GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!! [Archive]

Atrocities

August 10th, 2006, 01:03 PM

Thanks for the links. I have to be honest with you, I really don't believe those people who are attempting to prove that the government is behind 9/11 and the destruction of the two towers. Simply put those people are so off base that NO ONE takes them seriously. That is NO ONE with half a brain and any sort of IQ when it comes to structual design. You cannot debunk physics and the laws of nature.

As to your image there, we all know about how easy it is to doctor photo's, and we all know that many other buildings were severely damaged and later where dilibrately brought down because they were not structurally sound. Any one with an agenda could easily make a damning looking photo or video with enough talent, money, and desire to do so. Besides we cannot see the other side of the building so we do not know how damaged it truly is. For all we know, the other side of that building could be completely gone all the way to the back facete and that is what we are watching fall. Again there is no proof that the destruction of that building was dilibrate on 9/11 or that it even collapsed on 9/11.

I should tell you that I think this conspiracy that the GW and the US Government is behind the felling of the two towers to be an absolute joke that boarders on the histerically funny and suspect that most other people do as well. However given how many poeple where forever harmed by the events of that day, I can only now look at this nonsense that the US Government is behind 9/11 as an attempt to do more harm. A second wave of terrorism so to speak, one that supports what the terrorists did by trying to deny they even exist. I hate to say this, but only a handful of people actually support these conspiracy theories and those folks are often the subjects of water cooler jokes.

Now I would believe it, somewhat, if the people who are spreading this theory about would admit that GW had nothing to do with it and that it was Clinton and Gore who were behind it. They are devious enough to do something like this and blame it on the NRA or Israel. We all know how badly Gore contested loosing the election in 2000. Then just 8.5 short months later 9/11 went down. SOund more plausable to me that if our own government was behind this, that it was Clintons government and not Bushes that are the culprits. You can't hide from the math, and given just how much some folks consider Bush to be an idiot, its is really difficult to believe that he could master mind such a thing in such a short amount of time.

Phoenix-D

August 10th, 2006, 03:14 PM

Slaughtermeyer, those sources are hardly credible. For one they never address the 400-odd missing people from the four crashed flights.

For two, one suggests a NUKE brought down the towers. A small, bunker busting nuke..which would still produce a significant amount of radiation and would *not* lead to the towers falling in on themselves. Reach much?

For three, they reference each other and use THAT as proof. Excuse me if I fail to find a conspiracy site citing another conspiracy site as reliable.

Site #2 *****es about it being a "hit piece" and then tries to rebutt it the same way. They also deliberately misinterpret things people said- asking to pull the firefighters out becomes "blow up the building". (I have *never* heard anyone use the term "pull it" to refer to blowing something up..but that's what they claim)

They also note the towers were designed to take a hit from a plane. What most of them don't mention is that the towers were designed to take a hit from a Boing 707. The biggest 707 has a maximum takeoff weight of 333,600 pounds. The 767 on the other hand has a maximum takeoff weight of 410,000 pounds. That extra 80k pounds probably screws things up just a little.

Your last link doesn't work. Here's a Google Cache link:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:qyqKr4RqizMJ:www.christianitytoday. com/ct/2006/131/12.0.html+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Its also a publishing note, not an official church stance.

Azselendor

August 10th, 2006, 04:21 PM

Atrocities, the problem with your Evil-Clintonian and Gore theory is that it doesn't take it account the Bush Sr's relationship with Bin Laden. Mainly the part where as head of the CIA, Bush Sr screwed the taliban and bin laden's fledgling group. It also misses all the businesses and individuals that stood to gain from such an event.

I don't see bush's administration being responible for 9/11 (except in ignoring the warning signs and later exploiting it more than george lucas with a prequel) as Bush really just wanted to get Saddam and please is saudi backers and religion base.

I don't see Clinton's administration being behind it because he had nothing to gain. Think about it and there is nothing clinton or the democrats could gain from it.

The 2000 Election with Gore is something to be looked at - but not until after the current leadership and party drones are out. I'm reminded of Lyndon Johnson's congressional run and there was questions about ballot issues. In particular, one picture from that event was a group of lyndon johnson supporters standing on/against a ballot transport box grinning.

But back to the point.

Using lex parsimoniae, law of succinctness, and applying it to this. Which requires fewer assumptions to be true.

1.) The theory that Terrorist, seeking to invent 9/11/01 as a terrible tragedy by destroying the economic, military and political centers/landmarks of the united states over religious differences they have with us. (ie. Terrorist view America as Evil Incarnate)
2.) The Theory that terrorist did the same as Theory 1 as revenge against bush - not knowing the outcome of the 2000 elections when they sent the plan into motion.
3.) Bush Administration plotted and organized the attack to push forward a neo-conservative agenda and religious-right agenda in america to steer the country towards the leave-it-beaver style america of the 1940's while eroding basic freedoms - not knowing the outcome of the 2000 elections when they sent the plan into motion (unless it was rigged).
4.) Clinton's Administration plotted and oganized the attack for some unknown reason or as suggested, target the NRA or Israel (who prefers clinton over bush anyday of the week) and did so not knowing the outcome of the 2000 elections (unless it was rigged).
5.) Al Gore planned and organized the attack for some bizzare reason that not even al gore could fathom. etc. etc. etc.

Azselendor

August 10th, 2006, 04:28 PM

On a side note, Slaughtermeyer's sites appear to be individual conspiracy theorist presenting their own "Truthology" as fact when it's really some guy playing connect the dots with the back of cereal box.

The Vanity Fair link is nothing more than a review and contains no verification of the facts.

Atrocities

August 10th, 2006, 05:15 PM

Whereas the PM site has facts and even has many world renowned structural engineers providing their expert opinions based upon facts that can and have been verified by both on site evidence, video tape evidience, scientific evidence, witness statements, construction record, design records, structural engineering reports, computer anyalists, and so so much more. What do these conspiracy people have? Nothing. They have nothing but hersay, half baked rumors, Charlie Sheen, and a whole host of other non-informed people. No structural enginering experts, well none that actually have a reputation, experience, or are even known or respected within the structural engineering community. They have, and I hate to say this, people who appear to be little more than crack pots, conspiracy theory fanatics, mentally ill, and grossely mis-informed people along with a single professor, who I might add, also happens to believe that Bill O'Reilly is out to kill him. Need I say more?

They have no real facts. What facts they think they have evaperate into nothingness upon even the most mild scrutiny.

Slaughtermeyer

August 10th, 2006, 05:26 PM

If "the PM site has facts and even has many world renowned structural engineers providing their expert opinions based upon facts that can and have been verified by both on site evidence, video tape evidience, scientific evidence, witness statements, construction record, design records, structural engineering reports, computer anyalists, and so so much more," why can't the NIST come up with an explanation for why WTC building 7 collapsed?

When Dr. Sunder of the NIST was asked why the fate of the building was barely mentioned in the final report, he replied "�But truthfully, I don�t really know. We�ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.�
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html

Atrocities

August 10th, 2006, 05:43 PM

Slaughtermeyer, I cannot answer your question about Building 7 except to speculate that perhaps it was not discussed because it is simply not important. As to whether or not it collapsed on 9/11 or later is unknown to me. I do recall that several of the other WTC buildings did suffor considerable damage during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. Given the proximity of WTC 7 to WTC 1 and 2, it is more likely than not, that its collapse, if indeed it did collapse on 9/11 on its own, was as a direct result of damage it sustained during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that supports that WTC 7 was intentionally destroyed on 9/11 by the US Government. None.

Slaughtermeyer

August 10th, 2006, 07:15 PM

But there is evidence that WTC 7 was intentionally destroyed on 9/11, because the owner admitted that it was destroyed. You can hear Larry Silverstein's admission that the building was "pulled" (demolition industry lingo for imploded) about 3 1/2 minutes into the following documentary:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6714356054823827684

Atrocities

August 10th, 2006, 07:23 PM

Like I said, I don't know about WTC 7. Thanks for the info though, it certianly does beg the question WTF. While I don't subscribe to the theory that the Government was behind 9/11, questions do remain as to whether or not our Government was aware of, or in some sick, however small, way duplicit in those events. Like I said, I would be more willing to accept these theories if they squarly identified the Clinton Gore administration over George Bush.

I am sure if I took the time to look into the WTC 7, I would find that the evidence supports what I said later. Either the building was taken down after 9/11 because of damage to its structure, or it collapsed one 9/11 because of damage it sustained during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

Either way, I sincerely doubt that the US Government was behind the attacks on 9/11.

BTW - I was a caller today on the John Gibbson radio show. William from Vancouver. It aired at 3:47 to 3:49 pm PST. When asked about this conspiracy theory, I had to laugh, and laugh I did. And it was broadcast.

Slaughtermeyer

August 11th, 2006, 11:59 AM

Phoenix-D said:
Slaughtermeyer, those sources are hardly credible. For one they never address the 400-odd missing people from the four crashed flights.

You don't have to believe that 400 people are "missing" to believe that explosives brought down three of the WTC buildings after passenger jets crashed into two of them.

For two, one suggests a NUKE brought down the towers. A small, bunker busting nuke..which would still produce a significant amount of radiation and would *not* lead to the towers falling in on themselves. Reach much?

There's also a 'theory' that holograms and not actual planes hit the WTC. I don't know whether theories like this are deliberately made to discredit the 9/11 truth movement, but they can easily be ignored.

For three, they reference each other and use THAT as proof. Excuse me if I fail to find a conspiracy site citing another conspiracy site as reliable.

Does MIT engineer Jeff King do that?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248

Site #2 *****es about it being a "hit piece" and then tries to rebutt it the same way. They also deliberately misinterpret things people said- asking to pull the firefighters out becomes "blow up the building". (I have *never* heard anyone use the term "pull it" to refer to blowing something up..but that's what they claim)

You can hear that term being used by a demolition worker when another building was blown up, in the first five minutes of this documentary:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6714356054823827684

Atrocities

August 11th, 2006, 04:32 PM

The history channel is airing a documentary about the truth of 9/11 sometime this next week. Who know's they might even reviel a bomb shell.

Has any one that was in the 9/11 commission said anything officially that supports the 9/11 truth movements theories about what happened on 9/11?

If Bush and his administration can't keep top secret NSA programs a secret, then why are we to believe that they can keep something as horrific as masterminding the 9/11 attacks a secret?

As to Clinton needing a motive to do this, I don't agree, Clinton would find a way to profit from such a plan, and Gore had a lot to gain if he had been elected. But I say this just because I don't like either man and there is absolutely no proof what so ever that they or any member of the US Government, in either administration, acted in, or help to plan, carry out, or cause the events of 9/11.

I guess what I am trying to promote here is the concept that Bush isn't behind 9/11 and that saying he and his administration is would be like saying that Abraham Lincon fired his own cannons at Fort Sumter and then blamed it on the Confederates in order start the civil war. Its not what happened and no one really would believe it.

Phoenix-D

August 11th, 2006, 04:44 PM

Slaughtermeyer said:
You don't have to believe that 400 people are "missing" to believe that explosives brought down three of the WTC buildings after passenger jets crashed into two of them.

A number of the theories state that it *wasn't* passenger jets that were involved; that was what I was refering to. Reference all the "cruise missile hitting the Pentagon" BS. Also if you don't belive in a theory please mention that and/or refrain from linking to sites that use it as evidence!

There's also a 'theory' that holograms and not actual planes hit the WTC. I don't know whether theories like this are deliberately made to discredit the 9/11 truth movement, but they can easily be ignored.

Does MIT engineer Jeff King do that?

No, but ALL your previous reference does. And the first part of the video has no time stamp- it isn't clear if the explosion they're talking about isn't the second plane. The squibs showing are freaking flying debris. And the engineer so much as says: "at this point none of the theories we have make sense."

