lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 20, 2005 12:56:31 GMT -4
Turbonium,
I think even you have to admit that Heller doesn't really qualify as an expert. Shi and Romero made some vague comments a few days after 9/11, Romero has since retracted comments and Shi hasn't been heard from since.
So you are now back down to zero experts. Neither you nor Jack White can cite a single one. If the FEMA/NIST/ASCE report were so obviously wrong I would expect hundreds of architects, civil and structural engineers to question its findings but apparently not a single one has.
You objected when I compared your theories to creation science, but the parallels are striking. Like creation science and Holocaust denial, "WTC was a demolition job" CTs have no backing from experts in the field. Proponents of all three theories trot out "experts" with advanced degrees, but they are all in unrelated subjects, there are PhDs in Political Science and Electrical Engineering who say the Holocaust was a hoax, and PhDs in Philosophy and Classics who say God created the World in six days, and you have PhDs in Chemistry and Kinesiology who say the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.
Another similarity is that all three "theories" are ideologically based: backers of creation science are fundamentalists, 9/11 CTists by and large have extreme right or extreme left political views and Holocaust deniers are anti-Semites.
I know it's not fair to tar the entire "9/11 Truth Movement" with this but Holocaust deniers all back the 9/11 CTs. The American Free Press, Christopher Bollyn, John Kaminski, Rense, 9-11 Strike.com, Jane Christensen, David Irving, whatreallyhappened.com, and APFN are just a few of the people/sites that deny the Holocaust and push 9/11 CTs. As far as I can tell oilempire.com [whose webmaster is Jewish] and democraticunderground.com are the only "9/11 Truth" sites to renounce connection with anti-Semites.
Another question is the insurance settlement. If the science of the "official" explanation is so obviously wrong and the events only reasonably explainable by controlled demolition why haven't any of the insurance companies raised any objections?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 20, 2005 13:46:38 GMT -4
I want some of that insurance myself. Not only does it pay out without any questions asked, but it pays out enough not only to let you rebuild, but also enough so you can pay off hundreds of professionals for life.
You do draw attention to the sad fact that on the fringe of the 9-11 crowd there is a significant group of anti-semites: and somewhere in the intersection of both of these is some of that Secret Jewish World Rulers kaka.
Other than that, the poor logic, call to emotion, anecdote over evidence and the parrot "experts" are simply a method of argument used by far too many people with far too many agenda: in each case, of course, with the nobility of their "end" justifying in their minds the ignobility of their means. I see the same methods used daily to sell herbal suplements and bronze pyramids that improve the sound of CDs.
It is strange to me, that those who pride themselves on the quality of their scepticism (the 9-11 conspiracy theorists, the Apollo hoax believers) are such easy prey for the lamest, most insubstantial and unsupported argument.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 20, 2005 14:11:41 GMT -4
Turbonuim’s reliance on anti-Semitic sources in his “theories” is troubling and entirely undermines what credibility he might gain through his tenacity in arguing his points. His whole tirade against the banking systems essentially recounts a segment of the history of anti-Semitic thought. He seems to be a willing, if naïve, mouthpiece for the anti-Semitic crowd.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 21, 2005 2:25:18 GMT -4
If the science of the "official" explanation is so obviously wrong and the events only reasonably explainable by controlled demolition why haven't any of the insurance companies raised any objections?First off, they have disputed the Silverstein claim of 9/11being two separate events instead of one, as this link describes... news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3471199.stmFrom the link, another issue is mentioned... There is also the complication of the fact that while the leasehold was signed months before the 9/11 attacks, the insurance contracts had not been formally written.There are many other issues involved, including claims of the WTC being underinsured, etc. The insurance companies have been battling Silverstein in the courts for over two years, and the dispute is very likely to continue for many more years before a final resolution, according to the reports. The insurance companies are based mostly in Europe, as well. What unfolds is far from easy to predict. Many things would need to be considered before, and If, after all the current legal affairs are resolved, they were to initiate a proposal that the towers were collapsed by controlled demolition. They are foreign companies, for one. What sort of entitlements would they be allowed to try and build their case? Would they be allowed to have independent investigations of the evidence, full access to witnesses, firefighters, rescue workers, ATC recordings, Pentagon confiscated and suppressed videos, etc? No other person or group has been allowed this kind of access, nor have any independent investigations of any sort yet been allowed. The insurers would be? The money they would need to invest in such an action would also be considerable. Just because they haven't done so doesn't mean they automatically agree with the official story.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 21, 2005 2:59:38 GMT -4
Turbonuim’s reliance on anti-Semitic sources in his “theories” is troubling and entirely undermines what credibility he might gain through his tenacity in arguing his points. His whole tirade against the banking systems essentially recounts a segment of the history of anti-Semitic thought. He seems to be a willing, if naïve, mouthpiece for the anti-Semitic crowd.
