9/11 belief, mythology, and the unknowable (OT)

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 581 - 600 of total 954 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Mustang

climber
From the wild, not the ranch
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:57am PT
Why didn't the FBI do the forensics for the traces of thermite? Afterall, under U.S. criminal law, 9/11 was actually an act of mass murder, not just terrorism, thus the FBI should have had lead on the investigation. So why is there no official FBI report on the existence or non-existence of thermite traces in the steel or rubble?

Understanding The Use Of Thermite On 9-11
From Dick Eastman
7-20-9

http://www.rense.com/general86/therm.htm

Kinda dodgy but nontheless, this threads got legs,,,
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:08am PT
Perhaps the same question that seperates the reasonable from the unreasonable in religious threads applies here as well...

What would CONVINCE you that you are wrong?

If the answer is "nothing", twen how can you be reasoned with, as literally NOTHING will convince you otherwise.


Now before some 'truther' tries to turn the question on me, I'll answer it upfront... "Clear evidence"... Plain and simple. Not questions, or exagerated and/or manufactuired misinformation. Hell, most tuthers beloieve that the official version is that the "steel melted", so they don't even understand the material themselves.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidense, and the claims made by truthers are very extraordinary, yet lack any credible evidense, just questions (to which they ignore the answers). There are literally mountains of evidense that supports the fact that a dozen terrorists hijacked planes, and flew them into the targets... No (US) conspiracy of an 'inside job' needed, as it is NOT an extraordinary claim.
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:15am PT
"There are literally mountains of evidense that supports the fact that a dozen terrorists hijacked planes, and flew them into the targets..."


...as the greatest air defense intercept system on the planet was playing around with games, OUT of the two cities with the best chance of a perceived attack on ANY given day...
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:35am PT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=related

One minute video with Bush not telling the truth about 9-11. The fact he is mistaken is not open to debate. The question is why?

And why did he refuse to testify alone or under oath to the 9-11 commission?

Peace

Karl
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:38am PT
I think rrrADAM nailed it with this:


. . . much of your confidence resides in the questions, not the explanations . . .


Y'all take things that don't make sense to you and then fill in the knowledge gaps with sh!t that makes even less sense--with sh!t that's downright insane.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:02am PT
Follow closely here, brutha...


I may have missed your full can scenario, when you first posted, or you edited it after I read it. Not sure? But, my scenario still stands. Use the tape, impact the top one, and see what happens.
As I said, I posted it prior to you, so NO, I didn't sneak it in as an edit. (Or wasd that just an ad hominem?) Also note that you also missed what I did edit in (well before you posted), ANTICIPATING about the shearing of the joists from the skin in a 'pancake'. Point is, it is apparent that you just aren't paying that much attention, and worse, keep going along a line of thinking without addressing what's been said. (E.g., the shearing of the joists from the skin)




Not to beat a dead horse...
To be honest, that's all these discussions do, since you really won't acknowledge when your points have been addressed. (E.g., joists shearing, top of the building falling straight down, speed of the fall, etc)



but if it is clear evidence you want then how about this.
You may wish to look into what constitutes "clear evidence":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence


In your montage, it is clear you/them are representing a engine rotor that is roughly 2-3ft in diameter. You can see a mans leg right next to it.

That there, in and of it's self if clear evidence that it is bogus. Last time I checked a a boeing engine is close to 10' in diameter.
Pay attention here, but you should know this being an engineer, and all...

Yes, the diameter of of the engine is about 10', but a gas turbine engine consists of multiple stages, and and thus have multiple rotors... Each getting smaller as pressure goes up. The low pressure rotors, the biggest of which is on the outside and what you see in the mouth of the intake, is the only one that big. The high pressure turbines are much smaller. Also note that there are blades called fins that fit into channels on the hub, and these would most likely break off upon impact when the impact is as great as with the Pentagon.

Also note that that componant can simply have been misidentified... I just grabbed that montage from google since it had multiple examples of debris. I do not know the 'original' source, nor who identified it as a rotor, do you?