Never does explain how the people in the building didn't *notice* the prepration for demolition, which is quite extensive. To say nothing of the amount of explosives needed. None of the engineers involved talked? None of the contructions crews did?

The clouds he's mentioning are quite common and appear anytime a building comes down. By the way, watch the controlled demolions of other buildings in these videos carefully. Where does the collapse start? Answer: the bottom. Where did the WTC collapse begin? There's also ONE set of explosion, not the ridiclously complicated "detonation zone" most of these sites espouse. (mostly because falling buildings tend to be rough on the precise placement needed for these things)

You can hear that term being used by a demolition worker when another building was blown up, in the first five minutes of this documentary:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6714356054823827684

That'd be the first time I've heard it mentioned..assuming he isn't talking about pulling the last crew out. These sites are delightfully sneaky about how they do their video and linking.

Case in point- one of them linked to
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

as proof of controlled demolition. What it actually shows that if a single floor was damaged to the point where it couldn't bear its load, it'd take the entire tower down. Also explains why the top part of the towers didn't fall.

No other steel structure has collapse from fire- I'll give them that. None of those structures had an aircraft impact followed by a large fire, however.

EDIT: side note on the dust cloud- most of the sites refer to a "pyroclastic cloud", probably quoting the engineer above, who mentions a TYPE of event that produces such dust. It wasn't such a cloud- which is a damn good thing because if was it would have killed everyone for miles around! They are *extremely* hot- the coldest are generally above 100C and it only gets worse from there.

Slaughtermeyer

August 11th, 2006, 06:45 PM

Phoenix-D said:
Never does explain how the people in the building didn't *notice* the prepration for demolition, which is quite extensive. To say nothing of the amount of explosives needed. None of the engineers involved talked? None of the contructions crews did?

Professor Jones has stated that it would take 10 people each carrying 40 pounds of explosives making 10 trips in order to place sufficient explosives to bring down one of the towers. If the placement of the explosives was outsourced to the Mossad, why would any of their agents want to talk about it? Remember, none of the US government agents who participated in the conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King were exposed until 30 years after the event.
http://www.thekingcenter.org/news/trial.html

And it's quite easy to explain how the bomb-sniffing dogs didn't *notice* the preparation for demolition, because Securacom, the firm that handled security for the WTC (and coincidentally had George Bush's brother and cousin as directors) ordered the removal of the dogs during the week prior to 9/11.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/attack/nynewsday_wtcdogs.html

Phoenix-D

August 11th, 2006, 06:54 PM

I didn't say a thing about dogs. Just the people going in and out of the building on a daily basis.

And you really don't shave with Occam's Razor, do you? Why outsource to the Mossad for an action on US soil?

Reading that trial transcript is surreal. Conspiracy to commit murder, maximum penalty $400? What the [censored] kind of law is that?

EDIT: by the way, did you think about that before you said it?

4000lb of explosive planted, in 40 pound bundles. 400 trips. And not ONE of these set of a red flag. There was no one who even commented on unusual construction in the building- because you can't just drop a 40lb bomb in an office, they have to be placed properly or they won't do the damage you need (see: 1993 WTC attack).

Atrocities

August 11th, 2006, 08:11 PM

Hey Pheonix if the people who support these theories don't want to believe in the truth and choose to subscribe to the concept that is viewed by most normal people as being a crack pot theory promoted by mentally ill and desperate people, then that is their right. I may not subscribe to their views, and to be perfectly honest, find them to be histarically funny, however, I would hope to die rather than tell someone that they don't have the right in this country to speak their minds and state their opinions.

If we shut them up, we shut everyone up and that is a road best not travelled in a seemingly free and democratic society.

Hell don't worry about the folks who buy into this theory, most are ok people who just enjoy a good conspiracy theory, while some are true and genuine crack pots in deep need of profession mental help, most are just nice people who are just ill informed, misguided or are too willing to buy into bull**** rather than do the research on the subject.

Those, such as the ones that Slaughtermeyer has provided links too, validate their theories by quoting each other, or inventing facts based upon assumption and then passing off as real and factual facts. Some have even gone so far as to create bogus "Professionals, video's, and doctored photo's to help support their contention that their theory that the US Government is behind 9/11 is real. When you challenge them, with the real facts, and debunk their facts, they cry foul and hollor cover up. Don't buy into it, this is just a natural defense mechanism designed to help shore up their position. It is what any of us might do to defend our stance on any subject that we believed deeply in.

When it comes to the truth, I think the 70% of America that does not buy into this theory, the 70% who actually knows the year 9/11 occured in, listen to the real professionals who just happen to know what they are talking about because they build and understand the physics behind building construction and structural engineering.

Do you honestly think that the poeple who built the WTC buildings would remain silent if they thought for even a second that they had been dilibrately destroyed by controlled blasts organized by our own government?

Like I said, most people don't take these kind of far out theories seriously. They enjoy hearing about them though, so they can poke fun at those who envisioned them. Its all well in good, in 20 years none of this will matter.

Slaughtermeyer

August 11th, 2006, 08:27 PM

Phoenix-D said:
I didn't say a thing about dogs. Just the people going in and out of the building on a daily basis.

Of course you won't say a thing about the dogs because it's one of the key pieces of evidence that explosives were placed.

And you really don't shave with Occam's Razor, do you? Why outsource to the Mossad for an action on US soil?

Maybe because Americans might wonder why they were asked to kill other innocent Americans?

Reading that trial transcript is surreal. Conspiracy to commit murder, maximum penalty $400? What the [censored] kind of law is that?

It's basically the same [censored] kind of law that says O.J. Simpson does not have to serve any prison time for killing Nicole, even though a court found him guilty of killing her.

4000lb of explosive planted, in 40 pound bundles. 400 trips. And not ONE of these set of a red flag.

Normally, a building of that size has maintenance corridors so you don't have to go into offices to place explosives. And if all of the placement was done at night when virtually nobody was at the center, how would anyone notice?

Phoenix-D

August 11th, 2006, 09:30 PM

Ok, so either I forgot to post or my post vanished into the aether. Odd.

Anyway, AT: I never said they couldn't say what they're saying. Doesn't preclude me from ripping into them, though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif Anything that can't stand up to critism- conspiracy theory, Presidental policy, local policy, whatever- doesn't deserve to stand.

I've also had it with BS being lifted up as fact because no one bothers to object to it.

Atrocities

August 12th, 2006, 12:40 AM

It's basically the same [censored] kind of law that says O.J. Simpson does not have to serve any prison time for killing Nicole, even though a court found him guilty of killing her.

Um bad example there. O.J. was NEVER convicted or found guilty of killing her. He was in fact aquitted of her and Ron Goldmans murder. He was however sued in civil court and subsquently found liable for both of their deaths, but not for their murders. It is somewhat important to not distort the truth when it comes to easily verifiable facts.

The problem with objecting to them Pheonix is that its hard to avoid calling them names in order to illustrate how stupid the theories are. You see it would be like calling a retarded person retard. They simply don't understand that they are retarded so calling them retarted is a waste of time.

Since most conspiracy nuts are just ordinary people who are too lazy to get fully informed, or too hate filled to believe the truth, in this instance, GW isn't behind the 9/11 attacks, that they refuse to accept reality. Best to let them say what they want to say, and then walk away laughing at them. Trust me they are used to being laughed at. (Just don't do it too the shapily guy at work, he might come to your office one day and blow your *** away.)

Remember these are the kind of people that if you say the sky is blue on a clear sunny summer day, they will argue with you and say that it is not blue, it is purple. You and every one around you knows the sky is indeed blue, but the conspriracy guy will argue that it is purple until you either get pissed off and knock his *** out, or realize that your arguing with someone too dumb to realize that they are making a complete *** of themselves. And that buy arguing with them, you are being sucked down into their skewed reality. Just ignor the loones and the truth will tend to itself.

Azselendor

August 12th, 2006, 01:55 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

That page pretty much sums it all up in the first box.

You are yet to provide one iota of fact to support your position Slaughtermeyer. You still haven't answered my challenge of Using lex parsimoniae, law of succinctness, and applying it to this. Which requires fewer assumptions to be true.

Instead you supply a veritable endless supply of "truthology" conspiracy nuts.

To me, this means you lack actual facts to support your arguements.

Atrocities

August 12th, 2006, 03:19 AM

At least Slaughtermeyer was kind enough to post the information for us in a manor that gave us all a chance to read up on and understand this conspiracy theory. He has also seriously impressed me with his cool headness and willingness to debate the topic without resorting to name calling or other insulting behavior. It is very refreshing and I cannot help but respect him for how he has conducted himself in this discussion.

Slaughtermeyer

August 12th, 2006, 11:56 AM

Atrocities said:
Has any one that was in the 9/11 commission said anything officially that supports the 9/11 truth movements theories about what happened on 9/11?

The 9/11 commission basically concluded that the FAA and the Pentagon lied to them. The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/ap_on_go_ot/sept11_commission
http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/dayton_911truth.htm

The 9/11 Commission was prevented from conducting a complete impartial and thorough investigation because its executive director was Philip Zelikow. He was a member of the Bush I administration. He got to know Condoleezza Rice very well there � they both served on the National Security Council. When they were between administrations during the Clinton years, they wrote a book together.

When the Bush II administration was coming into power she brought him on to help with the transition and then he was appointed to the foreign advisory board, so he is essentially a member of the Bush White House. And yet, as executive director, he ran the Commission. He had a staff of 70-some; he decided which topics were worth looking into, and which ones were not. When people would come and say, I want to testify to the Commission, I have something important to say, he would decide who would take that testimony. And so on. So essentially the 9/11 Commission was the White House investigating itself.
http://globaloutlook.ca/10P45.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154

If Bush and his administration can't keep top secret NSA programs a secret, then why are we to believe that they can keep something as horrific as masterminding the 9/11 attacks a secret?

The Operation Northwoods conspiracy, a 1962 plan approved by all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to stage a 9/11-style operation by US agents posing as pro-Castro Cubans in order to generate public support for an invasion of Cuba, was not exposed until 35 years later. Fortunately President Kennedy refused to give the go-ahead for this conspiracy.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

As to Clinton needing a motive to do this, I don't agree, Clinton would find a way to profit from such a plan, and Gore had a lot to gain if he had been elected.

I believe 9/11 would have happened even if Gore had been elected. Because Lieberman was just as willing as Bush to use the US military for the benefit of Israel, I'm sure that a way would have been arranged by the neocons for Gore to contract a fatal illness or 'accident' while in office. For details about the neocons that pushed America into the Iraq war, read this article written by a former Israeli MK in 2003:
http://gush-shalom.org/archives/article242.html

A document published one year before 9/11 by the neocons entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" stated that a "catastrophic and catalyzing event � like a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to put their plans into operation.
http://www.reopen911.org/docs/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/neocon1.jpg

Slaughtermeyer

September 1st, 2006, 09:30 PM

Atrocities said:
Hard evidence that proves that 9/11 was not a government plot.

