| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject: stupidest media claims or reports, apparently. |
 |
|
link all the reports and claims the media made around 9/11, where they say things critics consider wild claims. i could do this all day there are to many, if a day was 48 hours long i'd beable to add more. im not saying there is anything to any of these claims or reports, i am however saying this, that if 9/11 was not a inside job, its not hard to see where a lot of theorys and claims originate from. any how some of these may seem pointless, but they are not, they all contain things that critics argue against or have critised truthers for saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tm_UsssULM
small jet, (presenter) 'expert piloting', it blew, there was a huge explosion, 767 not easy to steer its almost as if these pilots knew what they were doing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA
this one is many different bits, and speaks for its self. "some senators descirbe this as a second pearl harbour" (PNAC mentions needing another pearl harbour).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p_eURBP3LM
"breached the secuirty of america's military might" (refering to the pentagon)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5a2ENaH8Y
"well building 7 there was no fire there whatsoever" seems to give the impression melted cars from very little fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enH6ZXLap38&feature=related
newsreader goes into CD talk about building 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTSinAhJgVE&feature=related
giuliani told the WTC was going to collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GHblYsBMQw&feature=related
secondary explosions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svIzfBQ55VU&feature=related
secondary device, that is another bomb going off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP4I&feature=related
talk about explosives in the building
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REUHaOYNMWk&feature=related
other version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y_HKuc5a6Y&feature=related
more bomb talk.
if anyone can add to this with links to media reports saying things that could of sparked of an whole theory or claims please link them.
ive searched and look at loads and i can see at the very least these reports helped to fuel the theorys that arouse and exsist today.
do truthers really need to read a 'conspiracy theory' website to get the impression something else may of happened? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: stupidest media claims or reports, apparently. |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
do truthers really need to read a 'conspiracy theory' website to get the impression something else may of happened? |
No, they need only look at the carefully selected video clips conspiracists have posted on youtube, apparently.
Do any of these say anything that has not been discussed a hundred times? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: Re: stupidest media claims or reports, apparently. |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
do truthers really need to read a 'conspiracy theory' website to get the impression something else may of happened? |
No, they need only look at the carefully selected video clips conspiracists have posted on youtube, apparently.
Do any of these say anything that has not been discussed a hundred times? |
you talk rubbish. the reason there are so many media reports of 9/11 on youtube IS because there are so many references where the media say things that could give a different impression or indicate it did'nt happen how we were told (the things critics complain about.)
regardless its actual material from the media not a conspiracy theory website, the information is said or given by the media, not a conspiracy theory website. clips like above and the many many others are where the theorys were born. the media gave many references to CD for days.
yet there is no evidence what so ever of a CD according to critics.
and you miss the point, on purpose i suspect. i made it clear with my explaination what the thread was about. so why you expect it to mention anything new is rather strange. although the mere fact you asked proves you did'nt look at what was linked, but then why would i expect a critic to do that. better to ignore it and go believing truthers got their theorys out of thin air and nothing contributed to them.
did the media say those things above because they were reporting what they saw and heard? i believe they were. were they comparing to simular things? of course they were.
its very easy to see where and how the theorys were born.
| Quote: | | carefully selected video clips |
rubbish, all you need do is listen to any 9/11 media coverage, and most will contain something that links to one of the theorys going today or something that critics complain about when a truther says it.
although im sure you can appreciate i cannot link the whole lot, it would simply be to time consuming. easier to let others find some gems or check themselves.
people do not repeat what they heard on a conspiracy theory website. they repeat what the media reported in the first few days. wether it is right or wrong is'nt the point im making, just the source of where the theorys originate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Right, you are saying that when people had no idea what was going on, they speculated about different things, such as bombs and so on, and now we all do know what happened, troofers have failed to catch up, and are still stuck back with the speculation of those early days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Right, you are saying that when people had no idea what was going on, they speculated about different things, such as bombs and so on, and now we all do know what happened, troofers have failed to catch up, and are still stuck back with the speculation of those early days. |
no thats what your saying.
wether there is something to the reports or claims the media made is'nt the point of the thread. however if you want to get into that, then there are two possibilities, actually three.
possibility one is what you just said......