Point is... You confidently latch onto it as proof positive of a conspiracy, when not even understanding that all of the stages of a turbine are NOT all the same size (I.e., 10' in diamter, with blades intact)



But, hey why would I want to actually look into these things when I could just believe their story. Much easier isn't it.

As far as I can see the majority of people posting the questions, and information are using far more reason and logic than the deniers.
OK... Then address my points regarding the the joists not shearing and actually pulkling the walls in as it fell, or, why the buiding fell straight down after initially tilting, or, why it fell so fast... You said that was your biggest problem, you have been given the reasons why it fell so fast, and have yuet to even address it, but have instead ignored it. Not addressing the very things you ask for is NOT using reason and logic, it is just plain ignoring.



On a flip side, what do you believe happened and why? Keep in mind that it is not just one incident, but many throughout that day, and previous months, and subsequent months as well. It is a big deal, and saying it was what they say is a giant cop out.
I've already said this... A dozen funded terrorists hijacked planes, and flew them into targets. There was planning involved, and there were plenty of red flags that the government intelligence agencies missed or didn't address.

The impact of the planes knocked off the 'fire proofing', the heat of the fires, fuled by 10's of thousands of gallons of jet fuel, as well as office furniture, stoaked with pleanty of air from all the knocked out windows, WEAKENED the steel joists enough to initiate a collapse... Once started, NOTHING in the building was strong enough to arrest its fall. The design of the building, tube in tube, with joists tied tio the skin acting like cables, pulled everything in as it fell, straight down.

Why? For the same reasons why they bomb and kill innocents all over the world... We aren't the only ones you know. In fact, Muslims are killing Muslims (Shite vs Suni) just like Christians were killing Christians in Ireland (Cathy vs Protty). Politics, with God being used to get people into the cause.


Now... Think about this... Either way, terrorist conspiracy or inside job, the planning and initiation of this plan started when Clinton was president, not Bush.

So, to keep using GWB as the key to all this is pretty absurd, as do you really believe ALL of that planning, preperation, and execution could have been done in so little time (just 8 months) by this guy?


Is that belief REALLY very 'reasonable or logical'? Nope... Buit it is a CONVENIENT belief.

Point being... Even if Al Gore had won the Presidency, the attack would still have happened. That's 'An Incovenient Truth, huh? (All pun intended)

C'mon now... Apply some reason and logic here, buddy.



And you still haven't answered my simple question...
What would CONVINCE you that you are wrong?


You did ask a question, regarding the speed it fell, and even said that was your biggest issue... Implying that if/when given a reasonable answer, you might reconsider. Yet when given the answer, that agrees with physics and engineering BTW, you just ignore it, never even addressing it.



So... What is it? Can anything convince you that you are wrong?

I'm thinking not... And you must admit, that is the definition of unreasonable regarding this. (I.e., cannot be reasoned with)



You know, I heard this on NPR, and it seems to apply...
"When people internalize things, it can be next to impossible for them to let it go, even when shown they are wrong."



Note - I also told you that I am very eager to look into the "molten mass of steel burning for months" that you spoke of in another reply, but you have yet to supply me with some info on this. I do want to look at it, why are you ignoring this request to provide the info you mentioned?

WBraun

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:45am PT
The stupidest circle jerk ever.

Any time someone says: "What would CONVINCE you that you are wrong?"

That same line would apply to you too rrrrAdam.

Because ultimately you don't know what happened either.

All your arguments are based on theory also .......
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:52am PT
Werner wrote:
Any time someone says: "What would CONVINCE you that you are wrong?"

That same line would apply to you too rrrrAdam.