Popular mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html)

I think I know now why Popular Mechanics refuses to send anyone to the National 9/11 Debate. Here's an interview with a Popular Mechanics "researcher" on the Charles Goyette show:

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3

For those who'd rather read an abbreviated transcript:

CG: Is there information that has not been given to the public?
PM: Very little�there is very little that has been held back as far as the basic facts of what happened that morning in terms of the material we looked into.
CG: I was under the impression that there were a lot of facts that were withheld. I mean, the surveillance videos, for example, around the Pentagon we were told about: a hotel video, a convenience store video, we haven�t seen those. Apparently they were swooped up very quickly or so the report goes.
PM: That is the case, those have been taken for larger criminal investigations those are now being disclosed to the public, you know with the Judicial Watch material�
CG: I�ve talked with the guys at Judicial Watch, and they�re not very happy about it, they released like four frames that don�t really show much of anything.
PM: They don�t show very much considering that the frame rate was one frame per second and the plane Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second, from that distance it�s not surprising that there was not a whole lot caught on that video.
CG: Are you telling me that�s the only video?
PM: No, I suspect there are other videos, I suspect they�re still being used for various investigations.
CG: What the hell is there to investigate? They told us who the guys were, they held onto some of that stuff for the Moussaoui trial for the love of God, like it was really relevant to his trial (sarcastic), it�s five years later, when are the American people entitled to the evidence?
PM: I think there�s plenty of evidence out there�
CG: It�s not the evidence we�ve seen that we�re concerned about, it�s the evidence we haven�t seen. Does that make any sense?
PM: Oh sure it makes sense�. The evidence is abundant�
CG: It�s the dog that didn�t bark... We know the evidence we�ve seen, that doesn�t cause any suspicion so much as the evidence that we don�t see. It�s not helpful in this country with a very secretive government when a big, powerful magazine like you guys, who owns Popular Mechanics?
PM: �Hearst.�
CG: Ok, with Hearst Corporation, with all of your might, instead of joining the people in their natural curiosity to see all the evidence, you try to say, �Oh shut up, you peons don�t know what you�re talking about, everything�s fine, keep on moving, there�s nothing to see here.� Hearst should be using their influence to get all the evidence released and that will end all the conspiracy talk! Wouldn�t it?
PM: (does answer this question)
CG: �I want to come back to the unseen evidence � the dog that didn�t bark. Hearst has a lot of muscle � where are you in lobbying for the release of all the evidence to put an end to all this madness, speculation and distrust?..
PM: It�s not up to us�
CG: I said use your influence.. Look, is there something we don�t know about this that they have to hide from us? No, or so I presume. We�re told who did it, we�ve invaded two countries in response to it, we�ve spent billions of dollars, I mean, what could be possibly secretive right now?
PM: How can I answer the question?
CG: Because you don�t know, we just want to see the evidence. If the plane flew into the building, show us the damn pictures. What could that possibly hurt?
PM: (Cannot answer question)
CG: �Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics�say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.
PM: When the North Tower collapsed� there was damage to Building 7�. What we found out was�about 25% of the building�s south face had been carved away from it� Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower�
CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true� I go, oh that�s interesting�if that�s true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you�ve got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn�t show that. So I�m going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don�t show me the picture.
PM: �We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate�.
CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can�t see them.
PM: Correct.
CG: Well, that�s a fine kettle of fish, isn�t it? �.What did you see there that I can�t see?
PM: Just what was described.
CG: Well it must be something that�s dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You�re publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they�ve done the worst possible thing, they�ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher!
PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.
CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn�t know we had different classes of citizens. You can�t tell me it�s because it�s a criminal case because they�ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher.
PM: �.I can�t answer that question.
CG: I know you can�t.
PM: (is speechless)�.
�Caller (Mike): What about the 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the British press who came forward and said, �We�re alive, what are we doing on the FBI list of so-called hijackers? We�re alive and well.� How do you explain that one?
PM: It was one BBC report � I am saying that is false.
Caller: How did you verify that the British story was false?
PM: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have been on those planes�
Caller: What remains?
PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.
Caller: The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you insane? Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the hijackers, where are those reports? I haven�t heard anything about autopsy reports.
CG: I want to know, even if we presume you�re correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA with which to match it? Where did they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had they submitted DNA before they, uh�I mean, where the hell did they get it? You�re not even talking sensibly with me.
PM: Off the top of my head, I don�t know the answer to that.
CG: Of course you don�t.
PM: I�ll get back to you with it.
CG: Is that a promise?
PM: I will do my best.
CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that he�s gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who had�hijacked those planes. Good, I�d like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made?
PM: No, actually I don�t�
CG: You don�t understand why when you tell us that they found the hijackers� DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against � Do you think that�s bizarre to ask a question like that, do you think it�s conspiratorial just to want to know?...You told me that they have DNA evidence that matches the hijackers�
PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question that�s worth answering�.
CG: �You�ve told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their original DNA to check it against? You�re the one with the answers, I�m not. I just ask questions.
PM: �A seven year old can ask why, over and over and over�.
CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, we�ve invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we�re gonna spend trillions of dollars. It�s not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What�s so hard about that?
PM: The way that you�re framing it is intentionally�
CG: Of course it is, �cause it�s five years later and we haven�t heard the answer. And you haven�t given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to God, that�s it. You see, it�s the way I�m framing it makes it an illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask it differently.
PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.
CG: I want the question I asked. All right, that�s it. Hey Daven, thanks�the Charles Goyette Show.

Atrocities

September 7th, 2006, 05:02 PM

CAIRO, Egypt � Al-Jazeera aired on Thursday what it called previously unshown footage of Al Qaeda terrorist chief Usama bin Laden meeting with some of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

So much for the theory that Israel is beind the attacks of 9/11.

Noah_Vaile

September 12th, 2006, 10:52 AM

I pity the fool. I mean really, how stupid is this stuff? Very very very. I am constantly amazed that anyone can repeat it without just falling down and laughing at themselves. Or having to be prepared to give resuscitation to others who are choking with laughter at them. I suppose anyone who expounds this tripe should, just as a civic minded thing to do, learn and be prepared to give CPR.

Slaughtermeyer

September 12th, 2006, 05:09 PM

Atrocities said:

CAIRO, Egypt � Al-Jazeera aired on Thursday what it called previously unshown footage of Al Qaeda terrorist chief Usama bin Laden meeting with some of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

So much for the theory that Israel is beind the attacks of 9/11.

The FBI wasn't fooled by that questionable footage, it still believes there is no hard evidence connecting Osama to 9/11 because 9/11 is still not mentioned as one of the crimes for which he is wanted:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

And I never said that Israel was responsible for the entire operation. All indications are that Cheney outsourced the recruitment of the hijackers to the head of Pakistani intelligence because he was the one who was caught ordering the wiring of $100,000 to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta. The Mossad was the most likely culprit for placing the explosives in the three tallest World Trade Center buildings because Mossad agents were caught celebrating and filming "Mission Accomplished" on 9/11.
http://www.sundayherald.com/37707

Atrocities

September 16th, 2006, 03:35 AM

Noah_Vaile said:
I pity the fool. I mean really, how stupid is this stuff? Very very very. I am constantly amazed that anyone can repeat it without just falling down and laughing at themselves. Or having to be prepared to give resuscitation to others who are choking with laughter at them. I suppose anyone who expounds this tripe should, just as a civic minded thing to do, learn and be prepared to give CPR.

ROTFLMAO - I have to say it, if they gave out and award for putting things into context, you my friend would have won it hands down with this statement. Job well done.

geoschmo

September 21st, 2006, 11:26 AM

KlvinoHRGA said:
It's common knowledge that these buildings are designed, incase of catastrophic failure, to collapse down on top of itself as to avoid collatoral damage to the surrounding buildings.

It's actually not exactly. It sounds trite but buildings fall more or less straight down because that's the direction gravity is pulling them. Skyscrapers are designed to withstand stress loads primarily in a downward direction. They don't actually fall over like trees because the structural supports fail and they collapse downard way before the center of gravity can get out to the point where the building would topple over sideways.

You could build a building that could be tipped over far enough that it would fall over instead of collapsing down, but it would take so much extra reinforcing material that it wouldn't have much usable interior space for offices and stuff. Kind of like a tree. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

geoschmo

September 21st, 2006, 11:40 AM

WTC7 fell for the same reason the twin towers fell, uncontrolled fire burned long enough to weaken the structrural support members to the point of collapse. A fire in any structure that is left to burn will eventually weaken and destroy enough supports to cause it to collapse. This is true for steel frame buildings as well as wood ones. It just take a little longer for steel and concrete structures. You don't see buildings collapse during fire much these days because the fire departments do a pretty good job of putting them out before they get to the point of structural collapse. But on 9/11 the fires were at such a height and and burned so hot because of the jet fuel that the fire department couldn't get to it in time.
The collapse of the north and south towers, on top of killing hundreds of fireman, choked off the are with debris so that noone that was left could get into a position where they could fight the fires burning in the surrounding buidlings.

Slaughtermeyer

September 25th, 2006, 07:45 AM

geoschmo said:
WTC7 fell for the same reason the twin towers fell, uncontrolled fire burned long enough to weaken the structrural support members to the point of collapse.

I suggest you forward your explanation for the collapse of WTC7 to Dr. Sunder of the NIST. Dr. Sunder may find it helpful because he has been unable to come up with an explanation of his own. When asked for an explanation of the collapse of WTC7 and why the collapse of the building was barely mentioned in the NIST report Dr. Sunder replied: "But truthfully, I don�t really know. We�ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.�

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html

SafeKeeper

October 3rd, 2006, 02:00 PM

9/11 was the work of Usama ibn Ladin and his nutcase terrorist group. 'Nuff said.

Google:
911 Myths.
Popular Mechanics.
Screw Loose Change (blog and movies).

I pity the fool. I mean really, how stupid is this stuff? Very very very. I am constantly amazed that anyone can repeat it without just falling down and laughing at themselves. Or having to be prepared to give resuscitation to others who are choking with laughter at them. I suppose anyone who expounds this tripe should, just as a civic minded thing to do, learn and be prepared to give CPR.

The only thing that made me wonder about Loose Change was that Usama wrote with his right hand. That's it. And, of course, it didn't take much research to find out [hint: he's an Islamic fundamentalist].

Slaughtermeyer

October 26th, 2006, 07:33 PM

SafeKeeper said:
9/11 was the work of Usama ibn Ladin and his nutcase terrorist group. 'Nuff said.

Google:
911 Myths.
Popular Mechanics.
Screw Loose Change (blog and movies).

None of those sources even try to debunk the fact that the source of the anthrax in the post-9/11 anthrax attacks was traced to the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick. Top Bush Administration officials started taking the anti-anthrax antibiotic Cipro one week before the first anthrax attack took place.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/1967.shtml

http://holt.house.gov/list/press/nj12_holt/121206.html

http://infowars.net/articles/december2006/131206Anthrax.htm

Slaughtermeyer

April 20th, 2007, 03:06 PM

Phoenix-D said:
Never does explain how the people in the building didn't *notice* the prepration for demolition, which is quite extensive.

Actually, people did notice quite a bit of suspicious activity in the Twin Towers during the weekend prior to 9/11. You can find out more about this the final 30 minutes of the "9/11 Mysteries" documentary.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

Atrocities

April 21st, 2007, 08:22 AM

You really need to let this go my friend. The point of silliness has long since passed into farce obsession. If by any remote possibly, and I do mean remote, that this whole thing was a Government set up, then it sure as hell was set in motion LONG before the silly Bush man was ever elected to office.

Also I had this accident last August where a sand bank just gave out from under me as I rode my quad over it. There was no advanced warning, it just happened at the precise moment I started to cross it. Do you think the guys who made these documentaries, you know the ones who keep calling accredited scientist and engineering professionals liars, would make a movie about the conspiracy to collapse the sand bank out from under me?

Renegade 13

May 14th, 2007, 01:08 AM

Wow...I didn't think people seriously believed some of the crap that has been expounded here...

US/Israeli conspiracy...yeah, that's plausible...much more plausible than Islamic funamentalists who despise 'Western' cultures and their 'decadence'...

geoschmo

May 21st, 2007, 03:46 PM

Slaughtermeyer said:

geoschmo said:
WTC7 fell for the same reason the twin towers fell, uncontrolled fire burned long enough to weaken the structrural support members to the point of collapse.