I'll only address this once, because any further discussion of it will likely only serve to debase the high level of integrity and respectability this forum has developed to date.
I will not put up with an inflammatory, patently false, and despicable post such as this. If you are accusing me of being anti-Semitic, you better prove it. If you think my sources undermine my arguments because you claim they are anti-Semitic, you better prove it.
I can also tell you I am not some sort of "willing, if naive, mouthpiece for the anti-Semitic crowd". I have provided links and posts from many of the same sources as every other member here, as well as some that you and others are trying endlessly to discredit, demonize, or worse.
I post at this forum to uncover and develop an understanding and truth about 9/11 and the other issues. I deal with the actual issues and points, not innuendo and personal accusations.
If you have any worthwhile, mature point to make, fine. But you can put an end to this kind of crap right now,
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 21, 2005 3:20:33 GMT -4
As to the actual theme of this thread, I won't lower myself to play some sort of game of insinuation, accusation, and intentionally personal attacks. Being linked to a tinfoil hat crowd is at least amusing....this thread is just nonsensical, childish, idiotic and malicious in its intent.
Stick to issues, I won't and don't need to dispute this tripe.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 21, 2005 10:10:55 GMT -4
As to the actual theme of this thread, I won't lower myself to play some sort of game of insinuation, accusation, and intentionally personal attacks. Being linked to a tinfoil hat crowd is at least amusing....this thread is just nonsensical, childish, idiotic and malicious in its intent. Stick to issues, I won't and don't need to dispute this tripe. Saying "This is just to absurb to merit reply" or some other variation is a common reply from people who have no meaningful respose. You want to stick to issues and facts? It's a fact that I asked you and Jack White if you could name any qualified professionals who concurred that the "official" explanation of the collapse of WTCs 1,2 & 7 "doesn't make any sense", and it's a fact that neither of you could name one. Doesn't that strike you as relevant? Obviously you agree that Holocaust denial and creation "science" are nonsense. If you were debating people who believed those "theories" wouldn't use the fact that historians and scientists who study those crack pot ideas universally call them bunk? And that the proponents only "experts" don't have expertise in relevant subjects? You objected that the NIST report didn't substantiate that gases in the towers may have reached 1000 C, then Jay pointed out that they had. Why then isn't legitimate for some else to ask you to substantiate your arguments with the opinions of anyone with the competence to do so? A few other points: - I never accused you of being anti-Semitic [you could even be Jewish as far as I know]. - Nor did I say you were part of "the tinfoil hat crowd", I did compare the lack of any expert backing of your theories to Holocaust denial and creation "science". My intention was not to ridicule you as to get to respond to an issue you haven't responded to and to make a parallel that I still think perfectly legitimate. If my comparison is so absurd an intelligent person like you should have no trouble dispatching it. I don't think it will be that easy for you, not because you aren't intelligent but because the comparison is well grounded.
- You interpreted my starting this thread as a lowly attack on you, but look at what I said and compare that to what you said. If any one should take umbrage it's me not you.
