| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:47 pm Post subject: John White puts his finger on it! |
 |
|
| John White wrote: |
........[NPT belief] is like a group collective, isnt it? Self re-enforcing their own belief system based on continously re-affirming what they wish to see and considering everything out of context
Its amazing really, no matter how much the NPT b/s gets pwned, they just keep on believing, whilst blanking that they have NEVER been able to solve the core problems with the whole hypothesis
Still i've decided to stop debating them on the whole, and let the whole thing burn itself out and eat itself: some people have a need for a simple "solution" becuase its too much work for them to keep expanding their own paradigm, thats what the NPT psy-op has sucked in, and they are only victims of themselves: exactly like the critics. Look at bushwacker for example, still firmply in denial after a whole year. Just the mirro of the same phenomona
|
But John, what you describe about the NPT believers is true of 9/11 Truthseekers as a whole! A self-reinforcing group, supporting each other in an irrational belief, quite unable to solve fundamental problems with that belief and ignoring them, in the case of your group using the handy side-step of maintaining that an inability to solve these problems or develop a coherent narrative does not matter, the important thing is to press for a new enquiry. (The ignored elephant being that the immediate reaction of anyone on being told the official story is untrue is to ask what did happen!)
There is certainly no difficulty is expanding one aspect of your paradigm, any possible objections can normally be met simply by expanding indefinitely the circle of those accused of being part of a conspiracy, the original imaginary team now being joined by all those involved in the supposed cover-up and of course for many of you, with the UK attacks, a raft of people over here as well. That some of you have gone even further into the irrational with NPT and beam weapons is not really surprising, it is doubtless the lure of new thrills and fresh excitements when the original stimulus of 9/11 scepticism begins to wear off and a bigger hit is needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More insulting drivel bushlover
I presume you are familiar with the Jersey Girls and Press for Truth. Just run by me in your own words why you believe they are not entitled to a new judicial and truly independent inquiry? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | More insulting drivel bushlover
I presume you are familiar with the Jersey Girls and Press for Truth. Just run by me in your own words why you believe they are not entitled to a new judicial and truly independent inquiry? |
But it is not drivel, I think you know that, and that is what gets you so annoyed. It is your particular "inconvenient truth".
As far as I can discover the Jersey Girls are not asking for a new enquiry, making your attempt to hide behind their skirts rather futile, they are continuing to emphasis the failures of intelligence and government failure to act on intelligence, and pressing for greatly improved intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks. They campaigned for Kerry specifically because he undertook to implement all the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Although they criticised the Commission report, they and Tom Kean are now allies in trying to get those recommendations fully adopted.
Kristen Breitweiser said in an interview last year, "And my grievance is - people say "You're blaming the government for 9/11" - I'm not blaming the government for 9/11. I know that it was the terrorists that flew planes into buildings that day. What I blame the government for is contributing towards the vast devastation of that day, costing lives. And then thereafter not being interested in fixing those failures that cost lives."
That seems to me a entirely sensible and rational view, and one I would fully support. Would you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You appear to be willfully misrepresenting the views of those family campaigners who were involved in Press for Truth and that is annoying and insulting. It is the failure of the authorities and the media to address the questions raised by the families that is the inconvenient truth. But at the end of the day I don’t buy that you are genuine and that belief is reinforced when I see this kind of misrepresentation of the arguments. I can’t help returning to my question why do you bother? Over 1100 posts is a huge investment of your time. What is your motivation? What is your expertise? Perhaps you could share a bit more information about yourself that will help readers judge for themselves whether you are genuine and that your opinion is worth taking seriously on such a serious issue?
If the quote you attribute Kirsten is accurate and in context, it is certainly not representative of what the other Jersey Girls or the members of the families steering committee who were involved in PFT have said in their recent press interviews and statements. They do not accept the Kean Commission and its conclusions are sound.
On August 4th, 2006, 9/11 family members Lorie Van Auken, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg, and Monica Gabrielle released a statement that questioned the "entire veracity" of the 9/11 Commission's report.
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Group_of_widows_claim_911_Independent_08 04.html
In '9/11 Press For Truth', members of the FSC reveal that, in the words of widow Mindy Kleinberg, the 9/11 Commission Final Report failed to answer "75% of our questions" as reported in the FSC Report Card on the Final Report.
The families ask
1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
6. Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
7. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
9. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?
All reasonable and important questions I’m sure you will agree and not the sort of questions based on the presumption that the OCT is true but more on the presumption that the authorities are desperately trying to keep the truth from the families and the wider world.
I also don’t accept that they are not calling for a new investigation. Asked if they support a new investigation they reply "Not if it was anything like the last one," says Kleinberg. "We'd be for congressional hearings, but only if they were held like a trial, with real legal authority exercised. We hope the 110th Congress sees fit to do so. We're not giving up." On September 11th, 2006, at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., family members Donna Marsh O'Connor, Michelle Little, and Christina Kminek asked for, "a new investigation into the events of September 11th, and this time, a truly bipartisan, global, with families invested from the beginning, middle, and throughout the end."
So they are calling for a new judicial investigation and do not accept the lies of the Kean Commission.
I also don’t accept the basic premise of your first post that those challenging the OCT are required to provide an alternative narrative. The onus is not on those challenging the OCT to say what really happened, merely to expose the fact that the OCT is not the truth but based on lies and cover-up, which it undoubtedly is.
When asked where they stand in relation to the 9/11 truth movement and some of its other claims, such as the view that controlled demolitions brought down the towers or that a missile hit the Pentagon, Kleinberg says
"All these videos out there, they're just giving their take on the various questions the official reports failed to answer. The girls and I, we won't jump to any conclusions until all the facts are in, but we do share many of the same questions they do, and we definitely share the basic view that we haven't learned the whole truth about 9/11." And that is my basic position. To my satisfaction it is proven that the OCT is based on lie after lie, inexplicable secrecy (inexplicable unless the authorities have something to hide) and on avoidance of all the tough questions. Kean Commission by its terms of reference was required to conclude the OCT was essentially true.