I suggest you forward your explanation for the collapse of WTC7 to Dr. Sunder of the NIST. Dr. Sunder may find it helpful because he has been unable to come up with an explanation of his own. When asked for an explanation of the collapse of WTC7 and why the collapse of the building was barely mentioned in the NIST report Dr. Sunder replied: "But truthfully, I don�t really know. We�ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.�

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html

Truthfully I didn't pay much attention to this thread after my post so I just noticed yoru reply. What's outrageous is this New York Magazine article you link too came out a full year after the Popular Mechanics Aritcle, but they are giving quotes from Dr. Saunders from early in the investigation before all the facts were in. They've conveinently ignored any evidence that doesn't fit their conspiracy theory.

From the Pop Mech March 2005

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

If you ignore the facts, it's easy to come up with many plausible theories. But it takes a real art for self-denial to ignore inconvienent truths like "gravity makes things fall".

Soldat32

June 1st, 2007, 05:02 PM

9/11 was not a conspiracy.Only the far left liberal nutjobs claim that,

The only real thing GW needs to be impeached for is allowing the flood of criminal aliens and terrorists across our borders and even considering the fact of allowing them amnesty.Not to mention the fact these illegals dont pay taxes yet are given medicare,EIC,and other services all on the tax payers dime.Bush has truely sold out those who put him into office.Im totally disgusted!

Atrocities

June 1st, 2007, 09:27 PM

You guys really just need to ignore these kind of conspiracy threads. No matter how much evidence you post proving that these conspiracy theories are just half backed inventions of twisted and ill informed low brow anti-American whack jobs, they won't believe you. For them ignoring the truth, the evidence, and laws of physics is a way of life. Hell they made a movie that is prominently featured on both Google Video and You-Tube. These two seemingly left wing loving sites tout this tripe filled movie as being the best movie ever made about the events of 9/11. I guess fiction does sell. Most people who have seen this movie will admit that it is complete bunk, but hey, the conspiracy loving dim wits of the world believe in it so who the hell are we to say to them that they are crazy? Oh wait, that would be inferred by our laughing hysterically at them as they continue to believe that George Bush was behind the 9/11.

What I love is now that this movie is out, nut jobs use it as proof that their whacked out theories are valid. And the movie uses these whacked out nut jobs theories as proof that there was a conspiracy. Its just one whacked out nut job pointing to another whacked out nut job and saying "well he said it happened" back and forth like some retard circle jerk.

In fact that is the best way to describe this whole 9/11 conspiracy thing; a whacked out crazy left wing circle jerk.

Atrocities

June 1st, 2007, 09:36 PM

If you ignore the facts, it's easy to come up with many plausible theories. But it takes a real art for self-denial to ignore inconvenient truths like "gravity makes things fall".

- Geo

Excellent comment. This one is an award winning statement. Well said Geo.

Slaughtermeyer

June 11th, 2007, 04:08 AM

geoschmo said:
Truthfully I didn't pay much attention to this thread after my post so I just noticed yoru reply. What's outrageous is this New York Magazine article you link too came out a full year after the Popular Mechanics Aritcle, but they are giving quotes from Dr. Saunders from early in the investigation before all the facts were in.

Dr. Sunder made those comments on Jan. 18 2006, well after the lame Popular Mechanics attempt to explain the collapse of WTC7 appeared. [see footnote 6 from this article.] (http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/74456.htm?CFID=2757585&CFTOKEN=21617455#_ftn6)

The "working hypothesis" which the NIST had in early 2006 apparently was so inadequate that a few months later the NIST commissioned an "Investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios" and the "Evaluation of thermite as a possible heat source substance."

The reliability of the photograph that Popular Mechanics claims shows "about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out" apparently is being seriously questioned because according to NIST there was a "lack of information about impact damage to the south face of WTC 7" and the "new images" which the NIST obtained in 8/06 did not rule out the need to investigate the possibility that the building was imploded. [ pages 7 & 8 of this report (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf)]

More importantly, Popular Mechanics has admitted that the photograph which they use as the basis for their conclusion about the damage to WTC7 is being deliberately witheld from viewing by the general public. This admission was made by Popular Mechanics "researcher" David Coburn when he was interviewed by Arizona talk show host Charles Goyette. Here's the pertinent part of that interview:

CG: �Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics�say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.

PM: When the North Tower collapsed� there was damage to Building 7�. What we found out was�about 25% of the building�s south face had been carved away from it� Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower�

CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true� I go, oh that�s interesting�if that�s true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you�ve got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn�t show that. So I�m going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don�t show me the picture.

PM: �We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate�.

CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can�t see them.

PM: Correct.

CG: Well, that�s a fine kettle of fish, isn�t it? �.What did you see there that I can�t see?

PM: Just what was described.

CG: Well it must be something that�s dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You�re publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they�ve done the worst possible thing, they�ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.

CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn�t know we had different classes of citizens. You can�t tell me it�s because it�s a criminal case because they�ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher.

PM: �.I can�t answer that question.

CG: I know you can�t.

The entire interview can be heard here:
http://www.zshare.net/audio/4527367b2b25/

http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth911/truth911/wtc-7-neverforget.gif

capnq

June 11th, 2007, 07:24 AM

I just found this (http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html) in a webcomic archive yesterday.

Not that I expect it to make a difference...

Gandalf Parker

June 11th, 2007, 10:30 AM

LOL
I like that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Atrocities

June 12th, 2007, 01:12 AM

Slaughtermeyer in all honesty I believe what Popular Mechanics has said and quite honestly would never buy into or believe or even consider what any of these conspiracy theorists have to say. I saw the interview with the guys who made that conspiracy movie and the men from PM magazine. Those film guys were rude, offensive, unwilling to listen, and hostile. Those film producers have absolutely [/b]no[/b] creditability what so ever.

In fact I would not ever take anything these whack job morons would say seriously. And thankfully neither does any one else. From the looks of it, only half brain dead morons on Youtube and Google Video believe this nonsense that the US Government is behind the events of 9/11. And that does not bode well for your cause.

As to you, well if you want to ignore rational and scientific facts from reputable engineers and scientist in favor of discredited, and much laughed at crack pots, then that is your choice, but please don't try and pass this tripe off as real fact. It just makes you and all of your conspiracy buddies look laughably stupid. No one with any sense of intelligence will ever take this conspiracy theory crap seriously. That is a simple and undeniable fact of life so why not just dispense with continuing to argue the point and humbly move on to bigger and better game.

If I had moderator powers in this forum, I would lock this thread.

capnq

June 12th, 2007, 07:00 AM

Locking the thread would just confirm the True Believers' opinion that The Truth Is Being Suppressed. Better to let everyone see for themselves how irrational the arguments are.

geoschmo

June 12th, 2007, 11:27 AM

As much as I disagree with Slaughtermeyers point of view on this issue it seems to me he's been quite calm and reasonable in the discussion. He's got a right to express his opinion and even attempt to convince others of it's correctness. We can't go locking people down just because we disagree with them, even if what they say makes us uncomfortable.

Gandalf Parker

June 12th, 2007, 12:04 PM

In the forums you have moderator powers that would make sense. But I am afraid that locking it here would undo the purpose of this forum. Trying to give a home to such discussions outside of the game forums.

Atrocities

June 12th, 2007, 04:21 PM

Point taken. I guess there is a place for everything, including the absurdly ridicules.

Gandalf Parker

June 14th, 2007, 12:09 PM

There has to be. It shows up everywhere, and the best bet is to have someplace to nicely send it off to.

Slaughtermeyer

June 15th, 2007, 05:40 AM

Atrocities said:

In fact I would not ever take anything these whack job morons would say seriously. And thankfully neither does any one else.

An increasing number of reputable scholars scientists and engineers are becoming believers in the truth about 9/11:
http://ae911truth.org/

http://stj911.org/

From the looks of it, only half brain dead morons on Youtube and Google Video believe this nonsense that the US Government is behind the events of 9/11. And that does not bode well for your cause.

According to a Scripps-Howard poll taken last year, 36 percent of all Americans believe it is likely that "federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East." Among young adults (18-24) over half shared this belief, which is a good indication that eventually a majority of all Americans will believe the truth about 9/11 as the old people die off.
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Edi

June 15th, 2007, 09:57 AM

Appeal to popularity. Just because a large number of people believe something, it is not necessarily true. Roughly two thirds of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism, i.e. that the world was created in its present form roughly ten thousand years ago. Despite the number of people who believe it, it is complete manure. The 9/11 conspiracy theories belong in the same category.

Gandalf Parker

June 15th, 2007, 11:31 AM

Wow where did that number come from on Young Earth Creationism? I would really question that. I would think the poll either asked "do you believe the bible" and took it from there, or they mixed all creationists into one group.

But you know what they say...
Jay: Why the big secret? People are smart, they can handle it.
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

Atrocities

June 15th, 2007, 07:19 PM

An increasing number of reputable scholars scientists and engineers are becoming believers in the truth about 9/11:

With all do honesty, to say a thing doesn't make a thing true. I would respectfully have to ask for names in order to even consider that this would even remotely be true. First I would have to see proof that these "reputable scholars scientists and engineers" are indeed as advertised, secondly I would need to see indisputable evidence that they had first agreed with then later disagreed with the true, official, factual and accurate events of 9/11 and not some far fetched conspiracy theory.

Edi

June 16th, 2007, 11:58 AM

Gandalf Parker said:
Wow where did that number come from on Young Earth Creationism? I would really question that.

Ask and ye shall receive (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=109579), not only that discussion, but also the original news source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070608/lf_afp/usevolutionreligion) plus also the actual poll results complete with questions. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-07-evolution-poll-results_n.htm)

Ten years ago the number was around 50%, but apparently it has increased as the standards of education in the US have gone down and the evangelicals have done their best to insinuate cretinism into school curriculums. Kids are impressionable and if their parents tell them the theory of evolution is lies and that cretinism is true, there isn't much that school can do about it and we end up with numbers like that.

Gandalf Parker

June 16th, 2007, 12:46 PM

Edi said:
Ten years ago the number was around 50%, but apparently it has increased as the standards of education in the US have gone down and the evangelicals have done their best to insinuate cretinism into school curriculums. Kids are impressionable and if their parents tell them the theory of evolution is lies and that cretinism is true, there isn't much that school can do about it and we end up with numbers like that.

That makes sense. I have definetly seen the drop in education. I dont think Id say "the evangelicals have done their best to insinuate cretinism into school curriculums" but there has been an increase in evanglism outside of the school system which would be easier to connect. Lower education, higher evangelism. I could see that such a poll might be reflecting that.

Atrocities

June 17th, 2007, 12:14 AM

Only extreme zealots can brain brain wash children. Just look to the middle east for proof to that. Here in the states its much more difficult to affect the minds of the young without the use of TV, Ipods, and Cell phones.

capnq

June 17th, 2007, 12:45 PM

Atrocities said: Here in the states its much more difficult to affect the minds of the young without the use of TV, Ipods, and Cell phones.

What on Earth makes you think that extremists don't have access to all of the above here in the US?

Religious fundamentalists aren't the only pressure group whose political agendas are corrupting the education system.

Atrocities

June 18th, 2007, 09:53 AM

Oh I agree completely. The break down of the moral and ethical standard by prominently promoting anti-family values, gay sex, and free drug use has completely deteriorated the quality of our schools even more so than the lowering of educational standards so the stupid lazy kids can pass barely being able to read "see spot run" and add 2+2.

Thanks to the lax system we now have, more and more stupid kids are being coddled and allowed to pass onto the next grade when they shouldn't even be in the grade they are currently in.