"they speculated about different things, such as bombs and so on, and now we all do know what happened, troofers have failed to catch up, and are still stuck back with the speculation of those early days".
however i'd describe it as suspicous people thinking something was'nt right about 9/11, who then look for signs or evidence, so they go through the media reports and what was being said both by the media and witnesses.
they found many examples like i linked, their suspicions were confirmed, and a new theories were born. ever since they have believed it whilst seeming to add more evidence as they went along which confirmed it even more to them.
possibility two.......... is that the media were reporting the truth to start with then started to change story and agenda as time went on. and all that was reported in the first day or two was ignored and dismissed as the cover up began.
possibility three...... some of the current conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 are a psy-op designed to distract people from the real issues in the world or the real conspiracy on 9/11. therefore the media were reporting things in a way that would fuel conspiracy theories.
for example if the only crime was foreknowledge for example, then fueling theorys like CD, npt, etc etc diverts people away from focusing on that area or discredits those asking the real questions due to those asking questions about things that were untrue or are untrue which were hinted at by the media.
or for some other reason, maybe excuses to bring in new legislation or laws etc which needs a high level of dissent to impliment.
now i don't know which it is or if it is something not mentioned. that was'nt the point of the thread. the point was, "where did the theories come from"
seeing as though the media were the first to say anything about it, and by looking at the things they were saying(speculation or not), the theories seem to match perfectly with what the media were saying in the first few days and in reports made in later months and years, as well as c*** ups by some in the bush adminstration(error/mistake or slip of tongue or not).
like bush saying there were explosives in the buildings, another saying flight 93 was shot down etc etc.
all the reports and c*** ups, match the theorys that emerged or exsisted fueling them even more or promting people to create that theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It just doesn't seem rational to me, as a psyop, to create a conspiracy that the government may have committed, just to divert attention away from a real conspiracy. Surely this is a lose-lose situation for the government? If it was their plan it has backfired dramatically, because all sorts of people have since started poring over every last detail of the whole of 9/11.
The clip where the guy says 'there is no fire there' at building 7 is an interview in the evening after the buildings have collapsed. I think he is referring to the status of the rubble piles, and not pre-collapse.
As far as I'm concerned, the clips are consistent with the official theory. They show the chaos at the twin towers, where it is well documented that many at the chaotic scene had no idea about aircraft striking the building until many hours after the events - of course they thought it was bombs. Or course sounds were heard, people were burnt. And at the Pentagon and Shanksville the reactions to those high-speed crashes are totally consistent with what the OT describes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | It just doesn't seem rational to me, as a psyop, to create a conspiracy that the government may have committed, just to divert attention away from a real conspiracy. Surely this is a lose-lose situation for the government? If it was their plan it has backfired dramatically, because all sorts of people have since started poring over every last detail of the whole of 9/11.
|
good. i did'nt say it was fact did i ? i was accounting for possible scenerios and then stated i don't know for sure which is the case or if it was something 'other'.
| Quote: | The clip where the guy says 'there is no fire there' at building 7 is an interview in the evening after the buildings have collapsed. I think he is referring to the status of the rubble piles, and not pre-collapse.
|
if you were paying attention that clip was about melted cars not the wtc 7 collapse. or are you saying what he said dos'nt fuel the 'melted car' theory.
| Quote: | | As far as I'm concerned, the clips are consistent with the official theory. They show the chaos at the twin towers, where it is well documented that many at the chaotic scene had no idea about aircraft striking the building until many hours after the events - of course they thought it was bombs. Or course sounds were heard, people were burnt. And at the Pentagon and Shanksville the reactions to those high-speed crashes are totally consistent with what the OT describes. |
good for you. it really does no good to deny the fact that these reports can give a different impression. one of the main reasons i still think there could be something in 9/11 conspiracys is most arguements against will even deny the obvious. or refuse to see point. a bit like your doing now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | As far as I'm concerned, the clips are consistent with the official theory. They show the chaos at the twin towers, where it is well documented that many at the chaotic scene had no idea about aircraft striking the building until many hours after the events - of course they thought it was bombs. Or course sounds were heard, people were burnt. And at the Pentagon and Shanksville the reactions to those high-speed crashes are totally consistent with what the OT describes. |
good for you. it really does no good to deny the fact that these reports can give a different impression. one of the main reasons i still think there could be something in 9/11 conspiracys is most arguements against will even deny the obvious. or refuse to see point. a bit like your doing now. |
I agree with you that these reports can give people a different impression taken on their own - I wasn't trying to deny that fact. I'm only pointing out that those clips can be largely explained also by the OT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm only pointing out that those clips can be largely explained also by the OT. |
two points i feel need mentioning.