Reading comprehension FAIL... I wrote:
Now before some 'truther' tries to turn the question on me, I'll answer it upfront... "Clear evidence"... Plain and simple. Not questions, or exagerated and/or manufactuired misinformation. Hell, most tuthers beloieve that the official version is that the "steel melted", so they don't even understand the material themselves.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidense, and the claims made by truthers are very extraordinary, yet lack any credible evidense, just questions (to which they ignore the answers). There are literally mountains of evidense that supports the fact that a dozen terrorists hijacked planes, and flew them into the targets... No (US) conspiracy of an 'inside job' needed, as it is NOT an extraordinary claim.


BTW, in science, "theory" doesn't mean 'wild assed guess'.
WBraun

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:54am PT
I'm not truther FYI.

So get off your high horse.

Still .... you're on one huge circle jerk here.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 11:59am PT
I'm not truther FYI.
Didn't say you were.

So get off your high horse.
I'm not on one, unless Rocinante is a high horse.

Still .... you're on one huge circle jerk here.
Yes, I am wasting my time... But I am stupid like that. Must kill windmills!
WBraun

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:02pm PT
LOL

You're a funny guy ...
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:34pm PT
"There are literally mountains of evidense that supports the fact that a dozen terrorists hijacked planes, and flew them into the targets..."


...as the greatest air defense intercept system on the planet was playing around with games, OUT of the two cities with the best chance of a perceived attack on ANY given day...
Just like the defense systems were out of servive or in stand-by mode on the USS Stark when it was hit with to missles from an Iraqi jet...

That's proof that it was an 'inside job', right?
WBraun

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:44pm PT
There are actual government documents that prove 9/11 Commission report was not only a fraud on the American people but was also a criminal conspiracy.

It was to hide what really allowed the attacks on 9/11 to succeed and protect the people at the CIA and FBI HQ who were behind this conspiracy.

This information already has been public knowledge in Washington DC and has been for years, including being an open secret.
edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:45pm PT
You just keep on believing everything that the Government puts out, rrrADAM, and you'll be fine...

Us wackos on the other side are the ones that the Gov. is TRULY frightened of.
426

climber
Buzzard Point, TN
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:50pm PT
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004May6

//Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by Federal Aviation Administration managers, according to a government investigative report issued today.

The report was conducted at the request of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) after the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, complained that the FAA had been less than forthcoming in turning over documents and issued a subpoena to the agency for more information.//

I think you got the windmills right keep tilting...I'd pay good money to hear what "actually happened"...it's weird that you blithely dismiss total fail of one of the most restricted airspaces in the world...not that we can even say that (read article)...
WBraun

climber
Jul 15, 2010 - 12:57pm PT
rrrAdam also has no clue who the people were on FEMA during that time.

He's too busy wasting his time reading popular mechanics.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:00pm PT
Yup, the government is TERRIFIED of you posting their secrets on Supertopo.

I think you take yourself a little too seriously....
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:01pm PT
Werener wrote:
There are actual government documents that prove 9/11 Commission report was not only a fraud on the American people but was also a criminal conspiracy.

It was to hide what really allowed the attacks on 9/11 to succeed and protect the people at the CIA and FBI HQ who were behind this conspiracy.

This information already has been public knowledge in Washington DC and has been for years, including being an open secret.


And i posted yesterday:
I do not deny that there are questions unanswered, and that there may even be some 'shady, behind the scenes, happenings'. I would mostly limit these to what who knew and when, as in who dropped the ball in the intelligence agencies.

I do deny the idea that the buildings were brought down on purpose, by a controlled demolition, requiring a HUGE conspiracy and the murder of thousands of civilians.
rrrADAM

climber
LBMF
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:04pm PT
Why is it that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU will answer the question:

What would CONVINCE you that you are wrong?


Why? Is it because "NOTHING" will convince you?


Seriously... How can any of you consider yourself 'reasonable' when/if NOTHING can convince you otherwise?

Think about it... As "if" you are wrong, you will never know, since NOTHING will/could convince you of it.


edejom

Boulder climber
Butte, America
Jul 15, 2010 - 01:07pm PT
Port, I think you take me/the internet too seriously...
Messages 581 - 600 of total 954 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta