dumping any they get tired with. Dear old smelly feet at one moment was bounding all over Judy Woods and beam weapons like an eager puppy, then a few posts later he is calling her a shill. (Mind you everyone is a shill to Patrick!)
|
Comes from a combination at a lack of experiance in thinking (as opposed to believing what the telly/parental substitute authority figure says) and bloody-pissed-off-ness at realising one has been conned. Most get the hang of it after a while, though some (a handful) get off on jumping at the latest folly, I agree
Spotting the details is important too: like spotting the detail that PB supported Judy Wood's Billiard Ball analogy, but then publically stated that he had no truck with beam weapons.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5188
Either the detail missed you there BW or your being a bit wriggly: can't say I care which TBH
As for me, you'll find I'm quite capable of standing alone if need be: but rarley have to
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | I didn't get a lie. Why aren't you paying attention. The official story has well documented what the government knew and when, in general terms. The official story contains no lies on this issue. Feel free to find one.
Zero for one. Hey, but at least you are trying. |
Of course you did. Your in denial. How else would you describe "We didnt know about it/No one could of forseen it/oh yes...we did actually. Gosh we even had a specific drill about it a year before"?
Your problem is AS, your a new thinker. I'm not. I have a memory
(your also the weakest debater of all the critics, but excellent entertainment value)
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Now that's the John White I know. Zero evidence. Pure ad hominem. Glad to see you are back to normal after the very quick and very specious attempt at a rational thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Now that's the John White I know. Zero evidence. Pure ad hominem. Glad to see you are back to normal after the very quick and very specious attempt at a rational thought. |
You get a precise return on your own investment AS
| AS wrote: | | Can you point to a single lie in the official story, please? |
Care to explain instead of avoid how the US administration lying about prior knowledge "doesnt count"?
On second thoughts, dont bother: I've heard your frippery too many times before to find it interesting
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The official story has all prior knowledge, in general, well documented. It is _part_ of the official story. There are no lies. The memo is part of the official story. Neither me nor the official story is avoiding it, we have embraced it.
Any other questions or can we go back to you making outrageous claims with no evidence for pages at a time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Neither me nor the official story is avoiding it, we have embraced it.
|
Very telling
Your opinion of what can be gotten away with by retrospective fudging is all very illuminating AS but also so very very wrong. Being as your excusing mass murderers, your slightly further down the evolutionry scale than primordial slime in my book. Still, perhaps a profound accident of evolutionary chance will occur and you will evolve an ethical conscience: the shock may well be very nasty
Make the right choice before its to late
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There's that old ad hominem substanceless style I'm used to. Everything is back to normal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | AS wrote: | | Can you point to a single lie in the official story, please? |
Easily, Prior knowledge: denial of which by the administration is a matter of public record and which has been exposed as a total lie
Now, will you dispute that or run away and try to blather about methodology? |
I have evidence that your a fraud AS
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Last edited by John White on Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Quote: | Poor John, unfortunately your fellow conspiracists let you down so very badly. They do not just entertain thoughts, they fall in love with them and defend them to the death against any attacks. Caution and a careful approach are, sadly, unknown to them, and they are very fickle keeping two or more theories on the go at the same time, and then suddenly dumping any they get tired with. Dear old smelly feet at one moment was bounding all over Judy Woods and beam weapons like an eager puppy, then a few posts later he is calling her a shill. (Mind you everyone is a shill to Patrick!)