point one: it is not just those clips, there are many many many other examples, people will find them if they look, i aint going to link them all, it would take all day searching and watching each clip inorder to point out the parts that have the reference.
point two: some refrences cannot be explained by the offical theory because the offical theory does not support the remark or reference. some references 'if there is nothing in them' can only be explianed as errors or misjudgement or people describing things that are simular to what was witnessed.
for example the offical story cannot explain the remark "there is a second device" when the offical story dos'nt support a CD scenerio or any scenerio involving a bomb, that remark can only be put down to error or confusion assuming it was'nt indeed true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
THE STEEL MELTED according to the media and a so called expert.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhRMoNGVaeY
truther says fire is not hot enough to melt steel and is instantly critised for saying it, but where did they get that impression from in the first place? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | one of the main reasons i still think there could be something in 9/11 conspiracys is most arguements against will even deny the obvious. or refuse to see point. a bit like your doing now. |
More accurately, one of the reasons people believe in 911 conspiracies is because they naively believe that in most large, complex events, there is 100% agreement among all witnesses and everything ties up neatly at the end like an episode of Scooby Doo. Thus when anything doesn't fit, we have no choice but to agonise about it forever since we cannot be absolutely 100.000000% certain that is wasn't a conspiracy.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nope thats not accurate, thats just a critic being stupid again.
there are many unanswered questions and a supposedly pending report.
there are also many contridictions.
9/11 is nowhere near 100% unless you ignore it or don't care.
watch this to get a rough idea of the questions being asked, you seem to be ignoring them and downplaying the doubt over the offical version.
its in 16 parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsXtJIyohPc&feature=related |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | point one: it is not just those clips, there are many many many other examples, people will find them if they look, i aint going to link them all, it would take all day searching and watching each clip inorder to point out the parts that have the reference. |
The number of clips is not necessarily the issue - it's whether those clips amount to anything more than the expected inconsistencies surrounding a chaotic and traumatic major event covered for days and weeks solid by a huge number of different media sources.
Orson Welles radio version of War Of The Worlds was considered by some listeners to be a genuine report of an alien invasion. If a conspiracy theory were to claim that it WAS an alien invasion, is it really credible? Just because some people thought it was at some point? I know the example is very different, but the principle is the same - we cannot simply respect a CT because it is believed, it is essential that we evaluate its credibility.
I think you do have a point though. For example there is absolutely no doubt that some accounts on the day report witnesses to the twin towers who claimed there were no planes, or no second plane, or didn't see a plane. Hence we have no-plane theories. It's the same at Shanksville - quotes taken out of context say 'there is no wreckage', hence an NPT there. At the Pentagon, the lack of CCTV footage is interpreted as an NPT. I can understand the thought processes that create these conspiracies, and have done for all eternity, but I don't see where it gets us, because if they aren't credible (IMO) then they aren't credible. Where they come from is irrelevant.
| Quote: | | for example the offical story cannot explain the remark "there is a second device" when the offical story dos'nt support a CD scenerio or any scenerio involving a bomb, that remark can only be put down to error or confusion assuming it was'nt indeed true. |
Well then the OT does explain the remark as error or confusion, so I think your statement is wrong - it absolutely explains the remark. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
where they came from is relevant. they came from media sources not conspiracy theory websites like critics falsly claim.
the melted steel example is the best.
critics deny the offical version even saying the steel melted, they say it weakened. yet there are many examples of the media claiming the offical version is that steel melted.
so there is one of two things here. either critics are lieing, or the media were reporting inaccurate information about the wtc collapse which led to people doubting the offical version due to the impossibility of steel melting from the fire.
hence truthers saying fire cannot melt steel.
who put the thought in their head? the media, not a conspiracy theory website. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | critics deny the offical version even saying the steel melted, they say it weakened. |
This seems to be the basic point of your post. Your point is that the OT is or was that steel melted. Do you have examples of that?
I think I may be right that an early NIST hypothesis involved melting steel, but that was rejected as not being possible. A hypothesis on its own is not an OT.
You also seem to confuse what the media say with an OT. Whatever the media says is not necessarily an OT.
The OT is that the steel weakened, not that it melted. This is based on the NIST report. Any official statement to the contrary, pre the NIST report, is now obselete. I don't see how the formation of an OT could work any differently in this case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
my god, your comments confirm 100% you did'nt watch the clip i provided earlier in the thread.
the media reported melted steel as fact and as the offical version.
i did'nt say it, they did.
and its nice you admit the offical was wrong before it was changed at least.
any chance it might still be wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | my god, your comments confirm 100% you did'nt watch the clip i provided earlier in the thread. |
It doesn't want to work, marky. I will keep trying.
| Quote: | the media reported melted steel as fact and as the offical version.
i did'nt say it, they did. |
I'm happy to go with that. Where I query it is in this definition of something as the OT. Is the OT that Saddam Hussein colluded on 9/11? I definitely disagree with that, but the American administration definitely tried to imply it.
I don't really buy this idea of the OT changing all the time - details may change as knowledge increases, but the basic thrust is the same I think. I think it's a bit of a shallow criticism. After all, (some) truthers have changed their minds many times, and many disagree with each other.
I'd use WTC7 as an example. What is the OT on that at the moment? I concede that it is generally that WTC7 collapsed, and there's also a fairly prevalent theory that a minor structural failure low in the building precipitated a total collapse. Is that an OT? If the NIST report contradicted those things the OT would have to evolve. I don't see that necessarily as a weakness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | my god, your comments confirm 100% you did'nt watch the clip i provided earlier in the thread. |
I have it now. It seems like the 'melted steel' theory was popular in the early days after the collapses. There's no real indication of where the theory comes from - 'engineers'. It's a game of chinese whispers.
I also note that none of those clips are anyone with a position of authority stating an official theory about what happened.
Please note I am not disagreeing with your general point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alex,
It's true that it is right and scientific for an understanding of events to develop as knowledge grows and prevailing theories are refuted, but that scientific process is not what we see with the official story.
The reason for this is that no more than one conclusion has ever been considered - as each old theory fails, the clear task is to provide a new one to provide the same conclusion - this is not science - it is politics.
Good science requires multiple hypotheses - government science requires only a justification of what they were telling the people in the first place (preferrably streched out to as many pages as possible and written in such a way that it's almost unreadable so the majority of people never will). Good science says we start with the facts and find a conclusion, government science says we start with the conclusion and find the facts that justify it.
FEMA and NIST are government agencies, not some independent merry bunch of researchers..
Would you try to deny that the remit of each of the three reports was to demonstrate how a set hypoethesis was correct, IOW to start with the conclusion and highlight those facts which support it, and not start with all the facts and draw the logical conclusion?
Imagine, just for a second, that the twin towers were destroyed by a sequence of explosives and incendiaries (I know you don't believe that but just picture it - you have it? OK) - do you REALLY think for a second a government agency would submit a report asserting this to be the case? Come on Alex, you're smarter than that.
All this while, the use of explosives, and only the most fanatical critic would concded that while they do not believe it, it would be possible to destroy a building with explosives, was never looked at. Why? Before 9/11 we have precisley two common causes of building collapse - earthquakes and CD - and we know it wasn't the former.
Perhaps, someone might argue, that the scientists working on the NIST report, or the FEMA report, aren't qualified to talk about explosives it would never cross their minds?
Nonsense.
Both the reports essentially share the same set of over-seeing authors, who crop up again in the Silverstein report. (Check Kevin Ryan’s essays online for research into the overlapping authorship of the three contradictory reports)
Gene Corley, Mete Sozen, two principle players in the writing of this trash and Charles Thornton (whose company was given control of ground zero and made the decision to ship out and sell as scap the bulk of the body of evidence) – Worked on the OKC Bombing report where they reported a single truck bomb caused the destruction seen. At that time General Partin (an expert in military explosives of 25 years) independently studied the Murrah building and presented his own report stating “The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building…was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.” He was ignored and the government scientist view was upheld, the same scientists who cropped up again to once more roll out a politically convenient and scientifically implausible conclusion with 9/11.
But one report dealing with an explosive event doesn’t make them experts does it – No – but that does not change the fact that they ARE GOVERNMENT'S EXPLOSIVES EXPERTS!
US Department of Defense funds Corley and Sozen through the Blast Mitigation for Structures Program (BMSP) and has done since 1997. The programme provides the DOD with expertise in explosives, and has been funded at $10 million annually.
Who else involved in the official reports are related to the BMSP? The programme makes use of contractors such as ARUP, ARA, SAIC, SGH, Thornton-Tomasetti and Weidlinger Associates – most of whom are listed as the “independent companies” which the official reports used as consultants
So what do we see here - we see three reports all essentially by the same few people (and the over laps go further than I've mentioned in breif here - look it up - it boggles the mind) with three different conclusions.
