9/11 - The Third Tower


It was pointing out that the falacy of "lots of airline puts purchased pre 9/11" was so easily demonstrated to be total bullsh1t that even wiki knew about it.

sorry, your post demonstrates nothing excepty your inability to investigate things yourself.

tinfoilhat.jpg
 
Last edited:
I was at ground zero first week in may this year, before i went to the US i researched all i could on 9/11..... now ive seen it, been there and took in the sheer scale of the loss, i have not looked into it since, i left that place with a heavy heart

Be Well

Steve
 
I'd say the key thing here really is the fact that whatever the reasons or justifications behind 9-11 may be - eg Bin Laden claims as one of the reasons the fact that the USA is propping up a corrupt and medieval regime in Saudi against the wishes of the local population which certainly makes sense -, but whatever the case may be, one thing is absolutely, totally and undeniably clear:

Iraq had absolutely zilch, nada, nothing to do with 9-11.

Nor did Iraq pose any sort of a threat to the USA or anybody else as Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice openly admitted in the days when sanity and common sense was still the preferred modus operandi as per my video here in an earlier post.

The mere notion of a sand box like Iraq back in Saddams day, or the even more ridiculous threat if thats possible being conjured up by Bushs spin doctors of Islam posing any actionable threat to any Western nation(s), are so totally and absolutely ludicrous and laughable to any sane person with an IQ north of their birth date that it's no wonder nobody takes anything coming out of Bushs Washington seriously any more.

The Neocons fearmongered the USA into war in Iraq by playing on and mass feeding their more gullible citizens paranoia and insecurity, for reasons dealing mainly in oil as Alan Greenspan admitted recently.

For oil they started an evil, unwarranted war of aggresion that has slaughtered what may be up to 1,2 million innocent Iraqi citizens who wanted nothing else from life than what we all want.

For oil they started a war where torture and terror abroad and a destruction of democracy at home wrere suddenly legitimate means again.

For oil they started a war whose execution was characterized by nothing so much as near well total incompetence on a mind boggling basis.

For oil they started a war that has pretty well bankrupted them.

For oil they started a war that has turned the USA into the country widely seen as the biggest threat to security in the world, and destroyed their superpower status in the process.

It's going to take Bushs successors quite awhile to dig themselves out of the bloody and unbelievably counterproductive legacies and incompetence he leaves behind. But one should still hope that they manage to achieve just that, as most Americans today are just as fed up with Bush and his counterproductive, toxic policies as the rest of the world is.

Oh.

You want to remove another major and absolutely understandable grievances Muslims have towards the USA, and achieve peace in the Middle East in the process ?

Then let the USA be an honest, impartial broker for a change, something it most definitely was not in the last 8 years, and go and provide BOTH Israel and Palestine with full fledged statehood.
 
Last edited:
If yu want to understand the current thinking behind the war then I would suggest a read of Naomi Klein - The shock doctrine.

It sets out the real economic policies that Washington, the IMF and World bank persue.
 
Hi BSD,

As you say, we sorted our differences with the Irish but, it doesn't matter, there is always something else stirring in other parts of the world. The fact is, the human being is a quarrelsome one and our ability to inflict harm on other species, apart from our own, is well demonstrated by the absence of all the important fauna in America that was previously thought to have been wiped out by the various ice ages. However, scientists have come up with a curious coincidence,. The animals began to disappear at the same time as man came across the iceflows between Russia and Alaska and moved south.

If you get a chance to read that book, you should do so.

Don't worry. If the next troublespot is not Iran, it will be somewhere else!

"The US government actually managed to fearmonger the population ". That is true but only because the Americans and in their time the Germans, Japanese, Russians, Turks, Greeks, Romans. In fact every race under the sun since Jesus Christ and before Him, are, by nature, quarrelsome and only needed to be stirred up, liked a swarm of hornets into, not just defending themselves, but committing hideous crimes against humanity.

The Americans might have been excused for Hiroshima. Nagosaki was, absolutely, unnecessary. The only reason was for experimentation purposes.

Split
 
  • Like
Reactions: BSD
A good non-fiction read is Alan Weisman's "The World Without Us". Part of his argument is that mankind is an aggressive animal that fights amongst itself. There will never be peace on Earth while we are here so we might as well stop looking for excuses, because it is in our genes.

It doesn't matter whether it was oil, Muslim fundamentalism, or not. Now that we can't find an enemy in Communism we are looking for something else.

We humans are just greedy little creatures that will consume commodities to the point of exhaustion. When the markets can no longer deliver we go to war to get what we want.

I know the creationists will never agree, but we are descended from chimps that could kill for a banana.

I'll put the book on my reading list Split.

As for 911, could it simply be the knowledge that 18 or so religious wackos armed with nothing more than plastic knives could slaughter 3000 of us in a single morning and in our own country, be so unpalatable we have to make up these ridiculous conspiracy theories just to salvage our collective ego and make ourselves feel just that little bit more secure in our soft, comfy, cotton wool, western lives.