In India and around the world students are indoctrinated into a system of learning that promotes study, excites the child, and results in superior intellectual individuals on a scale never before seen. And here in America most high school graduates don't even know the where the capital of the United States is or on what day the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Edi

June 18th, 2007, 10:42 AM

Atrocities said:
Oh I agree completely. The break down of the moral and ethical standard by prominently promoting anti-family values, gay sex, and free drug use has completely deteriorated the quality of our schools even more so than the lowering of educational standards so the stupid lazy kids can pass barely being able to read "see spot run" and add 2+2.

Hold on, are you saying what I think you're saying? That it's the godless, perverted, promiscuous gays who are behind the moral deterioration? Or did you just get your sentence structure completely mixed up? Because if it was not a mistake, you had better have an asbestos suit handy.

Promoting tolerance, giving kids an actual useful sex education (they will have sex anyway, so it is better if they know about contraception and condoms and use them instead of having unprotected sex that results in teen pregancy and helps spread STDs) and teaching them that gays are people just like everyone else sure as hell are not things that result in moral decline unless one's viewpoint is that of an uptight idiot with a rod up his arse. The thing is that if it does not result in objectively verifiable harm, then I do not see any grounds to call something bad even if it is not something one personally likes. If anything, kids who are taught tolerance and kindness and to treat others as normal even if they are not 100% conforming to the expectations of the majority will generally grow up to be far more ethical people than some of those so screeching about the destruction of moral values and social decay.

Drug use, that's a different thing entirely, and drugs generally have a lot of negative consequences, whether legal (e.g. alcohol and tobacco) or illegal (marijuana, heroin etc), so I'll leave that out. But from what I've seen, promoting free drug use is not something that is very widespread in the US.

Atrocities said:Thanks to the lax system we now have, more and more stupid kids are being coddled and allowed to pass onto the next grade when they shouldn't even be in the grade they are currently in.

That's a completely different issue. The problem there is that the bull**** educational theories that have gained prominence in the past 20 years all adamantly insist that nobody should ever reprimand kids for anything or fail them for anything because it'll damage their precious self-esteem. That's what's mainly responsible for the decline of education, and it's such a heap of manure that it makes the task of cleaning the stables of Augeias that was set to Heracles look like a pile of gnat droppings in comparison. But it's not the only reason. The whole US education system was designed the better part of 100 years ago to supply a substantially different workforce makeup with labor and it hasn't been changed much since. The system is broken on every level and a lot of societal factors go into it as well. The much touted No Child Left Behind law that Bush signed has only made things worse and has no redeeming qualities at all.

Gandalf Parker

June 18th, 2007, 11:42 AM

I disagree that it is due to bull**** educational theories. Maybe in the 70's and early 80's. Now I think its more due to the fact that the schools have become assembly-lines. My son had classes that were larger than my entire graduating ceremony. Im not sure if any of his teachers even knew who he was.

Teachers cannot keep track of every kid and definetly have no desire to make next years classroom even more crowded by keeping anyone back. I blame it on the fact that we are not willing to pay for our kids educations. We dont have small enough classes (schools, classrooms, teachers), not paid well teachers, and they have cut back on nearly every program that isnt state-required.

Edi

June 18th, 2007, 11:58 AM

As I said, Gandalf, it's one reason but not the only reason. According to a couple of American teachers I know, the whole system is broken down and nothing short of razing it to the ground and rebuilding it from scratch is really going to make much difference.

Underfunding, too big class size, teaching rote memorization instead of understanding and knowledge of the subject, incompetent teachers being protected by unions, NCLB, nncompetent administrators and teachers not being able to hold kids back for failing grades (for various reasons,one of which is the bull**** self-esteem argument) are all parts of the problem. This subject is so complex it needs its own thread, really. When I have a bit more time (at work right now), I'll look up a few good threads on SDnet and link those, because they have a far more accurate and indepth analysis of the situation.

Atrocities

June 18th, 2007, 04:18 PM

Edi I was referring to the assembly held at the Bold High School a couple of weeks ago where the guest speakers promoted gay sex, masturbation, and drug use. I was not making a statement for or against gay parenting. A parent is a parent.

As to the Bolder HS issue, while many found the assembly to be a slap in the face of moral and ethical standards, many liberal parents felt that it was a ground breaking event and not only endorsed further similar assemblies, but congratulated the school for holding the first one. Tell me that you as a parent wouldn't be a bit miffed by some stranger telling your kid that s/he should engage in same sex relationships, do drugs, and masturbate? Correct me if I am wrong, but where does this fall into educating our children?

Edi

June 19th, 2007, 08:16 AM

Ah, the confusion clears somewhat. Your post wasn't too clear on that point, so it lent itself to being misread.

As far as what I as a parent (if I was one) would be comfortable with:
Giving kids a good sex education. That does not mean telling them to engage in homosexual sex. Sex education means making sure that they know about the risks involved in unprotected sex, measures how to counter those risks and also about the emotional aspects related to it. With the stress being on "only when you feel you're ready for it". If the issue of homosexual relationships comes up, why would those be any worse than a normal one, because a straight person is not going to seek one out. Where masturbation is concerned, it is something that comes to humans naturally, so there is nothing wrong with that and it should not be labeled as something evil.

Drugs, that's a different issue altogether, as I said, and I have a fairly hardline stance about using drugs.

It's just that for some reason Americans have some completely unnatural need to roll drugs, sex education and homosexual relationships all into one as if they could not be dealt with separately, which is where one gets the kind of ridiculous strawmen and black/white fallacies that often crop up around this issue. If the speaker promoted all three, did he do so unconditionally? If he did not, his speech should be analyzed for its merits and demerits instead of dismissed entirely.

Atrocities

June 19th, 2007, 02:45 PM

A very odd thing happened, A guy on the radio this morning, during a debate about the Boulder HS issue, commented that he believes that "Left wing liberals are todays anti-Christs."

He went on in some detail and actually made some sense from his point of view. That being a religious man and all.

This started to make me wonder, while I believe that there is far more good out there than evil, evil often prevails. But believe it or not, evil is in the eye of the beholder. One mans evil is another mans good and vise versa.

Some people believe that because "they" don't like something, that everyone else should be forced not to like it too. That belief, that our way is the best way, which is a fundamental edict of the liberal left philosophy, is something that I do not believe in and could never subscribe to. To me to force your beliefs onto others is an evil. However to educate others as to your beliefs and then allow them to make the choice for themselves as to whether or not they accept them, well that is good. Taking away a persons right to choose for themselves what they want to believe and then forcing them to accept it is an evil. Allowing a person to excerise their constitutional rights is a good, denying them the right to have rights is an evil.

Liberals love to to tell people what rights they should and shouldn't have. That is an evil. They want to re-write the constitution and do away with such things as the worthless second amendment, redefine and clarify the meaning of the first amendment, and devalue the worth of our Republic by demising that which makes us unique. That is an evil.

They want to break down the moral and ethical boundaries of our society by forcing parents out of the role of role model and giving that position to the Government. The government should teach our young how to behave, how to think, and what to do. This has been tried before and I need not say where because we all know the historical out come of many of those examples.

When I was growing up school was tough, my parents spanked me when I misbehaved, my friends and I could horse play, play cow boys and Indians, cops and robbers, and generally felt safe and happy. It was ok to go to Sunday school and play baseball. To walk to the store a mile away from home, and to ride in the openness of the back of my dads pick up truck.

Now school is anything but tough, well you can't hug your friends any more, unless your gay of course. Parents no longer have the right to enforce proper discipline upon their ill behaving young. Now they must give them a time out, negotiate with them, and try to get them to understand what they did wrong. Wanna guess how these kids turn out when they throw a temper tantrum because mommy won't buy them a new toy and all she can do is "talk" to them? We have all seen them in the stores and we have all thought the same thought.. don't deny it. Appropriate and measured discipline, including the reserved and aptly applied use of spanking will yield far better results than the politically correct handcuffed way that parents are now forced to employ. Spoiled undisciplined children often grow up to be rude and nasty adults that society then blames the parents for. Never mind the fact that they were bound by law not to discipline their child, it is still their fault that their kid grew up to become a drug using, anti-social, criminal.

Forget about horse playing or games like cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, that isn't politically correct any more and is generally frowned upon. In fact if you even make gun with your fingers at school, many school will call the police under their zero tolerance policy. (Yet they still allow kids to call fat kids fat, and dumb kids dumb....)

It is now become politically incorrect to send your child to Sunday school because the many liberals believe that it is the first step by the religious right to indoctrinate your child into their cult. You cannot even wish someone a merry Christmas now because it offends a few non christens. And look out, the ACLU will sue any school if they try to put on a Christmas or easter play. It is hard to deny that the word God has become the new dirty word in the liberal left vocabulary. To many of them, only dumb souther hicks and self righteous anti-womens right to choose zealots believe in God. No one should ever be embarrassed to say that they believe in God or subscribe to a religion of their choice.

Baseball has been replaced by TV, X-Box and playstation. God help us if we try to get our young to go outside and play. I mean how can a parent compete with the advertising onslaught of todays consumer driven world?

No parent in their right mind would let their kids walk a mile to the local store because of all the sicko's and child molesters out there. (Not to mention that the local store is no more than likely next door in what used to be the huge open hay field of farmer Jo.) What have we become that we now must fear our neighbors so? And where did all of these sick, creepy, child molesting, kidnapping SOB's come from? LA perhaps? And why must I hear about them each and every night on the news?

Heaven forbid if you get caught letting your kids ride in the back of your truck today. You'll end up with a one way ticket to jail and your kids will be on their way to "protective" foster care. Your face will be plastered all over the tattle tale news as the "evil parent" pervert of the day. You'll be divorced by your wife, be shunned by your neighbors, fired from your job, loose your home, go bankrupt, do jail if not prison time, loose all your rights, and only get to see your kids after you paid all your back child support and passed all of the state mandated child care classes. And then you'll only be able to see them on altering Sundays once every four months or so.

One mans evil is another mans good. Its all a matter of your point of view.

Edi

June 19th, 2007, 03:12 PM

That's a completely distorted, head-buried-up-the-neck-in-rectum strawman of the politically liberal position. It's a completely delusional caricature mostly perpetrated by conservatives who have, if they are lucky, perhaps one working synapse.

The position of most liberals (aside from the second amendment, which I will exclude, it is a separate issue that follows a slightly different divide) is that unless you can show how something is objectively harmful, the government or the community has no business banning it by law or butting its nose in. This is a marked contrast to the position of many conservatives, especially religious conservatives, who seem to think that their values should be forced down everybody's throat, with the full force of the state if at all possible.

The idea that liberals want to remove parental responsibilities and turn them over to government is nothing but a fever dream. Do you have any idea of how much that would cost and how much damage it would do? Outlawing spanking is very different from taking parental rights away. Most proponents of spanking like the "good old days" excuse when it was okay to beat your kids black and blue, but it's not. That's assault, and because the target is a dependent and unable to do anything about it, it is especially heinous. There are other ways of disciplining kids than hitting them. If parents are so damned spineless that they give in to all of their kid's whims, the fault is with the parent, not the kid.

It is up to the parent to decide how to raise their kids mainly, and Sunday school is a perfectly acceptable part of that. So are other religious activities. It does not mean that such activities should be protected from criticism if there are objective flaws about them.

As for getting kids to go outside vs playing on the X-Box, well, the parent has the right to take the X-Box away and make the kid go outside and tough crap, the kid needs to deal with that. The parent is the one in control, not the kid, and it looks more and more like this whole rant of yours is nothing but a collection of conservative soundbites that are so ludicrously bizarre that whoever came up with them was ingesting seriously illegal mind-altering substances.