Finally would you care to show me where they endorsed or campaigned for Kerry? They may have criticized Bush for failing to implement recommendations. That is not the same as endorsing Kerry.
Now having spent over an hour of my time demolishing your insulting drivel, I should warn you that I strongly suspect that your motivation for posting here. Further examples of misrepresentation will reinforce these suspicions and will led me to review your account |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you had to spend an hour to find some evidence to justify your first post, and all you could find was that response of Mindy Kleinburg to a question about whether they supported a new investigation. Well that is something I suppose, so well done. I did not misrepresent their views, I particularly said "As far as I can discover the Jersey Girls are not asking for a new enquiry" and that was true.
You however, resorted to misrepresentation to try to bolster your case, that quote of September 11, 2006 was not of course by any of the Jersey Girls, who we were specifically talking about. Perhaps you should threaten to ban yourself!
It remains the case that the Jersey Girls are mainly concerned to pin-point the failure of intelligence and more especially to use intelligence to prevent 9/11, and the failure to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. See their statement of 5th October 2006. To quote from it "The most effective change for America would be to have a National Security Council that understands that it is their job to translate vital information into action."
The quote from Kristen Breitweiser came from this interview Here is another quote you probably will not like "There's no denying that 19 hijackers brought the country to its knees, but when you look at the record and you see the governmental failures leading up to 9/11 and on the day of 9/11 itself, lives were clearly lost because of the government incompetence and neglect, and we wanted to know that that would never happen again."
I really am surprised you do not know that the Jersey Girls endorsed Kerry for president, it was quite a controversial move and widely reported. See for instance here and here Quote from Lorie Van Auken, asked why she endorsed Kerry "I have many reasons. First of all, this president waited 14 months for an investigation. We think that there should have been an investigation right away. Then they fought funding it properly. Then they fought providing certain documents................Second, he has pledged to enact all 41 of the 9-11 Commission’s recommendations, which this president is still fighting against."
I do not say that those challenging the OCT are required to provide an alternative narrative, whether you do is up to you, what I do say that you have no hope of getting another enquiry without one, and a convincing one. You have certainly made no progress towards your goal without one.
You are probably right that I spend too much time here, so I should probably quit like other critics, worn down by arguing against irrationality. So I really do not care if you ban me, it will only demonstrate the weakness of your case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | You appear to be willfully misrepresenting the views of those family campaigners who were involved in Press for Truth and that is annoying and insulting. It is the failure of the authorities and the media to address the questions raised by the families that is the inconvenient truth. But at the end of the day I don’t buy that you are genuine and that belief is reinforced when I see this kind of misrepresentation of the arguments. I can’t help returning to my question why do you bother? Over 1100 posts is a huge investment of your time. What is your motivation? What is your expertise? Perhaps you could share a bit more information about yourself that will help readers judge for themselves whether you are genuine and that your opinion is worth taking seriously on such a serious issue?
If the quote you attribute Kirsten is accurate and in context, it is certainly not representative of what the other Jersey Girls or the members of the families steering committee who were involved in PFT have said in their recent press interviews and statements. They do not accept the Kean Commission and its conclusions are sound.
On August 4th, 2006, 9/11 family members Lorie Van Auken, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg, and Monica Gabrielle released a statement that questioned the "entire veracity" of the 9/11 Commission's report.
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Group_of_widows_claim_911_Independent_08 04.html
In '9/11 Press For Truth', members of the FSC reveal that, in the words of widow Mindy Kleinberg, the 9/11 Commission Final Report failed to answer "75% of our questions" as reported in the FSC Report Card on the Final Report.
The families ask
1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
6. Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
7. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
9. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?
All reasonable and important questions I’m sure you will agree and not the sort of questions based on the presumption that the OCT is true but more on the presumption that the authorities are desperately trying to keep the truth from the families and the wider world.
I also don’t accept that they are not calling for a new investigation. Asked if they support a new investigation they reply "Not if it was anything like the last one," says Kleinberg. "We'd be for congressional hearings, but only if they were held like a trial, with real legal authority exercised. We hope the 110th Congress sees fit to do so. We're not giving up." On September 11th, 2006, at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., family members Donna Marsh O'Connor, Michelle Little, and Christina Kminek asked for, "a new investigation into the events of September 11th, and this time, a truly bipartisan, global, with families invested from the beginning, middle, and throughout the end."
So they are calling for a new judicial investigation and do not accept the lies of the Kean Commission.
I also don’t accept the basic premise of your first post that those challenging the OCT are required to provide an alternative narrative. The onus is not on those challenging the OCT to say what really happened, merely to expose the fact that the OCT is not the truth but based on lies and cover-up, which it undoubtedly is.
When asked where they stand in relation to the 9/11 truth movement and some of its other claims, such as the view that controlled demolitions brought down the towers or that a missile hit the Pentagon, Kleinberg says
"All these videos out there, they're just giving their take on the various questions the official reports failed to answer. The girls and I, we won't jump to any conclusions until all the facts are in, but we do share many of the same questions they do, and we definitely share the basic view that we haven't learned the whole truth about 9/11." And that is my basic position. To my satisfaction it is proven that the OCT is based on lie after lie, inexplicable secrecy (inexplicable unless the authorities have something to hide) and on avoidance of all the tough questions. Kean Commission by its terms of reference was required to conclude the OCT was essentially true.
Finally would you care to show me where they endorsed or campaigned for Kerry? They may have criticized Bush for failing to implement recommendations. That is not the same as endorsing Kerry.