THIS IS NOT one team saying this and the other team saying "no I think you're wrong - it's this" - this is the same people saying this and then being refuted by the truth movement and then saying "Ok this then" then being refuted by the truth movement and then saying "this then" and it'll go on forever while a majority doesn't pay attention and a minority (including you I'm afraid) activley excuse them.
These few people are the DoD's explosives experts I'm going to repeat that - the principle authors of the official reports are the DoD's explosive experts - they provide the DoD with expertise and research on explosives of all kind - can you just put two and tow together - shake this silly idea of noble independent scientists working for the truth through FEMA and NIST and wake up and smell the coffee!
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | It's true that it is right and scientific for an understanding of events to develop as knowledge grows and prevailing theories are refuted, but that scientific process is not what we see with the official story.
The reason for this is that no more than one conclusion has ever been considered - as each old theory fails, the clear task is to provide a new one to provide the same conclusion - this is not science - it is politics. |
You are imagining a series of events inspired by a government cover-up. But the series of events is not exclusive to a cover-up, as it is exactly how an investigation would progress if there was no cover-up - more on this later, it's a logical fallacy.
Again, as an example I say what is the OT on WTC7? Is the theory changing, or is an investigation simply still happening? I agree that there is a general feeling that it collapsed among the authorities, and you could argue that in theory they could assume it was explosives, and ask NIST to prove that. But as far as we know, they found no physical evidence of explosives - is that not clear leading evidence that they should consider collapse?
| Quote: | | Good science requires multiple hypotheses - government science requires only a justification of what they were telling the people in the first place (preferrably streched out to as many pages as possible and written in such a way that it's almost unreadable so the majority of people never will). Good science says we start with the facts and find a conclusion, government science says we start with the conclusion and find the facts that justify it. |
The report I have read parts of is the NIST report, and I would disagree with you that it is stretched out and made overly complex. It is complex, because it is a complex subject, as many of the 9/11 issues are. I agree that NIST considered collapse, as instructed, but it looked at multiple hypotheses within that. NIST also stated that they found no evidence of explosives, implying that they did consider that hypothesis. I don't accept that it isn't good science, simply because you speculate that they didn't consider explosives - you can neither prove that, nor explain why that should preclude an investigation of collapse.
| Quote: | | FEMA and NIST are government agencies, not some independent merry bunch of researchers.. |
I agree with that, but that does not mean they are necessarily corrupt. I do not agree with the criticisms of the NIST report, and there has certainly been no challenge to it from within the established scientific community.
| Quote: | | Would you try to deny that the remit of each of the three reports was to demonstrate how a set hypoethesis was correct, IOW to start with the conclusion and highlight those facts which support it, and not start with all the facts and draw the logical conclusion? |
I think what you are saying is that you don't agree with the conclusion. From my perspective, they did reach the logical conclusion, and I presume they used logic to reach it.
| Quote: | | Imagine, just for a second, that the twin towers were destroyed by a sequence of explosives and incendiaries (I know you don't believe that but just picture it - you have it? OK) - do you REALLY think for a second a government agency would submit a report asserting this to be the case? Come on Alex, you're smarter than that. |
Imagining a hypothetical which could deliver a similar result is irrelevant in this case. It's affirming the consequent - a logical fallacy. If it was a cover-up, the reports would be thus. The reports were thus. Therefore it was a cover-up.
Imagine for a second that the towers were destroyed by fire and damage from an aircraft collision. What do you think the reports would say then? They would say it was a collapse.
| Quote: | | All this while, the use of explosives, and only the most fanatical critic would concded that while they do not believe it, it would be possible to destroy a building with explosives, was never looked at. Why? Before 9/11 we have precisley two common causes of building collapse - earthquakes and CD - and we know it wasn't the former. |
Prove that the use of explosives was never looked at by the investigation.
| Quote: | Perhaps, someone might argue, that the scientists working on the NIST report, or the FEMA report, aren't qualified to talk about explosives it would never cross their minds?
Nonsense.