The US as a whole needs to grow a spine, your nation looks like a washed-out drunk beating its chest about how bad-*** it used to be and blaming everything on others instead of taking a long hard look in the mirror. Most European countries are seriously more liberal than America and we don't have these social problems to the degree that you do. How the hell do you explain that FACTUAL OBSERVATION?

Atrocities

June 19th, 2007, 04:58 PM

I wish it were crap Edi, I really do, but more and more people are beginning to buy into the liberals media controlled onslaught of propaganda and are showing inherent and somewhat alarming signs of conforming to the views and political agenda's of the elite far left liberal doctrine.

To be honest I have never seen any religious right wing conservative try to force their beliefs down my throat. However I have bared witness to liberals throwing break fluid on SUV's, stringing up razor think fishing wire on dirt bike trails, aggressive anti-war protests, and personally have been verbally attacked by liberals for not agreeing with how they see the world. I was "let go" from my position with the City because I wasn't a Democrat and didn't "accept" my supervisors very liberal point of view of how things should be. (I made the mistake of saying I voted for Bush Sr. in 92 back in may of 93 and was removed from the schedule and told that I no longer fit in. WTF!)

So you see I do have first hand knowledge of how liberals operate. If you don't agree with them, they do their best to marginalize, harass, intimidate, and pressure you to conform to their will, if you don't, they embarrass you, ridicule you, and ultimately resort to just doing just about anything they can to quiet you. (Much like what you are attempting to do Edi. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif )

In 20 years I haven't seen very many conservatives pull these kind of tactics. And those who have, often see it blow back in their faces.

And for the record, we are not a washed out drunk beating our chest about how bad *** we are, we are in fact a nation that has saved Europe first from the Nazi's and secondly from Stalins Russia. If you want to call us a spoiled rotten 15 year waving a gun in everyones face or a drunk beating his chest, please keep in mind that you all would be speaking German or Russian right now if it weren't for us dumb yanks and our bad bass ways. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

As to our social problems, well they can pretty much be summed up in one word; Television.

When you rely on TV to teach your children morals and ethics, you reap what you sow.

Atrocities

June 19th, 2007, 05:04 PM

As for getting kids to go outside vs playing on the X-Box, well, the parent has the right to take the X-Box away and make the kid go outside and tough crap, the kid needs to deal with that. The parent is the one in control, not the kid, and it looks more and more like this whole rant of yours is nothing but a collection of conservative soundbites that are so ludicrously bizarre that whoever came up with them was ingesting seriously illegal mind-altering substances.

The control parents had has been dramatically reduced by liberal ideals and liberal back passage of liberal laws. If your child refuses to obey you, and you take away their X-box and turn off the TV, they simply have to pick up the phone and call 911 and say that mommy hit me. Most parents are scared to death of this and most kids know about it.

Liberals have taken the power that the parents once held and gave it to the children. This is no lie, it isn't propaganda, it is fact and it is ugly.

Most proponents of spanking like the "good old days" excuse when it was okay to beat your kids black and blue, but it's not. That's assault, and because the target is a dependent and unable to do anything about it, it is especially heinous.

Abuse is not acceptable. My parents spanked me, they never abused me. I suspect that that is true for most people. People who abuse their children are the lowest forms of life known to exist.

That's a completely distorted, head-buried-up-the-neck-in-rectum strawman of the politically liberal position. It's a completely delusional caricature mostly perpetrated by conservatives who have, if they are lucky, perhaps one working synapse.

this whole rant of yours is nothing but a collection of conservative soundbites that are so ludicrously bizarre that whoever came up with them was ingesting seriously illegal mind-altering substances.

And Edi, comments like these really do more harm than good as they prove a point. When people disagree with a liberal point of view they are attacked, ridiculed, harassed, intimidated, and marginalized. Now I know that you are a passionate advocate of your position and enjoy a good debate, but please bare in mind that when you resort to personal attacks, you loose the high ground and forfeit the moral values of your position, whatever those might be.

Attacking an idea or philosophy is one thing, but attacking a person because of those ideas and philosophies is something else entirely. Please keep it civil and don't flame people.

Thanks man. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Edi

June 20th, 2007, 03:48 AM

Atrocities said:
I wish it were crap Edi, I really do, but more and more people are beginning to buy into the liberals media controlled onslaught of propaganda and are showing inherent and somewhat alarming signs of conforming to the views and political agenda's of the elite far left liberal doctrine.

This claim about the US media being controlled by liberals is a flat out lie. It cannot be formulated any more charitably than that. If the media really were as liberal as conservative scaremongers portray it, they would have dragged the Bush administration and the Republican party over the coals for dozens of scandals and the whole runup to the Iraq war, but what we have seen instead is practical media fellation of conservative and neoconservative viewpoints. It might look "left-wing" from where you are, but from anywhere else, the American media is in the far right wingnut looney-land.

Atrocities said:
To be honest I have never seen any religious right wing conservative try to force their beliefs down my throat.

You personally, or in general? Because they tend to do iyt via legislation. Know what they have been up to in some of the midwest states? Those gay marriage bans they rammed through the legislation? They've been using those as a legal springboard to sue companies and government to prevent any kind of benefits being given to heterosexual couples who are not married, though cohabiting couples (I think the term is called common law marriage or some such) have been able to claim them before. Now, they use the argument that unless there is actual, official marriage, nothing can be given. That's ramming their values down people's throats, plain and simple.

How about Focus on Family and other religious right groups trying to get abortion banned? That's ramming their values down everyone else's throats too. Same thing with the morons who in Alabama voted to keep interracial marriages illegal a couple of years ago. There 40% support for keeping it illegal, fortunately not enough for the racist idiots. Or what about the religious right wing people who want to enforce dead-letter laws against homosexual sex so that gays can be thrown in prison for consensual sex? That isn't forcing their values down anyone's throat? I can keep these examples up all day unless you care to actually provide evidence for your claims.

Atrocities said:
However I have bared witness to liberals throwing break fluid on SUV's, stringing up razor think fishing wire on dirt bike trails,

So, all liberals are criminals, eh? So all right wingers and conservatives must then be abortion clinic bombers or Timothy McVeigh sympathizers? Sounds like we can have a deal on swapping labels then. You want to tag all liberals with the extremist brush, I have no problem returning the favor tenfold, Atrocities. The activities above are criminal, pure and simple. Vandalism and intent to cause injury, so throw the book at them and good riddance. That is most definitely not typical liberal behavior.

Atrocities said:
aggressive anti-war protests,

What do you mean by aggressive anti-war protests? Protests that got out of control or just people being vocal and possibly heckling counter-protesters? Because I've also seen news reports about pro-war counter-protesters getting violent.

Atrocities said:
and personally have been verbally attacked by liberals for not agreeing with how they see the world.

Do you consider this debate a verbal attack? If you do not agree with someone's world view and cannot offer up actual reasoning to back up your disagreement, you most definitely are not immune from criticism. I have no problem verbally attacking people whose worldview I disagree with if I have an actual reason for doing so. Which means that I let e.g. racists, xenophobes, misogynists, bullies and jingoists have it with a full broadside and if they get upset over that, I'll tell them to go screw themselves. If they want to piss and moan about it, they can then bloody well come up with actual logical reasoning to back up their bull**** or they can shut up.

Atrocities said:
I was "let go" from my position with the City because I wasn't a Democrat and didn't "accept" my supervisors very liberal point of view of how things should be. (I made the mistake of saying I voted for Bush Sr. in 92 back in may of 93 and was removed from the schedule and told that I no longer fit in. WTF!)

That's a different thing. It's baseless dismissal and abuse, and if it had happened here, you could sue them and they would leave court with their backside very sore. Sadly, I've heard this kind of news from the US several times, though most of them have been the opposite, e.g. people being fired because they had a Kerry campaign sticker on their car when their boss was a Republican. Neither instance is justified if the person does his job and does not cause disruption in the workplace.

Atrocities said:
So you see I do have first hand knowledge of how liberals operate. If you don't agree with them, they do their best to marginalize, harass, intimidate, and pressure you to conform to their will, if you don't, they embarrass you, ridicule you, and ultimately resort to just doing just about anything they can to quiet you.

Take a look at how your country has been run the past 6� years and see if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black. There are ****wits on the left too, always have been, just they have always existed on the right, but what I have seen you do here is take a sampling of the extremists of the left wing and people who have abused their position to fire you and you have then painted everyone non-conservative with the same brush. That's called a hasty generalization fallacy. I've pointed out why those hasty generalizations are not accurate and you can provide evidence to the contrary if you wish.

Atrocities said:
(Much like what you are attempting to do Edi. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif )

Calling those hasty generalizations delusional is accurate if you're trying to apply them to everyone liberal. IF you only want to talk about the extremists and arseholes who are willing to commit crimes and vandalism, you're on target. They're a vanishingly small fringe, actually.

Atrocities said:
In 20 years I haven't seen very many conservatives pull these kind of tactics. And those who have, often see it blow back in their faces.

Perhaps, but in recent years it has become common practice for the right wing to use all kinds of smear tactics against liberals, harass, belittle etc and there has been no blowback at all. Fox "News" and it's "fair and balanced" approach is nothing but a right wing propaganda channel and can get away with all of that behavior with no backlash at all, and the Republican party has been doing it on an unprecedented scale for the whole Bush term.

Atrocities said:
And for the record, we are not a washed out drunk beating our chest about how bad *** we are, we are in fact a nation that has saved Europe first from the Nazi's and secondly from Stalins Russia.

Ah, the old staple argument about how us Europeans should be grateful to the US. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

You should take a good look at your history books before attempting to use that on a Finn. You did not save us from anything in WW2. In fact, you helped our enemies all through the war by providing material support that allowed them to be more effective and it was the Germans who helped save us from suffering the fate of the Balts and being annexed to Russia. Yeah, they sold us out in 1939 with the Molotov-Ribbentrop deal, but they helped us out in 1941 and onward and some Luftwaffe units were pretty instrumental in helping the Finnish army slow the Russian advance through the Karelian Isthmus, which eventually forced Stalin to the negotiating table to make peace so he could be the first to rush to Berlin. No thanks to the US at all.

There is no condoning what Nazi Germany did, the Holocaust and the other brutalities, but at the end of the day it was Nazi Germany that helped keep my country free, not the Allies, and that fact of history must be acknowledged.

Atrocities said:
If you want to call us a spoiled rotten 15 year waving a gun in everyones face or a drunk beating his chest, please keep in mind that you all would be speaking German or Russian right now if it weren't for us dumb yanks and our bad bass ways. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

See above.

Atrocities said:
As to our social problems, well they can pretty much be summed up in one word; Television.

When you rely on TV to teach your children morals and ethics, you reap what you sow.

That is not exactly the fault of the TV, but the fault of the parents who think that the TV can raise the child for them. Such parents are lazy and irresponsible. It is a parent's job to raise a child and there is no abrogating that responsibility.

Edi

June 20th, 2007, 04:18 AM

Atrocities said:
The control parents had has been dramatically reduced by liberal ideals and liberal back passage of liberal laws. If your child refuses to obey you, and you take away their X-box and turn off the TV, they simply have to pick up the phone and call 911 and say that mommy hit me. Most parents are scared to death of this and most kids know about it.

By the time the kid is old enough to understand a method of blackmail that sophisticated, the damage has already been done. If you raise your kid right and enforce discipline from the get-go, this possibility will not even manifest. Most kids love their parents (unless the parents are actually abusive scumbags) and would not want to hurt them. I've heard stories from some Americans I know how they have no problem controlling their kids at all and this thing has never come up even as a possibility.

Atrocities said:
Liberals have taken the power that the parents once held and gave it to the children. This is no lie, it isn't propaganda, it is fact and it is ugly.

I would like to see evidence of this unsupported claim. I will not accept it as a statement of fact at face value. AS I said, by the time it gets to that point, the parents have already failed.