Now having spent over an hour of my time demolishing your insulting drivel, I should warn you that I strongly suspect that your motivation for posting here. Further examples of misrepresentation will reinforce these suspicions and will led me to review your account |
why would bushwacker smear people constantly searching for truth with such an obsessional manner?
on the bright side its important that bushwacker and his ILK are confined to idiots/critics corner and not be allowed to spread misinfo/disinfo to the truth sections of this site.
i would be amazed at bushwacker and his sidekicks responded to all of your pointsyour points.
hereis my response to the points in question.
1. procedures not followed, thereby allowing a 'free' attack.
2. cant have the anti missile defense and air defense intercepting the 'object' that hit the pentagon can we?
3. Bush was in no danger, the terrorists are not those we were led to believe.
4. on the contrary, rather than be fired or demoted, many have since gained promotion?!!!!!!  
5. cant let that info out of the bag now can we old chap.
6. see answer 5.
7. expect a similar explanation such as 'pancaking' to emerge by a government funded 'investigation'.
8. if your going to do an inside job and false flag, be sure to have some patsies lined up to take the blame.
9. they have been shredded and the transcripts misplaced.
10. sshhhhhh.
11. the stategy of answering difficult incriminating questions is to remain silent and hope nobody will notice, failing that, stick your fingers in your ears and hum la la la loudly.
12. if your doing an inside job, make sure to place insiders in the top positions of investigations. 
right, now be prepared for bushwacker to ignore your questions and start to spam the board with 6 more topic starters of red herrings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject: Re: John White puts his finger on it! |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | John White wrote: |
........[NPT belief] is like a group collective, isnt it? Self re-enforcing their own belief system based on continously re-affirming what they wish to see and considering everything out of context
Its amazing really, no matter how much the NPT b/s gets pwned, they just keep on believing, whilst blanking that they have NEVER been able to solve the core problems with the whole hypothesis
Still i've decided to stop debating them on the whole, and let the whole thing burn itself out and eat itself: some people have a need for a simple "solution" becuase its too much work for them to keep expanding their own paradigm, thats what the NPT psy-op has sucked in, and they are only victims of themselves: exactly like the critics. Look at bushwacker for example, still firmply in denial after a whole year. Just the mirro of the same phenomona
|
But John, what you describe about the NPT believers is true of 9/11 Truthseekers as a whole! A self-reinforcing group, supporting each other in an irrational belief, quite unable to solve fundamental problems with that belief and ignoring them, in the case of your group using the handy side-step of maintaining that an inability to solve these problems or develop a coherent narrative does not matter, the important thing is to press for a new enquiry. (The ignored elephant being that the immediate reaction of anyone on being told the official story is untrue is to ask what did happen!)
There is certainly no difficulty is expanding one aspect of your paradigm, any possible objections can normally be met simply by expanding indefinitely the circle of those accused of being part of a conspiracy, the original imaginary team now being joined by all those involved in the supposed cover-up and of course for many of you, with the UK attacks, a raft of people over here as well. That some of you have gone even further into the irrational with NPT and beam weapons is not really surprising, it is doubtless the lure of new thrills and fresh excitements when the original stimulus of 9/11 scepticism begins to wear off and a bigger hit is needed. |
I only see only one "cult" here and that is people, like yourself, who cling to a story which defies the laws of physics (and I know you and the laws of physics are not that well acquainted given all your attempts to describe how the towers fell and your belief that the top 25 stories of WTC2 hit the ground and then smashed, causing the wide debris field).
Your position seems to be that the OCT stands until someone describes exactly how it was done, and proves it and gets the participants to admit it. Hence why you have to keep repeating your cult-like mantra "fires cause explosions, fires cause explosions" despite numerous explosions happening a long distance from any fire. All of the on-scene reporters seemed to know the towers were brought down by explosives immediately after the event - because they were there - and their reports indicate that. It still stuns me that so many people can be led by the media into accepting a completely different story.
Then of course you have to state that all the eye-witnesses were correct (but only if they say things you like). Therefore firemen can accurately predict the top down collapse of Building Seven but are inaccurate when describing the blasts bringing down the towers. Witnesses seeing a plane fly into the Pentagon are accurate except those ones from the Citgo gas station who are all collectively incorrect in describing the flight path. But your cult has chosen the OCT and cannot deviate from it. Thus Flight 77 knocked down the light poles and all of the other contrary evidence is in error? I'd have more respect for you if you actually aqreed that something very odd happened that day at the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission Report was incorrect. Because any remotely intelligent human being who analyses the evidence has to see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Do try to concentrate, Long Tooth, those are not Ian Neal's questions for me, they are the families questions for the 9/11 Commission! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:49 pm Post subject: Re: John White puts his finger on it! |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | John White wrote: |
........[NPT belief] is like a group collective, isnt it? Self re-enforcing their own belief system based on continously re-affirming what they wish to see and considering everything out of context
Its amazing really, no matter how much the NPT b/s gets pwned, they just keep on believing, whilst blanking that they have NEVER been able to solve the core problems with the whole hypothesis
Still i've decided to stop debating them on the whole, and let the whole thing burn itself out and eat itself: some people have a need for a simple "solution" becuase its too much work for them to keep expanding their own paradigm, thats what the NPT psy-op has sucked in, and they are only victims of themselves: exactly like the critics. Look at bushwacker for example, still firmply in denial after a whole year. Just the mirro of the same phenomona
|
But John, what you describe about the NPT believers is true of 9/11 Truthseekers as a whole! A self-reinforcing group, supporting each other in an irrational belief, quite unable to solve fundamental problems with that belief and ignoring them, in the case of your group using the handy side-step of maintaining that an inability to solve these problems or develop a coherent narrative does not matter, the important thing is to press for a new enquiry. (The ignored elephant being that the immediate reaction of anyone on being told the official story is untrue is to ask what did happen!)