|
Comes from a combination at a lack of experiance in thinking (as opposed to believing what the telly/parental substitute authority figure says) and bloody-pissed-off-ness at realising one has been conned. Most get the hang of it after a while, though some (a handful) get off on jumping at the latest folly, I agree
Spotting the details is important too: like spotting the detail that PB supported Judy Wood's Billiard Ball analogy, but then publically stated that he had no truck with beam weapons.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5188
Either the detail missed you there BW or your being a bit wriggly: can't say I care which TBH
|
To an extent you have a point there, John. I did try to find smelly foot's original post to refresh my memory, but failed to do so. If I had, I would have phrased my comment differently. The true position is that the original post from which he picked up the billiard ball article was full of references to the beam weapon which he simply ignored at the time but later rejected, along with the good lady herself.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shows what a sensible fella he is. Woods hypothesis about the bathtub is utterly ridiculous, its not a barrier against the river as far as manhatten itself is concerned, it only served the WTC complex itself, and its cheif purpose was for enabling the orignal construction. Without that the beam hypothesis falls apart and shows the deliberate distraction it was designed to be
However, one cannot sell a crock effectively without some real content to sweeten the deal, so I wont agree that there is no genuine content in Woods work at all. However, a tainted source is worse than nothing. Redo from scratch and start again
The inescapable problem being of course the impossibility of the plane impacts bringing the towers down. Its only a hypnotists trick that convinces anyone such a preposterous notion could be credible: and once broken, spells STAY broken. Personally, I always feel regret for the tarnishing of the good name of those who built the WTC. The towers were a crowning acheivment of American Civilisation before its current sorry state of decline. Here in blighty, we know how that one feels
Take a step back, look at it again, put out of mind the need to explain, and you may well break the spell for yourself Bushwhacker and see that 45 minutes of fire did not cause WTC2 to collapse: you have a flexible enough mind, and far more genuiness of heart than your collegue AS
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I feel rather the same about you, John, that you are not altogether a lost cause!
You find the collapse of WTC after a 45 minute fire implausible, an impossibility in fact.
Against that I would cite the design of the towers, with large clear floor areas, requiring long floor trusses with their vulnerability, the extensive damage they had already suffered and the opinions of experts, including those of the towers engineers that are still alive.
I find it implausible that three huge occupied buildings were set up for demolition without anyone noticing, that demolition charges and detonators survived the impacts and fires, that WTC7 was included, since it added nothing to the spectacle and might not have been damaged by debris, giving no excuse for demolition, that "they" could have arranged for the planes to be flown into the buildings, and that enough conspirators could be found and persuaded to keep quiet.
Trying to judge between the two sets of implausibilities, the 45 minute collapse due to fire and damage, sounds very quick, admittedly, but I am not an engineer.
The other set seems to me to form a quiet insuperable barrier.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I cant see a single point there that I havnt refuted credibly at some time or other in discussion here with critics, especially in some of my exchanges with aggle rythm
however, i'm not going to do such a point by point thing here: it would be an injustuce to your own abilities IMO BW
I will comment on the rub of the matter though:
We have a choice between two absurdities:
On the one hand, that a structure could catastrophically fail against all precedent and the expectations one may have of the construction and the materials: and then another one: and then, another one: all on one day
On the other, that the human psyche is capable of being primed and turned to such a purpose as to do such a horrendous thing as be part of causing such a horror, and working with others to acheive that aim and keep it secret.
We may never know how many would definately be involved to acheive such a thing, but I believe a reasonable number would be 200. Its a funny thing that 19 arabs is considered a credible number to execute a terrorist plot, but 200 "americans" is not
I have to say, looking at the world and its long tragic history, theres nothing I won't consider possible with the right levers aplied to human nature. The limitations of material properties seem rather more defined
(If you do want the point-by-point thing btw, just let me know)
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
On the one hand, that a structure could catastrophically fail against all precedent and the expectations one may have of the construction and the materials: and then another one: and then, another one: all on one day
|
And of the thousands of experts and dozens of professional organizations analysis ex post facto? All of them seem to think the data fits perfectly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | John White wrote: |
On the one hand, that a structure could catastrophically fail against all precedent and the expectations one may have of the construction and the materials: and then another one: and then, another one: all on one day
|
And of the thousands of experts and dozens of professional organizations analysis ex post facto? All of them seem to think the data fits perfectly. |
A carefully constructed and maintained fantasy that doesn't stand up to closer examination. Something you'd be very familiar with eh, AS?