Atrocities said:

Most proponents of spanking like the "good old days" excuse when it was okay to beat your kids black and blue, but it's not. That's assault, and because the target is a dependent and unable to do anything about it, it is especially heinous.

Abuse is not acceptable. My parents spanked me, they never abused me. I suspect that that is true for most people. People who abuse their children are the lowest forms of life known to exist.

The problem is that there are far fewer people who subscribe to your point of view than not, and even fewer who would actually know when to stop. Just the past two years, I've seen several news reports about small children being beaten for not being quiet or other trivial reasons. Many of those kids died and there are more cases where there were several injuries. Simply put, the people most likely to have children are the ones with the least education and who are the least equipped to be good parents and they also have more children on average and they are, simply put, too incompetent at being parents to allow any kind of leeway with spanking. It would be irresponsible in the extreme to not ban spanking for that reason. At least if it is criminalized, you can throw child-abusing scumbags in prison without unnecessary complications.

Atrocities said:
And Edi, comments like these really do more harm than good as they prove a point. When people disagree with a liberal point of view they are attacked, ridiculed, harassed, intimidated, and marginalized. Now I know that you are a passionate advocate of your position and enjoy a good debate, but please bare in mind that when you resort to personal attacks, you loose the high ground and forfeit the moral values of your position, whatever those might be.

Only when the opponent thinks that the substance of what is said can be ignored in favor of the way it is said. Style over substance is a logical fallacy. The comments are accurate in the sense that the views you expressed in the post I replied to are in no way grounded in reality. I've seen many of the same arguments from others who were, unlike you, completely unable to understand any of the counterarguments at all, whether framed civilly or using far harsher language than in those quotes.

I can also attest to being harassed and ridiculed for advocating moderate positions in opposition to conservative ones, even on forums that are known to be liberal places. The runup to the Iraq war particularly stands out in that respect. Unfortunately for the people doing it, I have no problem dishing it out in kind, so they generally got the worst of it.

Atrocities said:
Attacking an idea or philosophy is one thing, but attacking a person because of those ideas and philosophies is something else entirely. Please keep it civil and don't flame people.

Thanks man. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I know. I'm well aware of the difference between attacking an idea and attacking the messenger. Saying "Idea x is stupid for reasons 1, 2 & 3 and therefore people who support it are stupid" is not attacking the messenger even though it may sound rude to some, but saying "Person x is stupid, therefore anything he says is wrong" is an ad hominem with no logical basis. It's just that too many people think that using any bad words automatically means an ad hominem.

I also know that you are, despite your obviously very conservative views, capable of understanding the arguments and you also seem to enjoy debate, so don't take the harsh words in my first post as an attack on yourself. They are attacks on ideas, not on you. I don't know why you have such views, but based on the evidence at hand, I would say it is due to bad experiences with some liberals, definitely bad experiences due to criminal left-wing extremists and some corrupt organizations (whether local government or something else) and possibly also lack of exposure to mainstream moderate liberals.

I happen to think you're a swell guy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
I just don't let that get in the way of blasting a position I think is factually incorrect.

Funny as it may sound, in Finland I am counted as a conservative. In the US, I'd be pretty damned left-wing, that's how far to the right the entire US political spectrum is. I do not know if liberal would be an accurate term for me in the context of US politics, or even here, "progressive" would fit better.

Atrocities

June 20th, 2007, 05:45 AM

Hey Edi, looks like we have seriously high jacked this thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

You make some very good points and while I don't really want to get into a debate counter debate over each and every individual point I would like to offer some comments about a few of them.

This claim about the US media being controlled by liberals is a flat out lie. It cannot be formulated any more charitably than that.

The media is in the business of entertainment. They do what they do to drum up ratings. When the media is controlled by a few power mongers, be they righties or lefties, the message becomes skewed. When they own the information, they can bend it any way they want. That is true about any media, public or government controlled. Ours is just in the business to sell advertising time. Whatever truth brings in the most revenue is the holly grail of the day.

Know what they have been up to in some of the midwest states? Those gay marriage bans they rammed through the legislation?

In every state that had a bill up for voter approval regarding gay marriage the voters turned it down. Nearly everyone agrees that gay couples should have the same exact legal rights as strait couples. And thankfully in every bill that was turned down by the voters wasn't about gay rights, it was about gay marriage. The voting public has spoken, they support equal legal rights, but not gay marriage. This debate over the term marriage will go on for many years before it is finally resolved.

Do you consider this debate a verbal attack?

There is a difference between a spirited debate and verbal attack. Much like there is a difference between attacking the person over the idea. Calling a person a name directly is considered a verbal attack. Stating that, for example, republicans or liberals are dumb, isn't a personal attack. In that sense you are attacking the ideals of a group and not an individual. While you could say that Republicans suck, it doesn't mean the same thing as saying to someone that "you suck."

Fox "News" and it's "fair and balanced" approach is nothing but a right wing propaganda channel and can get away with all of that behavior with no backlash at all

I love how the liberals here in the states and across the world keep proving my point for me. If you don't tout the liberal left line, your attacked, harassed, called names, and so on. If this isn't true, then why all the hate for Fox News? Look at MSNBC and how they are. Do you see any liberals attacking Keith Olbermann now do you? Come on, if Fox News was such a propaganda machine, then why is it that they dominate cable news? They quite literally blow MSNBC out of the water day in and day out. If they are just a propaganda wing for the right wing republican conservatives then why do they hold dominion over MSNBC and all of the cable news networks? Simple truth, more people identify with the Fox News and the truth than they do with left wing liberal bias in the media.

I personally don't think they are a propaganda channel Edi, in fact I do think they are exactly what they claim to be, fair and balanced and to be honest it would seem that many, if not all, dedicated left wing liberals sincerely hate them for it. I state this as a fact and point at the evident manor in which the left wing liberals have constantly been bombarding Fox News with attack after attack. This level of left wing liberal hypocrisy is actually quite funny when you sit right down and think about it. They love MSNBC, but hate Fox News.

Ah, the old staple argument about how us Europeans should be grateful to the US.

You should take a good look at your history books before attempting to use that on a Finn.

There is no doubt that you Finn's are some tough son's a bi***es. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I know its old staple arguement, but it is a valid one. Times change and no matter what happens between us we both know that come a ligitimate fight, we would all stand together as we have in the past. Like they say, America might be full of idiots, but they are our idiots. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif We feel the same way about our European brothers. We fight and bicker but come hell or high water, we are friends.

That is not exactly the fault of the TV, but the fault of the parents who think that the TV can raise the child for them. Such parents are lazy and irresponsible. It is a parent's job to raise a child and there is no abrogating that responsibility.

I agree with you Edi, 100%. Absolutely correct.

Atrocities said:
Liberals have taken the power that the parents once held and gave it to the children. This is no lie, it isn't propaganda, it is fact and it is ugly.

Edi Said:
I would like to see evidence of this unsupported claim. I will not accept it as a statement of fact at face value. AS I said, by the time it gets to that point, the parents have already failed.

I should clarify that comment by adding to the beginning of that sentence these words "I believe."

I wish I could prove this to you Edi but I cannot. It would be akin to attempting to prove that God exists. All I can say is that the prevailing emotional feeling of many folks, Republican and Democrat, is that too many fundamental parental rights are being circumvented by an elite few who believe that their way is better. This is a sad and ugly truth, and one that most parents will doggedly resist. But the push toward taking the right of the parents to raise their children by their own moral code and standards is slowly being eroded by an insidiously insistent drive toward giving those rights directly to the schools and law makers.

I feel, and this is pure speculation on my part, that there is a real tangible and active on going threat to undermine our very way of life in that when you can control what a child is tough, you can control the child and by the transitive properties of nature, you gain control of society when those children come of age. Indoctrinate them while they are young to believe in nothing and you weaken them as adults and make them pliable for control throughout their lives. Insert your favorite bad guy into the formula and you have a recipe for totalitarianism. But then again WTF do I know? This could all just be research material for book I am writing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Only when the opponent thinks that the substance of what is said can be ignored in favor of the way it is said.

I sincerely do not have any problem with any one calling my ideas flawed and or using colorful terminology to do so. But I do have a concern when someone attacks me personally. I genuinely like to keep an open mind about things. I want people to prove my points of view wrong if they can. That is what is so absolutely wonderful about a free society, the fair exchange of ideas. Prove me wrong and I will tell you, but please do it with your argument, not with angry or hateful words.

Edi you are indeed a solid debater with skill and genuine passion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Edi

June 20th, 2007, 07:20 AM

Yeah, looks like we went and hoisted the jolly roger to the mast of this thread right and proper! *grin*

I'll agree to lay the rest of the thread aside, but the news media bit I can't let go. Have you ever taken a look at e.g. BBC World or other foreign news channels? What I've seen of American channels, even CNN can be described as right wing from a European point of view, and we don't have the same CNN that you do in the states, the European version is even more to the "left" than the American because nobody would watch it otherwise.

I have no idea of what MSNBC is like, never seen it. I do know a fair bit about Fox News, though, and about their habit of ignoring any news that is not convenient to the conservative side of American politics (synonymous with Republicans in this day and age) and stacking the deck in any panels and debates. The fact that they employ someone like Bill O'Reilly who routinely cuts the mike from his guests when he starts losing an argument and who unapologetically hurls baseless accusations and abuse at everyone who disagrees with him, that's already indictment enough, but there are numerous other things as well, from putting a spin on things and even outright lying that they have been caught in. Fox News actually went to court once to argue that even though it calls itself a news channel, there is no obligation to tell the truth to viewers.

Fox News has come under attack so badly precisely because of these reasons. It calls itself fair and balanced, but anyone who takes the time to research any of the more contentious issues they report on will find that it is anything but. I know several Americans who used to think Fox News was okay. Quite a few of them are conservatives, several of them conservatives of a more traditional style and not necessarily religious at all. Then they started looking into things themselves and these days their opinion of Fox News can most charitably be described as total contempt. They did not like being lied to.

That's the most damning indictment of all.

capnq

June 20th, 2007, 08:25 AM

Edi said: Do you have any idea of how much that would cost and how much damage it would do?

Liberals do not care what something will cost. They'll just raise taxes to cover it. (Neoconservatives don't care what things cost, either. They'll just borrow the money and let their grandchildren pay it back later.)

IMO, the main reason that US politics is so dysfunctional is that only the extremists care enough to get involved. Moderates who try to reach compromises just burn out from being shot down by both sides.

Atrocities

June 20th, 2007, 12:15 PM

Any ways back to the topic of this thread.

Study Backs Up Fed Theory Of Why World Trade Center Collapsed (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284816,00.html)

The report concludes that the weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, produced "a flash flood of flaming liquid" that knocked out a number of structural columns within the building and removed the fireproofing insulation from other support structures, Hoffmann said.

And their models back this up.

Slaughtermeyer

June 22nd, 2007, 01:12 PM

Atrocities said:
Any ways back to the topic of this thread.

Study Backs Up Fed Theory Of Why World Trade Center Collapsed (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284816,00.html)

That's a nice flashy animation how the planes collided with the towers. Now they need to illustrate for us step by step how those same buildings collapsed at near free-fall speed. While they're at it, they should also account for the initial drop of the north tower's antenna right before the collapse, the 500 ft. lateral explosions spewing out enormous hunks of steel columns (all because of fire no less), the squibs seen almost 30 floors below the collapse wave (especially considering NIST's complete rejection of the "pancake theory" of collapse), the molten metal found in the basements of WTC 1, 2 & 7, and don't forget the virtually complete pulverization of the concrete and other non-metallic materials! Also, they should show us how the plane that collided with WTC 7 -- oh, wait a minute! No plane hit WTC 7! Isn't that strange? How then did it collapse in 6.6 seconds? HOW INDEED?