There is certainly no difficulty is expanding one aspect of your paradigm, any possible objections can normally be met simply by expanding indefinitely the circle of those accused of being part of a conspiracy, the original imaginary team now being joined by all those involved in the supposed cover-up and of course for many of you, with the UK attacks, a raft of people over here as well. That some of you have gone even further into the irrational with NPT and beam weapons is not really surprising, it is doubtless the lure of new thrills and fresh excitements when the original stimulus of 9/11 scepticism begins to wear off and a bigger hit is needed. |
I only see only one "cult" here and that is people, like yourself, who cling to a story which defies the laws of physics (and I know you and the laws of physics are not that well acquainted given all your attempts to describe how the towers fell and your belief that the top 25 stories of WTC2 hit the ground and then smashed, causing the wide debris field).
Your position seems to be that the OCT stands until someone describes exactly how it was done, and proves it and gets the participants to admit it. Hence why you have to keep repeating your cult-like mantra "fires cause explosions, fires cause explosions" despite numerous explosions happening a long distance from any fire. All of the on-scene reporters seemed to know the towers were brought down by explosives immediately after the event - because they were there - and their reports indicate that. It still stuns me that so many people can be led by the media into accepting a completely different story.
Then of course you have to state that all the eye-witnesses were correct (but only if they say things you like). Therefore firemen can accurately predict the top down collapse of Building Seven but are inaccurate when describing the blasts bringing down the towers. Witnesses seeing a plane fly into the Pentagon are accurate except those ones from the Citgo gas station who are all collectively incorrect in describing the flight path. But your cult has chosen the OCT and cannot deviate from it. Thus Flight 77 knocked down the light poles and all of the other contrary evidence is in error? I'd have more respect for you if you actually aqreed that something very odd happened that day at the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission Report was incorrect. Because any remotely intelligent human being who analyses the evidence has to see it. |
Don't be silly, of course the laws of physics are not defied. I did not say the top 25 stories hit the ground and smashed, I said that some of it may have stayed intact as it fell, we do not know since it disappeared into the dust cloud. Do you want to say it was destroyed when detached from the lower floors by radio contolled demolition charges inexplicably set off by the conspirators or a second shot of the beam weapon from space? The official story stands until disproved, as the best available explanation. Only a fool would deny that fires cause explosions, but if that is the line you wish to take........Explosions happening a distance from the fire comes down to William Rodriguez, who took over a year to decide that there were explosions. The on scene reporters reported explosions, they could not know what brought down the towers. The firemen predicted the collapse of WTC7, they did not say it would be top down and it wasn't, it was bottom up, unlike the towers, apart from the penthouse. The firemen at the towers correctly reported explosions. The policemen at the Citigo gas station, like many others, saw the plane hit the Pentagon, you conveniently forget that. Eye witness accounts often differ without any intention to deceive, but too many saw the plane hit for them to be mistaken. Differences in the detail of the path it took are unsurprising. We have to decide whether the Citigo witnesses were mistaken or teams of people knocked over and battered the poles. I know which I think is more likely, and I think any remotely intelligent person would agree with me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | | What is your expertise? Perhaps you could share a bit more information about yourself that will help readers judge for themselves whether you are genuine and that your opinion is worth taking seriously on such a serious issue? |
No I didn't think so
| ian neal wrote: | | So they (the Jersey Girls and family members who cooperated with PFT) are calling for a new judicial investigation and do not accept the lies of the Kean Commission. |
So care to tell us why you feel their call is unjustified and why you do not support it?
My problem with you Bushy is that consistently seek to portray '911 truth seekers' as a deluded cult. This is outrageous and insulting drivel. Insulting to the families. Insulting to the many good, brave, sane and independently minded people listed at http://patriotsquestion911.com/. Insulting to me.
As well as being outrageous and insulting, I strongly suspect it is your 'job' to do so. Why else would you devote your time to this research and 'debate'? Why else would you consistently misrepresent the evidence and claims of the 9/11 truth movement?
Instead of inviting me to ban you, why not seek to reassure me that you are genuine? If you choose you can do so by PM. I would treat this in confidence |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | | ian neal wrote: | | What is your expertise? Perhaps you could share a bit more information about yourself that will help readers judge for themselves whether you are genuine and that your opinion is worth taking seriously on such a serious issue? |
No I didn't think so
| ian neal wrote: | | So they (the Jersey Girls and family members who cooperated with PFT) are calling for a new judicial investigation and do not accept the lies of the Kean Commission. |
So care to tell us why you feel their call is unjustified and why you do not support it?
My problem with you Bushy is that consistently seek to portray '911 truth seekers' as a deluded cult. This is outrageous and insulting drivel. Insulting to the families. Insulting to the many good, brave, sane and independently minded people listed at http://patriotsquestion911.com/. Insulting to me.
As well as being outrageous and insulting, I strongly suspect it is your 'job' to do so. Why else would you devote your time to this research and 'debate'? Why else would you consistently misrepresent the evidence and claims of the 9/11 truth movement?
Instead of inviting me to ban you, why not seek to reassure me that you are genuine? If you choose you can do so by PM. I would treat this in confidence |
I have no more expertise than anyone else, I did science at school to A level standard but have studied nothing scientific since. I do pride myself however on having a logical mind and the ability to assess evidence fairly. I started on this forum because I wanted to see what evidence was available, having been struck by how like a demolition the collapse of WTC7 appeared on video. I found that in fact that its appearance was the extent of the evidence that it had been demolished by explosives, but the misrepresentations that posters were prepared to go through to pretend that there was other evidence appalled me, particularly taking Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment completely out of its context and ignoring the fact that it was addressed to a fire chief. The evidence that the firemen were expecting it to collapse was simply brushed aside as irrelevant. It was clearly the case that "truthseekers" were in fact starting with a conclusion and the seeking was for anything that could possibly be twisted and misrepresented to support it. That started me critically examining the rest of the claimed evidence for 9/11 as an inside job, and finding it all wanting, so I realised that in fact I was a critic, in your terms.