Couldn't it be that simple ?


dd
 
Last edited:
We humans are just greedy little creatures that will consume commodities to the point of exhaustion. When the markets can no longer deliver we go to war to get what we want.

I know the creationists will never agree, but we are descended from chimps that could kill for a banana.

I'll put the book on my reading list Split.

As for 911, could it simply be the knowledge that 18 or so religious wackos armed with nothing more than plastic knives could slaughter 3000 of us in a single morning and in our own country, be so unpalatable we have to make up these ridiculous conspiracy theories just to salvage our collective ego and make ourselves feel just that little bit more secure in our soft, comfy, cotton wool, western lives.

Couldn't it be that simple ?


dd

Well if it takes two leaders (Bush and Blair) to lead a war against an innocent country like Iraq (to falsify facts) and to cause the death of 600,000 people, 4 million refugeese and destroy and the infrastructure of a whole country...

Do you think?

Do you think when you have Osama sorrounded and you are winning the war it was the right think to pull back your specialy trained crack squad men back and let some talebans on a donkey go to find the most wanted/hunted man in the history of the world by the greatest super power, after he killed 3000 of your fellow???

Do you think the White House did not deliberately leak the name of the CIA agent who said there was no Nuclear program in Africa and that they were not selling nuclear grade plutonium or what ever it was to the Iraqis.

Do you think the US prosecuted Libby (alias Chenney) just to show they are fair cop society?

Do you think the slap on the wrist was sufficient punishment for such a treason against the state?

Do you think it is reasonable that the administration deem it fit not to hold an investigation into 9/11 and decline to do so given the gravity of the act?

What do you think they are afraid of?

Do you challenge and question anything you are told by government?

I won't mention 100s of other questions and contradictions yet to be answered by these governments.

As some commentators stated the more incredulous the act more people likely to believe it.

I would say question and think! Don't rule it out based on trust of your government. :idea:
 
Hi BSD,

As you say, we sorted our differences with the Irish but, it doesn't matter, there is always something else stirring in other parts of the world. The fact is, the human being is a quarrelsome one and our ability to inflict harm on other species, apart from our own, is well demonstrated by the absence of all the important fauna in America that was previously thought to have been wiped out by the various ice ages. However, scientists have come up with a curious coincidence,. The animals began to disappear at the same time as man came across the iceflows between Russia and Alaska and moved south.

If you get a chance to read that book, you should do so.

Don't worry. If the next troublespot is not Iran, it will be somewhere else!

"The US government actually managed to fearmonger the population ". That is true but only because the Americans and in their time the Germans, Japanese, Russians, Turks, Greeks, Romans. In fact every race under the sun since Jesus Christ and before Him, are, by nature, quarrelsome and only needed to be stirred up, liked a swarm of hornets into, not just defending themselves, but committing hideous crimes against humanity.

The Americans might have been excused for Hiroshima. Nagosaki was, absolutely, unnecessary. The only reason was for experimentation purposes.

Split

"every race under the sun since Jesus Christ" - thats a very very short time period :)

Civilzations existed much before then. Of course it took a while to take hold in Europe.
 
Here's rebuttal of the article posted by "A Dashing Blade" (see #24 on page 3)


The Hidden Hand Of The CIA,
911 And Popular Mechanics

Er . . . excuse me?

PLEASE DEMONSTRATE WHERE IN YOUR "REBUTTAL" ANY OF THE POINTS MADE IN THE POPULAR MECHANICS ARTICAL ARE DISPROVED (SERIOUS . . . I'M WAITING . . . )

All you've shown me is an artical speculating that . . .

"The magazine pushing the government's 9/11 propaganda, Popular Mechanics (PM), is published by the Hearst family. Its March cover story, Debunking 9/11 Lies, has been exposed by credible researchers to contain numerous distortions and flawed conclusions."

NEEDLESS TO SAY, NONE OF THESE "FLAWED CONCLUSIONS" ARE MENTIONED AGAIN, NONE OF THE "CREDIBLE RESEARCHERS" NAMED ETC ETC ETC.

1/10. Typical loonspudery. :rolleyes:

Apologies for caps but peeps who regurgitate the crap spouted by Alex Jones/Prison Planet et al are at best seriously deluded, at worst should be put up against a wall and shot.

The response you saw from Fib is a typical loonspud response to reasoned, thought through, peer-reviewed arguments provided by credible proffessionals in a relevant field ie they are ignored.

Seriously Fib, direct question, do you still think your citation disproves any of the points raised in the PM artical. Yes or No answer only please (as if, but I live in hope . . . )
 
Last edited:
Apols for C&P from another forum but a pretty good over-view of these idiots . . .

Ten characteristics of conspiracy theorists.