A public impression based on a systematic campaign of intimidation and in extreme cases, murder. Bush science in action. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | I cant see a single point there that I havnt refuted credibly at some time or other in discussion here with critics, especially in some of my exchanges with aggle rythm
however, i'm not going to do such a point by point thing here: it would be an injustuce to your own abilities IMO BW
I will comment on the rub of the matter though:
We have a choice between two absurdities:
On the one hand, that a structure could catastrophically fail against all precedent and the expectations one may have of the construction and the materials: and then another one: and then, another one: all on one day
On the other, that the human psyche is capable of being primed and turned to such a purpose as to do such a horrendous thing as be part of causing such a horror, and working with others to acheive that aim and keep it secret.
We may never know how many would definately be involved to acheive such a thing, but I believe a reasonable number would be 200. Its a funny thing that 19 arabs is considered a credible number to execute a terrorist plot, but 200 "americans" is not
I have to say, looking at the world and its long tragic history, theres nothing I won't consider possible with the right levers aplied to human nature. The limitations of material properties seem rather more defined
(If you do want the point-by-point thing btw, just let me know) |
There is no point going through the point by point process, we know what we each would say, and that we would not convince the other.
Looking at the overall picture though, what I honestly fail to understand is that whether or not the buildings could fall in the time they did from a combination of damage and fire is an entirely technical matter on which you are prepared to say that the "official" version is absurd, although the vast weight of technical opinion is against you. How can you seriously contend that it is absurd, under those circumstances? You are certainly entitled to say that you do not accept it, despite the technical opinion supporting it, but surely it cannot be absurd? If it were it would imply that every structural engineer in the world, for example, had either given not the slightest thought at all to the matter, or had decided to keep quiet for some reason.
You give weight to the fall of the buildings being unprecedented, to which the standard reply of course is that what occurred to the buildings is also unprecedented, in terms of the combination of damage and fire. But look at what is unprecedented in the alternative theories put forward by the only technically qualified people who are prepared to dispute the "official" version. Prof Jones suggests that thermite was used, unprecedented in demolition, and cut through vertical columns, unprecedented for thermite which is normally used horizontally, and he has not yet suggested how in fact it could be used vertically. He also suggests a nano-thermate derivative with the necessary properties was used, certainly unprecedented as it has not been demonstrated that it exists. Dr Wood suggests that a high energy beam weapon was fired from a satellite, and you cannot get much more unprecedented than that! Would any plotters really decide that they could rely on using such unproven techniques? If technical people have to resort to such theories to explain how a demolition was conducted, what does it tell us?
If the theory supported by NIST is absurd, the implication is that they have not simply supported one plausible theory rather than another, but they have deliberately proposed something self-evidentally absurd, so they must all have colluded in the plot. No doubt you are right that 200 Americans could eventually be found willing to take part in mass murder, but could the staff of NIST all also be persuaded? For them all, the operatives and the colluders, imagine the difficulty of the recruitment process, when anyone you approach who was not willing to join you could blow the whistle on you, at the time or later. The only explanation for the hijacking of the planes that does not involve huge technical problems or an army of conspirators is that they really were hijacked by patsy Arabs, so they and their handlers have to be added to the list of conspirators, rather than exist as an alternative.
It seems to me the scales of plausibility are tipped so heavily towards the "official" theory that it must be infinitely preferable to the demolition theory. But I doubt you agree!