That I find no evidence to support the fundamentally unlikely theory that Bush arranged 9/11 is of course not to imply that I am a Bush supporter, far from it. Bush is by far and away the worst US President in history, stupid, deluded and irresponsible, trampling on the fundamental freedoms of US citizens, condoning torture and indulging in the illegal invasion of Iraq, not only illegal but so badly planned that it was bound to end in disaster. Unhappily for us in the UK, Blair did not have the strength of character to dissuade him or even keep us out of it, so British lives are being pointlessly sacrificed in a doomed enterprise.
That the Bush administration had to be dragooned into mounting an enquiry into 9/11 and tried to subvert it in every way is not surprising, now we know the extent to which warning signals from both US and foreign intelligence were ignored, they clearly were very vulnerable to accusations of failing to act when they should have done. The 9/11 Family Steering Committee, including the Jersey Girls, did sterling work in forcing an enquiry, and blocking the attempted appointment of Kissinger. They monitored and criticised the work of the Commission and no doubt there was a better report as a result, but many of them, including again the Jersey Girls, were disappointed in the eventual report, particularly the conclusion that there was a "failure of imagination" when there had been so many warnings.
Some of the family members are now calling for a new enquiry, as you showed, many more of them lead by Debra Burlingame supported the re-election of Bush, the Jersey Girls supported Kerry and, judging by the quote you found, would welcome a new more independent enquiry, but are not actively campaigning for it. Do any of these automatically have right on their side? I would say no, they have to make their case. Realistically, there is not likely to be a new enquiry unless the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission can be shown to be flawed, which they have not been. The Jersey Girls appear to accept that and are concentrating their efforts on the implementation of the 41 recommendations of the Commission, and continuing to question the intelligence available prior to 9/11, and especially the failure to act on it. I find your repeated statement that the Jersey Girls are calling for for a judicial investigation, without showing any evidence to support that, very strange. Is it wishful thinking, or do you actually have some evidence? Linking them to others who have called for such such an investigation without any evidence that they have done so might be considered misrepresentation, I am sure you will agree.
My references to cult-like behaviour is because of the strong resemblences to fundamental religious zealots of some truthseekers; there is the same rejection of rational argument and evidence in favour of simple belief, the same hatred for unbelievers and apostates.
I am interested to see that you think I might have a job being a critic, I haven't, but it is an intriguing prospect. Where can I apply and do you think I might get paid for past posts? Can I use your post as a reference? I do not think I do misrepresent the claims and evidence of the truth movement, it would indeed be hard to do so given that so much of it is conflicting anyway.
I wonder myself why I have spent so much time here, I find the argument is rather addictive but quite unproductive really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject: Re: John White puts his finger on it! |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
Don't be silly, of course the laws of physics are not defied. I did not say the top 25 stories hit the ground and smashed, I said that some of it may have stayed intact as it fell, we do not know since it disappeared into the dust cloud. Do you want to say it was destroyed when detached from the lower floors by radio contolled demolition charges inexplicably set off by the conspirators or a second shot of the beam weapon from space? The official story stands until disproved, as the best available explanation. Only a fool would deny that fires cause explosions, but if that is the line you wish to take........Explosions happening a distance from the fire comes down to William Rodriguez, who took over a year to decide that there were explosions. The on scene reporters reported explosions, they could not know what brought down the towers. The firemen predicted the collapse of WTC7, they did not say it would be top down and it wasn't, it was bottom up, unlike the towers, apart from the penthouse. The firemen at the towers correctly reported explosions. The policemen at the Citigo gas station, like many others, saw the plane hit the Pentagon, you conveniently forget that. Eye witness accounts often differ without any intention to deceive, but too many saw the plane hit for them to be mistaken. Differences in the detail of the path it took are unsurprising. We have to decide whether the Citigo witnesses were mistaken or teams of people knocked over and battered the poles. I know which I think is more likely, and I think any remotely intelligent person would agree with me. |
Eye-witnesses and Citgo: I do not conveniently forget anything, I know they say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Is it more likely that witnesses who are proven to be at the scene (unlike many other eye-witnesses) would all have mistaken their left for their right? On such a traumatic day as that one? It is fairly clear-cut to me .... the plane they saw could not have taken down the light poles. So what happened? It is a mystery, as are most parts of the Pentagon story. Maybe there were 2 planes?
Fires cause explosions? I am trying to appeal to your rational side presuming you have one. How many explosions can a fire 80 stories high actually cause in other parts of the building? Witnesses reported numerous explosions, it is all there on the TV footage. It is the Commission Report which ignored all this - despite general acceptance at the time that there must have been devices to bring down the towers. And all you can say is "things explode in fires".
Does none of this conflicting evidence actually worry you? You do realise that just because some person on this board spouts something that is complete * (and I know it happens many times), it does not make the OCT any more likely.