- You described the thread as "nonsensical, childish, idiotic and malicious in its intent." and "tripe". Are you insinuating that these qualities apply to the thread starter as well? I never used such loaded language against you. I won't debase this forum by responding in kind.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 21, 2005 14:03:27 GMT -4
Turbonium,
As I have said before, I don’t think that you are anti-Semitic and I still stand by that. I have not read one statement of yours on this board that is directly anti-Semitic. But I do think that our constant use of anti-Semitic sources to back your arguments is disturbing. Some writings you quoted at length in the banking thread were decidedly anti-Semitic in their substance but use a veiled language to make the tone appear more acceptable. They are of no other real value except to promote a specific agenda. As others have pointed out, many of the 9/11 sources you call on for support are Holocaust deniers. Your continuing to associate your arguments with these people by using them as sources is just unfathomable to me. I have had my say on this and will not press the issue because it is off topic to the forum.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 22, 2005 8:58:39 GMT -4
OK - first, I let myself become emotional over this issue, and I apologize for taking it too personally. I don't like being referred to, however, as a "naive, but willing mouthpiece". I find that is indeed a slag, and shows a lack of respect. If you think this label is somehow reasonable and true, then you need to explain how I am somehow "naively" arguing for the cause of Holocaust deniers and Creationists. And the term "mouthpiece" is somewhat derogatory slang as well. Certainly when used to assert I'm a "mouthpiece for anti-Semitics" it is quite derogatory.
Now, I think you need to point out the many specific sources I am using that you base your claims on. Keep in mind that there are sites that post articles from AP or Reuters or the NY Times that are archived nowhere but non-mainstream sites. That doesn't make the article itself a creation of that particular site.
As for the issue of banking, I made it quite clear that it is not an issue of "Jewish conspiracy", or the like. I noted that the Rockefeller family is one of the most prominent players in banking, and they are not Jewish. It's the system of banking I have argued against - what their specific race, color, or shoe size is has no bearing or relevance regarding what I am discussing. I have read many accusations of anti-Semitism aimed at many opponents of the monetary system. Some may be valid, and I don't support or side with such individuals or groups. But there are many economists, among them a significant number of Jewish economists (Milton Friedman is but one example off the top of my head) who also oppose the system. They are in no way basing their views on race, only on the same things as I do - the system itself, and the problems within that system.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 22, 2005 9:07:48 GMT -4
You objected that the NIST report didn't substantiate that gases in the towers may have reached 1000 C, then Jay pointed out that they had
No, I have repeatedly said that the temperatures of the steel were not proven to have reached over 600C. That is a critically different factor than debating what the temperatures were in the air within the towers.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 22, 2005 9:25:32 GMT -4
If my comparison is so absurd an intelligent person like you should have no trouble dispatching it. I don't think it will be that easy for you, not because you aren't intelligent but because the comparison is well grounded.
As for the "experts" who support the official story, the only ones who have been allowed as of now to investigate and analyze all the available evidence are those who are part of NIST and FEMA, two government agencies. So, we have to limit the number of "experts" who have truly been able to scientifically assess the collapses to those within these two groups. Other "experts" who have supported the official story outside of those groups have not made their analyses based on their own, independent studies of the physical evidence. Of course, those who have argued the opposite have not been allowed to study the evidence, either.
When, and if, this evidence is made available for independent analysis, we find that no "experts" have concluded that the official story is wrong, then your assertion will be much more acceptable - certainly from my viewpoint. But to claim that no "experts" agree with my view right now - that it's a universally agreed upon conclusion based on numerous independent investigations - is not a supportable stance. Not while all the evidence is being controlled and, in the case of the Pentagon videos and ATC recordings, suppressed from public access entirely.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 22, 2005 9:56:33 GMT -4
If my comparison is so absurd an intelligent person like you should have no trouble dispatching it. I don't think it will be that easy for you, not because you aren't intelligent but because the comparison is well grounded.As for the "experts" who support the official story, the only ones who have been allowed as of now to investigate and analyze all the available evidence are those who are part of NIST and FEMA, two government agencies. So, we have to limit the number of "experts" who have truly been able to scientifically assess the collapses to those within these two groups. Other "experts" who have supported the official story outside of those groups have not made their analyses based on their own, independent studies of the physical evidence. Of course, those who have argued the opposite have not been allowed to study the evidence, either. When, and if, this evidence is made available for independent analysis, we find that no "experts" have concluded that the official story is wrong, then your assertion will be much more acceptable - certainly from my viewpoint. But to claim that no "experts" agree with my view right now - that it's a universally agreed upon conclusion based on numerous independent investigations - is not a supportable stance. Not while all the evidence is being controlled and, in the case of the Pentagon videos and ATC recordings, suppressed from public access entirely. But the extensive FEMA/NIST report is publicly available as are the supporting research. The preliminary findings were released a while ago and the basic thesis that steel weakened by fires coupled with the damage caused by the impacts caused the buildings to pancake. The ASCE endorsed these studies. So far no civil engineers or architects have done so.