Both the reports essentially share the same set of over-seeing authors, who crop up again in the Silverstein report. (Check Kevin Ryan’s essays online for research into the overlapping authorship of the three contradictory reports)
Gene Corley, Mete Sozen, two principle players in the writing of this trash and Charles Thornton (whose company was given control of ground zero and made the decision to ship out and sell as scap the bulk of the body of evidence) – Worked on the OKC Bombing report where they reported a single truck bomb caused the destruction seen. At that time General Partin (an expert in military explosives of 25 years) independently studied the Murrah building and presented his own report stating “The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building…was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.” He was ignored and the government scientist view was upheld, the same scientists who cropped up again to once more roll out a politically convenient and scientifically implausible conclusion with 9/11.
But one report dealing with an explosive event doesn’t make them experts does it – No – but that does not change the fact that they ARE GOVERNMENT'S EXPLOSIVES EXPERTS!
US Department of Defense funds Corley and Sozen through the Blast Mitigation for Structures Program (BMSP) and has done since 1997. The programme provides the DOD with expertise in explosives, and has been funded at $10 million annually.
Who else involved in the official reports are related to the BMSP? The programme makes use of contractors such as ARUP, ARA, SAIC, SGH, Thornton-Tomasetti and Weidlinger Associates – most of whom are listed as the “independent companies” which the official reports used as consultants
So what do we see here - we see three reports all essentially by the same few people (and the over laps go further than I've mentioned in breif here - look it up - it boggles the mind) with three different conclusions. |
I disagree with you. I don't think Corley or Sozen contributed to the NIST report or the 9/11 commission report. I don't think it's unusual or suspicious that the same people would report on Oklahoma City and the twin towers for FEMA, or that structural engineers would be educated in blast mitigation.
| Quote: | | THIS IS NOT one team saying this and the other team saying "no I think you're wrong - it's this" - this is the same people saying this and then being refuted by the truth movement and then saying "Ok this then" then being refuted by the truth movement and then saying "this then" and it'll go on forever while a majority doesn't pay attention and a minority (including you I'm afraid) activley excuse them. |
I think this is utter nonsense I'm afraid - I really strongly disagree. I simply don't think that the official theory has evolved in this way. I haven't seen the significant changes in emphasis that you think you have seen. What single fact in the NIST report has been changed, for example? What part of the 9/11 commission report has been updated? I can't think of a single thing.
The nearest example I can think of is Marky's melted steel, but I have yet to see any indication that ANY official source ever even suggested that the steel melted!!!
| Quote: | | These few people are the DoD's explosives experts I'm going to repeat that - the principle authors of the official reports are the DoD's explosive experts - they provide the DoD with expertise and research on explosives of all kind - can you just put two and tow together - shake this silly idea of noble independent scientists working for the truth through FEMA and NIST and wake up and smell the coffee! |
I could just as easily use their existence to refute your accusation that explosives were never investigated - as you point out explosive experts were part of the investigation team!
Basically you are saying that NIST and FEMA are corrupt - as a truther, you have to. For my money, you have yet to make a case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I don't really buy this idea of the OT changing all the time - details may change as knowledge increases, but the basic thrust is the same I think. I think it's a bit of a shallow criticism. After all, (some) truthers have changed their minds many times, and many disagree with each other.
|
alex, what the clip above shows(about the melted steel) is one of two scenerios.
1. the media reported the truth and offical version, which was later changed once challenged to 'weakened the steel', which means there was a period where the offical version was untrue. prompting many to challenge it.
2. the media were not reporting the truth or offical version and were misleading the public about the facts of 9/11.
its one or the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | 1. the media reported the truth and offical version, which was later changed once challenged to 'weakened the steel', which means there was a period where the offical version was untrue. prompting many to challenge it. |
I accept that as long as you accept that what you are referring to as the official version is merely the received wisdom spouted on various television stations. I don't know whether it was challenged to any significant degree - my take on it is that the official investigations found a different cause, due to more detailed examination and analysis.
| Quote: | | 2. the media were not reporting the truth or offical version and were misleading the public about the facts of 9/11. |
I don't think there's any real evidence that they were trying to mislead people, though that's obviously what they did.
PS... Looking further at the FEMA initial report, they did have a different explanation of how the twin towers collapsed, which was superceded by NIST's explanation (weakened floor joists, pancake collapse). I wasn't aware of that, so sorry if my posts have been incorrect on the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the fires were always reported as massive fires. The Nova documentary in 2002 which I remember seeing on the Discovery Channel had some huge figure for the temperatures of the fires. The line was always that a "jet fuel fire" would burn so much hotter.
This is the reason why the underground temperatures were not seen as unusual (in the media) just a sign that the massive fires really were massive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