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It’s always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

11. The "real world" is irrelevant to them (for any interpretation you place on "real world", from naïve realism to socially-constructed everything). They simply don't understand the concept of extreme statistical, or even physical, implausibility. All that matters to them is the constant recycling and annotation of texts from their Authorities, and that other people get to hear what's going on inside their addled brains. Paranoia is the most narcissistic of disorders.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
 
Question

What was responsible for the "partly evaporated" steel members in the debris pile of WTC 7 ?



Thank you in advance for your answers. As the official 911 report , er, skipped this one!




Further information.
Normal fires do not burn *hot enough to "partly evaporate" steel.

*To "partly evaporate" steel requires a heat source of 2860 C + to be applied to the part of steel that needs to be evaporated.
 
It was pointing out that the falacy of "lots of airline puts purchased pre 9/11" was so easily demonstrated to be total bullsh1t that even wiki knew about it.

sorry, your post demonstrates nothing excepty your inability to investigate things yourself.

You obviously didn't read the article. The article explains how the CIA routinely secretly edits wikipedia entries in order to hide information. My post didn't need to explain anything - the article i posted did an excellent job.

The likes of you will be camping out overnight, to ensure you are at the front of the queue's, when they start rolling out the microchips.........."Well they tell me the human RFID chip is here to keep me safe, and i believe them!"

Why i'm bothering replying to the likes of you, I don't really know. Go ahead, take your microchip, carry on believing that the government loves you, and that you are an important part of the UK economy/society/power structure.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
And in much the same way, there are those who insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that their views, though devoid of credible evidence, are correct.

:eek:Try reading through some of the links I've posted :rolleyes::sleep:
 
Last edited:
Er . . . excuse me?

PLEASE DEMONSTRATE WHERE IN YOUR "REBUTTAL" ANY OF THE POINTS MADE IN THE POPULAR MECHANICS ARTICAL ARE DISPROVED (SERIOUS . . . I'M WAITING . . . )

All you've shown me is an artical speculating that . . .

"The magazine pushing the government's 9/11 propaganda, Popular Mechanics (PM), is published by the Hearst family. Its March cover story, Debunking 9/11 Lies, has been exposed by credible researchers to contain numerous distortions and flawed conclusions."

NEEDLESS TO SAY, NONE OF THESE "FLAWED CONCLUSIONS" ARE MENTIONED AGAIN, NONE OF THE "CREDIBLE RESEARCHERS" NAMED ETC ETC ETC.

1/10. Typical loonspudery. :rolleyes:

Apologies for caps but peeps who regurgitate the crap spouted by Alex Jones/Prison Planet et al are at best seriously deluded, at worst should be put up against a wall and shot.

The response you saw from Fib is a typical loonspud response to reasoned, thought through, peer-reviewed arguments provided by credible proffessionals in a relevant field ie they are ignored.

Seriously Fib, direct question, do you still think your citation disproves any of the points raised in the PM artical. Yes or No answer only please (as if, but I live in hope . . . )

This guys an Agent Provocateur. :eek::rolleyes::eek: His additions do not make sense, he knows it, he doesn't care, he wants to try and confuse and make the likes of Fibonelli give up trying.
Even if what Fibonelli posts makes perfect sense, ADB will say it doesn't, because he can get away with it basically. Weak!
 
JTrader <======================================================================> Reality

In all seriousness guys, please note that this thread is in the "lounge" forum, disagreements that I have with peep's views on this subject will never be carried over into a trading forum.
 
You obviously didn't read the article. The article explains how the CIA routinely secretly edits wikipedia entries in order to hide information. My post didn't need to explain anything - the article i posted did an excellent job.

Yes I did, at no point did I find anything that disproved (let alone adressed) any of the points made in the Popular Mechanics artcle.

Please tell us all, in your own words, using verifiable evidence that has been peer-reviewed, just exactly what you think is scientifically incorrect in the PM article.

Simple question I'd have thought?
 
Yes I did, at no point did I find anything that disproved (let alone adressed) any of the points made in the Popular Mechanics artcle.

Please tell us all, in your own words, using verifiable evidence that has been peer-reviewed, just exactly what you think is scientifically incorrect in the PM article.

Simple question I'd have thought?

i won't be wasting my time doing zig-zags back and forth round and round, making everyone dizzy, responding to disinfo agents like ADB. I've posted all i need to, the non-sheople might take the time to look and read, if they have the inclination.
 
What was responsible for the "partly evaporated" steel members in the debris pile of WTC 7 ?
. . .
QUOTE]

Link no work CB?


hello ADB, no link attached in that one, I just underlined the buzzword :).

BUT. Because occassionally I'm a helpful bugger heres the link to the paper written by Steven Jones. Looks at WTC 7 collapse.


http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

please comment if you read it. who ever reads it. I mean I'm not a Doctor, but that bloke is ?? :)
what do we think.. ?
 
Top