"The official story stands until disproved, as the best available explanation." And Santa Claus stands as the best explanation for all the presents next to kid's beds on Christmas morning - surely all those parents wouldn't be lying? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: Re: John White puts his finger on it! |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: |
Don't be silly, of course the laws of physics are not defied. I did not say the top 25 stories hit the ground and smashed, I said that some of it may have stayed intact as it fell, we do not know since it disappeared into the dust cloud. Do you want to say it was destroyed when detached from the lower floors by radio contolled demolition charges inexplicably set off by the conspirators or a second shot of the beam weapon from space? The official story stands until disproved, as the best available explanation. Only a fool would deny that fires cause explosions, but if that is the line you wish to take........Explosions happening a distance from the fire comes down to William Rodriguez, who took over a year to decide that there were explosions. The on scene reporters reported explosions, they could not know what brought down the towers. The firemen predicted the collapse of WTC7, they did not say it would be top down and it wasn't, it was bottom up, unlike the towers, apart from the penthouse. The firemen at the towers correctly reported explosions. The policemen at the Citigo gas station, like many others, saw the plane hit the Pentagon, you conveniently forget that. Eye witness accounts often differ without any intention to deceive, but too many saw the plane hit for them to be mistaken. Differences in the detail of the path it took are unsurprising. We have to decide whether the Citigo witnesses were mistaken or teams of people knocked over and battered the poles. I know which I think is more likely, and I think any remotely intelligent person would agree with me. |
Eye-witnesses and Citgo: I do not conveniently forget anything, I know they say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Is it more likely that witnesses who are proven to be at the scene (unlike many other eye-witnesses) would all have mistaken their left for their right? On such a traumatic day as that one? It is fairly clear-cut to me .... the plane they saw could not have taken down the light poles. So what happened? It is a mystery, as are most parts of the Pentagon story. Maybe there were 2 planes?
Fires cause explosions? I am trying to appeal to your rational side presuming you have one. How many explosions can a fire 80 stories high actually cause in other parts of the building? Witnesses reported numerous explosions, it is all there on the TV footage. It is the Commission Report which ignored all this - despite general acceptance at the time that there must have been devices to bring down the towers. And all you can say is "things explode in fires".
Does none of this conflicting evidence actually worry you? You do realise that just because some person on this board spouts something that is complete * (and I know it happens many times), it does not make the OCT any more likely.
"The official story stands until disproved, as the best available explanation." And Santa Claus stands as the best explanation for all the presents next to kid's beds on Christmas morning - surely all those parents wouldn't be lying? |
At the Pentagon, many people saw one plane hit the building, nobody saw two planes at very low level, some people saw a plane hitting light poles, nobody saw anything else hitting light poles. Conflicting eye witness accounts are a common feature of any incident, particularly on what was, as you say, a traumatic day. There is agreement that there was a single plane and it hit the Pentagon. There is a conflict of evidence about the path it followed, eye witnesses claim two different paths, one is supported by the physical evidence of the light poles. It is very unlikely that any further evidence can now be found, whatever enquiries are held, so we have to decide on the basis of the evidence we have. This is actually quite a normal situation in a law court, it has to be decided whose evidence to prefer, and certain matters are not fully explained. The fundamentals of what happened are not affected, whichever path it followed, a large Boeing hit the Pentagon.
Rationally, what value can be placed on the opinion of people on the ground outside the buildings on the day as to the cause of the collapse, compared to the examination of the steel by independent volunteer structural engineers and the careful analysis of NIST? (Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse) Floors did fall prior to the collapse of the towers, they can be seen on the photographs and there were fireballs down the towers on impact. However much it irritates you, it remains true that things do explode in fires, electrical transformers for example. Unlike the Pentagon, there is no real conflict of evidence here, there is simply no evidence of anything other than damage and fires bringing down the towers.
At the risk of disillusioning you, Santa Claus does not stand as the best explanation of your presents, rational thought disposes of him, similarly rational thought disposes of another fantasy, 9/11 as an inside job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker,
Thanks for the long reply and please accept my apologies. I find your failure to see what to me is an overwhelming case for the need for a new inquiry as baffling and irrational. But that is no reason to start doubting your sincerity. There will be people who post here (both those who are critics or supposed supporters) who are not sincere but the presumption should be that we are all genuine unless there is strong evidence to show otherwise.
Because I'm baffled by your lack of suspicions regarding 9/11, there is probably little value in our continued dialogue, but I wish you well regardless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faust
Minor Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | I have no more expertise than anyone else, I did science at school to A level standard but have studied nothing scientific since. I do pride myself however on having a logical mind and the ability to assess evidence fairly. I started on this forum because I wanted to see what evidence was available, having been struck by how like a demolition the collapse of WTC7 appeared on video. I found that in fact that its appearance was the extent of the evidence that it had been demolished by explosives, but the misrepresentations that posters were prepared to go through to pretend that there was other evidence appalled me, particularly taking Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment completely out of its context and ignoring the fact that it was addressed to a fire chief. The evidence that the firemen were expecting it to collapse was simply brushed aside as irrelevant. It was clearly the case that "truthseekers" were in fact starting with a conclusion and the seeking was for anything that could possibly be twisted and misrepresented to support it. That started me critically examining the rest of the claimed evidence for 9/11 as an inside job, and finding it all wanting, so I realised that in fact I was a critic, in your terms. |
Bushwacker, explain to me how WTC7 collapsed. I want to know how all structural supports gave way (at the base of the building) at the exact same time throughout the whole building.
It is of my opinion that WTC7 was pulled. The fact that silverstein blundered this fact in an interview makes me even more suspicious that he was in the loop. Can you think of any rational reason why he said "pull it"? It shouldn't have been his decision to "pull it" either. I'm pretty sure that decision lies with the fire chief or the freeholder, not the leaseholder(silverstein) of the building.
| Quote: | | I wonder myself why I have spent so much time here, I find the argument is rather addictive but quite unproductive really. |
IMO, you are incapable of believing that our own governments are capable of such terror. I think you'd rather believe the spoonfed version that our enemy is someone who hates freedom and democracy...
_________________
reality is a manufactured illusion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | Bushwacker,
Thanks for the long reply and please accept my apologies. I find your failure to see what to me is an overwhelming case for the need for a new inquiry as baffling and irrational. But that is no reason to start doubting your sincerity. There will be people who post here (both those who are critics or supposed supporters) who are not sincere but the presumption should be that we are all genuine unless there is strong evidence to show otherwise.
Because I'm baffled by your lack of suspicions regarding 9/11, there is probably little value in our continued dialogue, but I wish you well regardless. |
Thank you Ian, I think bafflement is mutual, but I do accept that many people genuinely feel that there are substantial unanswered questions about 9/11 and a new independent enquiry is the best means of producing the answers. Obviously that is not a view I share, and I do not think that doubts about the official version have been shown to be well-founded, but of course I have no reason to object to your efforts to obtain an enquiry, so I wish you good luck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| faust wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | I have no more expertise than anyone else, I did science at school to A level standard but have studied nothing scientific since. I do pride myself however on having a logical mind and the ability to assess evidence fairly. I started on this forum because I wanted to see what evidence was available, having been struck by how like a demolition the collapse of WTC7 appeared on video. I found that in fact that its appearance was the extent of the evidence that it had been demolished by explosives, but the misrepresentations that posters were prepared to go through to pretend that there was other evidence appalled me, particularly taking Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment completely out of its context and ignoring the fact that it was addressed to a fire chief. The evidence that the firemen were expecting it to collapse was simply brushed aside as irrelevant. It was clearly the case that "truthseekers" were in fact starting with a conclusion and the seeking was for anything that could possibly be twisted and misrepresented to support it. That started me critically examining the rest of the claimed evidence for 9/11 as an inside job, and finding it all wanting, so I realised that in fact I was a critic, in your terms. |
Bushwacker, explain to me how WTC7 collapsed. I want to know how all structural supports gave way (at the base of the building) at the exact same time throughout the whole building.
It is of my opinion that WTC7 was pulled. The fact that silverstein blundered this fact in an interview makes me even more suspicious that he was in the loop. Can you think of any rational reason why he said "pull it"? It shouldn't have been his decision to "pull it" either. I'm pretty sure that decision lies with the fire chief or the freeholder, not the leaseholder(silverstein) of the building.
| Quote: | | I wonder myself why I have spent so much time here, I find the argument is rather addictive but quite unproductive really. |
IMO, you are incapable of believing that our own governments are capable of such terror. I think you'd rather believe the spoonfed version that our enemy is someone who hates freedom and democracy... |
If I may correct you, the structural supports did not give way at exactly the same time, the East penthouse collapsed into the building first, then the East edge of the building started to give way, before the entire structure came down. As NIST has not issued a final report, no one can tell you exactly why this happened. Despite its conventional appearance, WTC7 was a complex structure at the lower level, owing to being built over the ConEd substation. NIST stopped work on it June 2004 in order to concentrate on the towers, and started again in October 2005. They say "NIST's investigation of WTC 7 includes an extremely complex analysis that incorporates detailed information about the building's structure and construction, as well as data about fires, damage sustained from falling WTC 1 debris and other technical factors to determine its probable collapse sequence."
and "The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."
As for Silverstein, what he said was,"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." So Silverstein did not make the decision to pull, what ever that meant, it was the fire department. This part of what he said often tends to be misquoted, but you are quite right, the decision was not his to make, and indeed he did not make it.
Next consider what "pull it" might mean, the conpiracy sites will all tell you that later in the same video a demolition man uses it for the destruction of WTC6. What they will not tell you is that WTC6 was literally pulled down with wire hawsers attached to excavators. The demolition world does not use "pull" to refer to demolishing a building with explosives, and in any event neither Silverstein nor the fire chief were demolition men. On the other hand there are numerous examples of firemen using "pull" in the sense of taking men away from a particular building, and I would be happy to post them here if you wish. Since Silverstein previously refers to inability to contain the fire and the loss of life, he very obviously was talking about pulling firemen away from the building.
To believe that Silverstein accidentally revealed that WTC7 was demolished, you have also to believe that:
He mentioned the loss of life for no reason
The FDNY, which lost 350 men that day, were part of the conspiracy
Silverstein let them decide to blow up WTC7
The FDNY demolish buildings with explosives
Although the firemen knew that WTC7 was liable to collapse from the damage and fires, they decided to blow it up anyway.
You are right, although I despise Bush, I do not think he would commit such an act as 9/11, moreover I do not think he could count on finding hundreds of people to assist him, who would never breath a word about it. Our enemy is indeed not someone who hates our freedoms, but someone who hates having Western troops in his country and believes that the West has committed crimes against the Moslem world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your ability to search the internet and quote from official sites is indeed impressive but given that we all believe that 9/11 was an inside job, you quoting NIST at us is not only pointless but also indicates that you are unable to truly think for yourself. NIST could have had 500,000 people working on the report plus the 3 wise monkeys and they were always going to return the "official story". They did the same at Oklahoma (with some of the same people leading) - but it doesn't make them correct.
I keep trying to debate with you because I know that deep down, you realise the official story smells worse than rotten fish. And once converted, you will become the best sort of non-smoker who just loves to spread the word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | Your ability to search the internet and quote from official sites is indeed impressive but given that we all believe that 9/11 was an inside job, you quoting NIST at us is not only pointless but also indicates that you are unable to truly think for yourself. NIST could have had 500,000 people working on the report plus the 3 wise monkeys and they were always going to return the "official story". They did the same at Oklahoma (with some of the same people leading) - but it doesn't make them correct.
I keep trying to debate with you because I know that deep down, you realise the official story smells worse than rotten fish. And once converted, you will become the best sort of non-smoker who just loves to spread the word. |
The reason I debate with you is that you do not mindlessly accept all the so-called evidence that the conspiracy sites produce, but I do ask you to think for yourself over NIST. It is all too easy simply to dismiss any government linked organisation in this glib way "NIST could have had 500,000 people working on the report plus the 3 wise monkeys and they were always going to return the official story" NIST and other organisations are not composed of mindless shadow figures unable to think for themselves, like the extras manning the villain's HQ in the final shoot-out of a James Bond movie. There were 85 NIST experts plus support staff, plus 125 outside experts involved, these are real human beings. Do you think that they can all be persuaded to support a false story to cover up the mass murder of their fellow citizens by their government? Could the government really rely on their doing so? Or perhaps they were volunteers, the head on NIST called all his staff together and asked those who had no objections to covering up government murder to put their hands up? The outside experts were perhaps asked if they would agree to issue a totally phoney report covering up the murder if their fees were increased from the usual rate. Just think about how possible this would be, not in the artificial fantasy world of conspiracy theory, but in the real flesh-and-blood world.
As I said in the first post on this thread, "There is certainly no difficulty is expanding one aspect of your paradigm, any possible objections can normally be met simply by expanding indefinitely the circle of those accused of being part of a conspiracy, the original imaginary team now being joined by all those involved in the supposed cover-up" but not a single whistle-blower has come forward in six years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | There were 85 NIST experts plus support staff, plus 125 outside experts involved, these are real human beings. Do you think that they can all be persuaded to support a false story to cover up the mass murder of their fellow citizens by their government? Could the government really rely on their doing so? |
Your answer is in the scope of the investigation which was primarily concerned with impact and fire. Or did the NIST investigators interview Rodriguez and everyone in the basement and determine that they were all lying given the level of damage they witnessed could not be caused by a fireball?
| NIST's verbally elegant but morally bankrupt FAQ at http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm wrote: | | Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation. |
There would be no living witnesses of blasts and explosions ...........
They also used the fact that the collapse was from the impact floors to rule out controlled demolition, which is a neat trick if you can get away with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | There were 85 NIST experts plus support staff, plus 125 outside experts involved, these are real human beings. Do you think that they can all be persuaded to support a false story to cover up the mass murder of their fellow citizens by their government? Could the government really rely on their doing so? |
Your answer is in the scope of the investigation which was primarily concerned with impact and fire. Or did the NIST investigators interview Rodriguez and everyone in the basement and determine that they were all lying given the level of damage they witnessed could not be caused by a fireball?
| NIST's verbally elegant but morally bankrupt FAQ at http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm wrote: | | Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation. |
There would be no living witnesses of blasts and explosions ...........
They also used the fact that the collapse was from the impact floors to rule out controlled demolition, which is a neat trick if you can get away with it. |
Yes, the NIST investigation was primarily concerned with the impact and fire, which they determined caused the collapse, so my reply stands. I add that the volunteer structural engineers who examined and sampled the steel found no sign of explosives being used.
Rodgriguez took over a year to decide he had heard a bomb, his evidence is at best unreliable. In any event that was on initial impact, so that "bomb" caused no apparent damage to the tower which stood for another hour.
It is nonsense to say there would be no living witnesses of blast or explosions causing collapse initiation, the towers were surrounded by witnesses and cameras which recorded no such events. The police helicopter photographed the distortion of the exterior columns prior to collapse, which fits in with collapse through damage and fire. No one photographed blasts or explosions.
Collapse starting from the fire and impact floors is consistent with collapse caused by damage and fire and entirely inconsistent with controlled demolition because no known detonator/explosive combination would survive the fires, let alone the intitial impact. A controlled demolition would have to start elsewhere.
There is of course also the impossibility of wiring three occupied buildings for demolition without anyone noticing! (yes, I know one man says some floors in one building were shut off one weekend, but wiring a sizeable building takes months, even without having to hide every single sign of the work).
Not only is there not the slightest evidence for controlled demolition, it is actually physically impossible. If it was part of the "official story" it would be torn to shreds by truthseekers in minutes, however different standards apply for conspiracy theories of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Not only is there not the slightest evidence for controlled demolition, it is actually physically impossible. |
What is so physically impossible about controlled demolition compared to perfect symmetrical collapses as a consequence of random plane impacts and random damage.
_________________
Currently working on a new website |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scubadiver wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Not only is there not the slightest evidence for controlled demolition, it is actually physically impossible. |
What is so physically impossible about controlled demolition compared to perfect symmetrical collapses as a consequence of random plane impacts and random damage. |
As I said:
"Collapse starting from the fire and impact floors is consistent with collapse caused by damage and fire and entirely inconsistent with controlled demolition because no known detonator/explosive combination would survive the fires, let alone the intitial impact. A controlled demolition would have to start elsewhere.
There is of course also the impossibility of wiring three occupied buildings for demolition without anyone noticing! (yes, I know one man says some floors in one building were shut off one weekend, but wiring a sizeable building takes months, even without having to hide every single sign of the work)."
There was not a perfectly symmetrical collapse, the top section of one of the towers was seen to topple at an angle, there was the "spire" and for WTC7 the side of the building under the East penthouse clearly started to fall first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | why would bushwacker smear people constantly searching for truth with such an obsessional manner?
on the bright side its important that bushwacker and his ILK are confined to idiots/critics corner and not be allowed to spread misinfo/disinfo to the truth sections of this site. |
Can't say I like this. Sounds too much like Alex Jones-ish group think. While I think bushwhacker has about as much strength in his arguments as your average straw man, and I obviously disagree with him, I can't see where he has "smeared" anyone. Disagreeing does not = smearing. I can't honestly say I've gotten too positive an impression of him, but he's got just as much a right to his views as anyone else, and he does, in fact, confine himself to the critic's corner as far as I can tell.
Criticism is a vital basis of any argument, even and ESPECIALLY the 9/11 Truth movement. The fact is, if our argument (that 9/11 was some sort of inside job) cannot be defended against bushwhacker's (weak-as-I-see-them) arguments, then we ought to give up the ghost now and admit defeat.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