For a detailed debunking of the Purdue "simulation" look here: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/06/purdue-simulation-full-of-hot-air.html

Edi

June 24th, 2007, 03:04 AM

Your appeals to your own ignorance are completely irrelevant, Slaughtermeyer. Anyone with basic knowledge of physics and any sort of familiarity with the properties of metals and how they behave under stress can explain to you how and why the WTC came down, including building 7. This has been explained to you time and again in this thread, but you seem to only see and read those things you want to hear and ignore everything else.

It just happens that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it is a FACT of life that if people cannot logically justify their opinion and have no idea what they are talking about, their opinions are completely worthless.

Gandalf Parker

June 24th, 2007, 11:21 AM

Edi said:
It just happens that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it is a FACT of life that if people cannot logically justify their opinion and have no idea what they are talking about, their opinions are completely worthless.

Thats not true. They are worth quite abit. Sell it to Hollywood and find out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/stupid.gif

Slaughtermeyer

June 24th, 2007, 01:23 PM

Renegade 13 said:
Wow...I didn't think people seriously believed some of the crap that has been expounded here...

US/Israeli conspiracy...yeah, that's plausible...much more plausible than Islamic funamentalists who despise 'Western' cultures and their 'decadence'...

Which is more plausible, the terrorists who on 9/11 were caught in the act of trying to blow up the George Washington Bridge were Islamic fundamentalists, or were actually Israeli Mossad agents. Especially considering the fact that they were allowed to return to their home country without facing any prosecution whatsoever.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7dBZpeJD1i4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFyScdsUZSQ&mode=related&search=

High quality version of the previous report. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJZTX8PucbA&watch_response)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/israelis_fox.jpg

Atrocities

June 25th, 2007, 09:34 PM

Nice fabrication on that FOX NEWS capture. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Working in video production, editing, and such for over 20 years I can assure you that such things can be fabricated quite easily. In fact most of the anti-fox crap you see on that ultra uber liberal, Google owned, youtube site is laughably one sided and erroneous.

Slaughtermeyer

June 26th, 2007, 02:34 AM

Atrocities said:
Nice fabrication on that FOX NEWS capture. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Here are two sources for the entire report from which the capture was taken:

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v552406rYaXEFgw

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

The second link includes a transcript of the FOX NEWS report in which the statement made in the screen capture took place. And if you think the transcript was fabricated, think again:
http://web.archive.org/web/20011213022226/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40684,00.html

Atrocities

June 26th, 2007, 04:03 PM

But again neither one of those are from FOX. Therefore the footage could have been, and more than likely was, tampered with. We see it all the time in youtube and google videos.

Marek_Tucan

October 16th, 2007, 10:32 AM

Atrocities said:
Any ways back to the topic of this thread.

Study Backs Up Fed Theory Of Why World Trade Center Collapsed (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284816,00.html)

The report concludes that the weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, produced "a flash flood of flaming liquid" that knocked out a number of structural columns within the building and removed the fireproofing insulation from other support structures, Hoffmann said.

And their models back this up.

Just from my tiny country, two highly respected construction engineers, both professors on two different technical universities, both with experience with high-rise and steel construction buildings as well with results of fires on such structures, have peer reviewed NIST report. Along with scores of other experts all over the world. Heck, at my university they even did an experiment simulating influence of "regular" office fire on WTC-like structure. Just in one room. Yet, the buckling of ceiling was notable and fell neatly to what was observed in WTC during a mediocre fire in 1980's.

But don't try to explain this to conspiracy theorists. Dont even try to say show them the hole in the Pentagon wall was large enough for the most massive parts of 757. don't try to send them footage of F-4 smashing into concrete wall at similar speed to Flight 77. Because they will explain away any contradicting facts as 'gubmint set up.

Though I admit I do clash with them sometimes, just for entertainment purposes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Phoenix-D

October 16th, 2007, 11:35 PM

Thank you so much for bringing back this 4 month old dead thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Atrocities

October 19th, 2007, 11:06 AM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/fear.gif

Slaughtermeyer

February 17th, 2009, 01:55 AM

Just from my tiny country, two highly respected construction engineers, both professors on two different technical universities, both with experience with high-rise and steel construction buildings as well with results of fires on such structures, have peer reviewed NIST report.

There are hundreds of architects and engineers who disagree with the conlusions of your two Czech engineers. They have concluded that the complete collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center building 7 resulted from demolition charges based on the fact that jet fuel and office furniture cannot possibly burn hot enough to cause steel to melt (yes, molten steel was found in the debris) and also from numerous eyewitness reports of secondary explosions coming from the buildings. The possibility of demolition charges being the cause of the building collapse was not even considered by the 9/11 Commission.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8n-nT-luFIw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8n-nT-luFIw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko was able to conclude that WTC7 was imploded just by watching video footage of its collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/720/56c/72056c9c-f985-47dc-b2b2-9d6afb9391b1

lch

February 19th, 2009, 04:50 PM

I am not an expert, but molten steel doesn't convince me. During the disasters in the Alps tunnels and similar disasters like that where things worked like a chimney there were extreme temperatures, too. It might have come from one of the elevator shafts. I didn't see this WTC7 collapse thing before, but that one the other hand is really a troublesome video. It looks exactly like a controlled implosion, and AFAIK those really aren't easy to do, you need experts so that it doesn't collapse to one of the sides.

lch

March 7th, 2009, 07:09 AM

Browsing through these forums again, I see that this post is still at the top... I've just entered "controlled demolition wtc" into google because I was curious what the word out there was, and among the top links is this one: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

I've not been reading everything, but it seems that there was a controlled demolition, yes, but by the firemen because they wanted to keep fires in control and to stop them from spreading. I'm satisfied with that answer, no mystery here.

Slaughtermeyer

March 8th, 2009, 11:21 AM

I've not been reading everything, but it seems that there was a controlled demolition, yes, but by the firemen because they wanted to keep fires in control and to stop them from spreading. I'm satisfied with that answer, no mystery here. If there was a controlled demolition, that means that demolition charges would have had to be placed in the building while it was on fire. You really believe that's what happened? Why in that case doesn't the fire department admit that there was a controlled demolition?

Slaughtermeyer

March 9th, 2009, 07:51 AM

To clarify my previous post, I agree with you that there was a controlled demolition but I believe that the demolition charges were placed prior to 9/11 on the orders of someone who knew that the 9/11 attacks would take place. This is why the fire department refuses to admit that there was a controlled demolition.

lch

March 15th, 2009, 09:54 AM

If there was a controlled demolition, that means that demolition charges would have had to be placed in the building while it was on fire.
As I said, I didn't really read the article much, nor did I read it again now, but from what I grasped from it the building never really was on fire, or at least not critically so that it would have made trouble to place the charges. They wanted the building out of the way so that the fire wouldn't get there and spread around from there. The same like they'd remove pastures in the event of bush fires, even going as far as burning the grass down in a controlled way, so that it doesn't spread over there.

Ballbarian

March 15th, 2009, 10:27 AM

Well, I did read it and probably the most telling piece is the following:

Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

It wasn't controlled. It was abandoned to prevent losing more firefighters.

Slaughtermeyer

March 16th, 2009, 03:06 PM

It wasn't controlled. It was abandoned to prevent losing more firefighters.
I suggest you notify Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko that his conclusion that the demolition was controlled is erroneous.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/877gr6xtQIc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/877gr6xtQIc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Edi

March 17th, 2009, 10:28 AM

Link (http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/?p=167)

That article makes a thorough hash of the controlled explosion theories and points out some of the reasons why the towers collapsed the way they did.

Jowenko might be in the explosives and demolitions business, but he is not infallible and since he seems to be the ONLY source the 911 Truther movement uses for their claims of controlled demolition, his testimony is suspect at best. The problem with trying to find anything other than Truther bull**** is considerable, because almost everything that comes up is conspiracy theories.

Slaughtermeyer

March 24th, 2009, 10:20 PM

Link (http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/?p=167)

That article makes a thorough hash of the controlled explosion theories and points out some of the reasons why the towers collapsed the way they did.
And the comments section of that article makes a thorough hash of the lame attempt to explain away the collapse.

Jowenko might be in the explosives and demolitions business, but he is not infallible and since he seems to be the ONLY source the 911 Truther movement uses for their claims of controlled demolition, his testimony is suspect at best.
So the hundreds of architects and engineers who are members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth somehow don't count by your reckoning?
http://www.ae911truth.org

Edi

March 25th, 2009, 03:11 PM

No, they don't count because their claims have been thoroughly discredited. When you consider that there are hundreds of thousands of engineers and architects, if you got a few thousand to back up the 9/11 Truther movement, who cares? Out of a field of people with actual higher education and qualifications to give expert opinion on the subject, some few voices in the wilderness accept crackpot ideas, therefore the crackpot ideas are valid?

It's just like Michael Behe and other creationists who have actual credentials in their respective fields and who have used those credentials in an attempt to promote completely unscientific bullcrap, it's much the same with the 9/11 Truthers.

It's also telling that you dismiss the substance of the article simply because some people made comments on it that you don't like. Would you like to address the point, or will you concede?

Another piece of well researched evidence on the WTC 7 fire. (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html) So much for the claims that "there were only small fires that could not have caused a structural collapse".

Slaughtermeyer

April 1st, 2009, 09:12 PM

It's also telling that you dismiss the substance of the article simply because some people made comments on it that you don't like. Would you like to address the point, or will you concede?

Another piece of well researched evidence on the WTC 7 fire. (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html) So much for the claims that "there were only small fires that could not have caused a structural collapse".

Very well, i'll get specific. The material you reference doesn't even try to explain away the fact that FEMA found something never before observed in building fires. "A novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times reported the FEMA statement that "steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures" and that these findings are "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5000 degrees Fahrenheit.

The Scheuerman article which you linked earlier cleverly tries to get us to believe that perhaps there was no molten steel at all, despite FEMA's confirmation that steel was "partly evaporated." He does this by saying that the molten metal was actually "lead or the aluminum from the plane which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile" and/or "lead, tin, silver and even gold used in the computer circuit boards."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080829205835711

Edi

April 2nd, 2009, 07:54 AM

The first of your own links actually disproves the assertion you are making that there was partly evaporated structural steel. That is clear to anyone who has an even cursory understanding of chemistry and physics.

The quoted analysis there speaks specifically of the steel girders being exposed to an eutectic mixture formed of iron, oxygen and other substances. The substance is being referred to as liquid and having corrosive properties. Exposure to spatters of corrosive liquid would result in steel girders looking like Swiss cheese without temperatures ever getting anywhere near close to the vaporization point of steel.

Furthermore, it is stated in your own articles that it is unknown whether the exposure happened during the fire or afterward in the pile of rubble, but all the references are to a corrosive liquid.

It's a sad testament to the utter incompetence and ignorance of 9/11 Truthers that they actually present as evidence material which by itself debunks their claims.

I also do not want to hear any bleating about an NYT article referencing "partly vaporized steel girders", because it is extremely common for reporters to get technical terminology completely wrong. In this case, vaporized, corroded, melted and so forth are all technical terms that have very specific definitions from a materials science standpoint, and it is materials science that has been used as a basis in the reports. If some reporter paraphrases that wrong due to ignorance, it is NOT evidence of a government coverup.

As far as the second links assertions, the one that says "There have been other fires that didn't result in structural collapse!" says it all. It is an idiotic comparison, because it says nothing of the structures of these other buildings or how the fires occurred there, so it is an absolutely useless comparison. Totally worthless. The rest of the material behind that link seems to consist of similar drivel.

Kindly try to provide better evidence in your next response.