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No doubt you are right that 200 Americans could eventually be found willing to take part in mass murder, |
I'd ask you to hold onto that thought. On this one aspect alone, we are in agreement that such a thing is not beyond credibiulity
| Quote: | | but could the staff of NIST all also be persuaded? For them all, the operatives and the colluders, imagine the difficulty of the recruitment process, when anyone you approach who was not willing to join you could blow the whistle on you, at the time or later. |
Well, this is the stumbling block isnt it? Again, it appears preposterous, ludicrous, and I'd completely agree that getting all of those personages to willingly participate in a coverup is utterly beyond credibility
The thing is, their not needed to: some thoughts on why not:
1) Consensus reality
All these scientists are human beings as well. They saw the planes fly into the towers, repeated 100's of times on televison for weeks after the event. Planes flew into the buildings...buildings fell down. Cause and effect, cause and effect, cause and effect. There's a powerful bond of re-inforcement. But the cause followed by effect is not primarily their own thought: it is an implanted thought, accepted as their own becuase they are not in the habit of questioning authority...why then would they be looking to challenge this widely held belief? There are intimate psychological pressures on humans not to stand out from the majority. As anyone who's ever tried it knows: like a teenager standing up to his parents and saying "no I dont want to go to university/join the army/work for the family buisness!" etc, or, as a more extreme example, a 20 year Jehovah's Witness trying to leave his church
2) Controlling an Investigation
Here in blighty we are a cynical lot, becuase we have a long exposed history of, for want of a better way of putting it, the State fitting people up. Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, etc etc etc, literally hundreds of examples of gross miscarriages of Justice. But hundreds of people worked on those cases, policemen, forensic scientists, expert witnesses, lawyers, barristers, judges, politicians gave speeches, journalists wrote stories, and so on and so on. Course, when it comes to judges we'd believe anything about that bunch (lol), but can we seriously consider that all those personages knowingly stitched up those poor buggers and banged them in the slammer for two decades? Of course not: but they all played their part with a clean conscience. To control an investigation, all one does is have a handful (perhaps even just a single) of people who decide what is and isnt relevant to be investigated. This is exactly what we see with the exposed Whitewash of the 9/11 commission with Zelicow sat at the top of the tree as executive director
The scientist working for NIST (or whoever) isnt involved in strategic decisions about the course of the investigation. Even if he had quibles, he's got that powerful consensus trance keeping him from taking the risk of expressing his doubts. Hes asked to "test this", "analysis that", "run this experiment", and thats all he's required to do: he runs the results, writes the numbers down, passes the report up the chain, takes his labcoat off, and drives home to dinner with his wife and kids. And thats ALL he does. Its the bare handful who set the direction of the investigation and decide what to include in the final report who are the only ones required to be willing to do a job. And there are no end of cover stories those people can be sold to make them conform to supporting the Lie: again with a clean conscience
Try this one (just off the top of my head):
"Mr Bloggs. What I am about to say is a matter of utmost National Security. Al-Queda managed to penetrate security far more than the government has been able to let the public know, in order to avoid mass panic. They were able to place bombs in the buildings and use them to bring the towers down. On going investigations at the highest level will lead to the capture of those responsible. However, it is vital for the public interest that your report does not give propoganda to the enemy by revealing to the public how effective these terrorist scum really were"
"Yes sir, I'll do my part Sir!"
And you see, although my example is purely speculative (and I could come you with ten or so no problem), the FACT that high level cover up's DO occur is simply not disputable. What then would we expect to see?
Well, we might expect to see a handful of key personal work on both the NIST and the FEMA reports who had a history of investigating these kinds of incidents before and producing reports that ignored massive evidance to the contary...and that is exactly what we DO see...
OKC Murrah building report authors:
Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Miaker
Mete Sozen
Initial ASCE team leaders (9/14/01):
Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Miaker
Mete Sozen
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+rya n&hl=en
Now, to my mind, there's four people directly in the frame who need a shot of sodium penthanol. You must make of it what you will BW
| Quote: | | The only explanation for the hijacking of the planes that does not involve huge technical problems or an army of conspirators is that they really were hijacked by patsy Arabs, so they and their handlers have to be added to the list of conspirators, rather than exist as an alternative. |
Yes, they're in the frame alright, no dispute there. Thats why I call 9/11 a joint NeoCon/alqueda operation....
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Last edited by John White on Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:42 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No doubt you are right that 200 Americans could eventually be found willing to take part in mass murder, |
Did you hold that thought?
Remember, the alternative is the failure of a massively over engineered high quality steel structure with multiple redundancy after an impact that the official reports say shredded an aluminum plane around the core columns and 45 minutes of fire...
and my alternative is far from impossible...
Theorising in the dark is obviously far from ideal. Whether it was thermite or not is meerly trying to make educated deductions. But then its not the fault of the masses that information is being withheld. Thats why we are campaigning for a new investigation
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