What exactly are your qualifications to say the findings are obviously wrong, when no a single person with the appropriate expertise has done so?
Not to harp on a point but Holocaust deniers say that it was obviously a hoax and Creationists say that evolution is obviously wrong.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 22, 2005 10:35:24 GMT -4
So may original point remains unrefuted. You have no competent experts who back your claim.
It's interesting that your use of quotation mark in this phrase 'the "experts" who support the official story'. This insinuates that you have reason to doubt the competence of the engineers etc. who worked on it. What's the basis of these doubts?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 22, 2005 10:43:54 GMT -4
You objected that the NIST report didn't substantiate that gases in the towers may have reached 1000 C, then Jay pointed out that they hadNo, I have repeatedly said that the temperatures of the steel were not proven to have reached over 600C. That is a critically different factor than debating what the temperatures were in the air within the towers. In your first reply on this thread you said "The temperatures cited of 1832F are not substantiated by any investigations, even the NIST report itself! "
So are you now admitting you were wrong???No - I meant exactly what I said.... substantiated (Definition from dictionary). ... supported or established by evidence or proof I noted the 1000C temperature cited in the NIST report , which is why I specifically mentioned that they did not prove (substantiate) their claim. Don't you remember what you write in your posts?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 22, 2005 11:11:45 GMT -4
If the science of the "official" explanation is so obviously wrong and the events only reasonably explainable by controlled demolition why haven't any of the insurance companies raised any objections?First off, they have disputed the Silverstein claim of 9/11being two separate events instead of one, as this link describes... news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3471199.stm... The insurance companies have been battling Silverstein in the courts for over two years, and the dispute is very likely to continue for many more years before a final resolution, according to the reports. The insurance companies are based mostly in Europe, as well. ... They are foreign companies, for one. What sort of entitlements would they be allowed to try and build their case? Would they be allowed to have independent investigations of the evidence, full access to witnesses, firefighters, rescue workers, ATC recordings, Pentagon confiscated and suppressed videos, etc? No other person or group has been allowed this kind of access, nor have any independent investigations of any sort yet been allowed. The insurers would be? The money they would need to invest in such an action would also be considerable. Just because they haven't done so doesn't mean they automatically agree with the official story. The insurance companies have been battling Silverstein in the courts for over two years
Just because they haven't done so doesn't mean they automatically agree with the official story.But so far none of them have even hinted that doubt the generally accepted explanation. They are foreign companies, for one. What sort of entitlements would they be allowed to try and build their case?I'm not a lawyer but I doubt it would make any difference, the US subsidiaries of foreign companies have the same rights as American owned companies. Would they be allowed to have independent investigations of the evidence, full access to witnesses. firefighters, rescue workers, ATC recordings, Pentagon confiscated and suppressed videos, etc?
No other person or group has been allowed this kind of access, nor have any independent investigations of any sort yet been allowed.Legal rights are often based on a persons standing. As parties in a civil case worth hundreds of millions of dollars they would have standing to demand access to this information. I believe the government would have to convince a judge there was compelling reason to keep the information classified to prevent it's release.
Who are these "independent investigators" who have been denied access to this info? Did they really exhaust all legal means in trying to get it [i.e FOIA petitions]?witnesses. firefighters, rescue workersI don't think there any restriction on people going into firehouses etc to interview these people or tracking down civilian witnesses and interviewing themATC recordingsI think these are publicly available. You can download the ATC tape of flight 93 from this link www.airdisaster.com/cvr/atcwav.shtmlPentagon confiscated and suppressed videos, etc? ??The money they would need to invest in such an action would also be considerable. Hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake here and giant insurance companies have VERY deep pocketsedit I forgot to spell check
|
|