Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic [video]

Status
Not open for further replies.

mynym

Banned
Banned
I am curious as to why you think the account of Barry Jennings lends credence to the idea that the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition? Any "explosions" he heard were hours before the eventual collapse...

Yes, that's the reason that his account lends credence to the theory of some sort of controlled demolition taking place (or perhaps going wrong and then being finished later).
Jennings repeated this explanation of how he knew that the Twin Towers were both still standing when the explosion occurred, saying: When I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion. That’s what forced us back to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing. Keep in mind, I told you the fire department came and ran. They came twice. Why? Because Building Tower One fell, then Tower Two fell. And then when they came back, they came back all concerned to get me the hell out of there, and they did.56 In other words, although firefighters were ready to rescue them before 10:00, the firefighters had to leave because of the collapse of the South Tower, which occurred at 9:59. Then, although firefighters returned to the site, they had to leave again at 10:28, when the North Tower collapsed. Also notable is Jennings’ statement that they were trapped “several hours.” This assertion suggests that Hess’s estimate that they were trapped for “about an hour and a half” may have been somewhat conservative. For example, if the period was closer to two hours, then, if they were rescued by 11:30AM (allowing Hess 25 minutes to talk to people and walk to the location of his 11:57 interview), then the explosion would have occurred at about 9:30. In any case, the most important point is that, whereas Giuliani had claimed that the two men were trapped because of damage caused by the collapse of the North Tower, Jennings stated that the North Tower and even the South Tower collapsed only after an explosion had caused them to become trapped. What Jennings called “an explosion” beneath him could not, therefore, have simply been some effects created in WTC 7 by the collapse of the North Tower. He and Hess were clearly describing an explosion that occurred in WTC 7 approximately an hour before the 10:28 collapse of the North Tower. Moreover, besides reporting the big explosion that knocked the landing out from under them, Jennings spoke of further explosions.
(The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False by David Griffin)

And given the best simulations that money can buy showing that all one would have to do is take out a nearly magical column to cause a progressive collapse of the building (Which "would appear" like a controlled demolition... ) as well as all the other reports and video recordings of explosions throughout the day, Jenning's testimony would have to be counted as evidence in favor of that theory. And unlike Chomsky's argument that's based on all the whistle blowers that he imagines coming forward, Jenning's testimony isn't imaginary. Or at least not as imaginary as Chomsky's """""""sheer logic""""""" and lack of caring... who cares what actually happened to Jennings? Well, I do... for one... and Jennings did. Personally, I don't find Chomsky that smart sometimes. After all, I'd imagine that he isn't... and who cares if he is?

*(Although one can "simulate"/imagine that it's not what it appears to be, as always.)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So you don't have any evidence then?

I have a valid theory which fits the facts and how can I magically produce the evidence when NIST refused to check for thermite as requested by millions of people worldwide as well as in the U.S and in particular by those who lost loved ones on 9/11.

And the fact that you keep trotting out the NIST junk when you know perfectly well that it does not apply to thermite but do not acknowledge that it does not apply to thermite when you post it, is misrepresentation by omission IMO.
 

electrojet

New Member
It almost seems off topic now, but Chomsky's comments are conjecture and speculation. Imagine him being examined in a court of law, his statements are speculative and would be objected to by a lawyer and dismissed by the judge. Chomsky utilizes an, I don't need to look, it would be too hard to cover up argument. It is a lazy assessment based upon an over confidence in his intellectual chops. Essentially Chomsky's comments are a ramble of comparisons, speculation and a brief descent into the left and right paradigm. Meaninglessness, except for a bit of self promotion.

Chomsky has always been an interesting speaker and writer, but he just coughs here.

We won't know unless there were to have been a top down examination of every detail. In the days following the attack we never got that.

Many of the people who believe that things happened as officially stated, embrace Noam's 'wave of the hand' dismissal of any funny business. You have to look at all the pieces closely at point A which is the evidence.

I don't care what letters are behind the name, or what hallowed halls Chomsky has graced, or what his intellectual reputation is without that point A.

Bryan
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It almost seems off topic now, but Chomsky's comments are conjecture and speculation. Imagine him being examined in a court of law, his statements are speculative and would be objected to by a lawyer and dismissed by the judge. Chomsky utilizes an, I don't need to look, it would be too hard to cover up argument. It is a lazy assessment based upon an over confidence in his intellectual chops. Essentially Chomsky's comments are a ramble of comparisons, speculation and a brief descent into the left and right paradigm. Meaninglessness, except for a bit of self promotion.

Chomsky has always been an interesting speaker and writer, but he just coughs here.

We won't know unless there were to have been a top down examination of every detail. In the days following the attack we never got that.

Many of the people who believe that things happened as officially stated, embrace Noam's 'wave of the hand' dismissal of any funny business. You have to look at all the pieces closely at point A which is the evidence.

I don't care what letters are behind the name, or what hallowed halls Chomsky has graced, or what his intellectual reputation is without that point A.

Bryan

Well, you can't expect him to whip out some negative thermite tests, can you. He was just giving his opinion on events, not testimony.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They were NOT hit by 707s. The engineering was a low speed crash with a plane on approach.

The damage done is effected by the speed. Hit a lamppost with your car at 10 miles an hour and then compare the damage done to hitting it at 100 miles an hour.

Why do think that there is a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon? The plane left its mark in the building and it's wreckage was found there. WHY do you need a video of it hitting?

Since I am late comer, can you show the insider trading and evidence of the war games? Didn't the first plane hit, within a few minutes of the stock market opening? Any evidence for insider trading BEFORE the plane hit? Like the day or week before?

Sorry Cairenn but that is false. I know Jazzy likes to keep trotting it out as well but 'originally', (after the 93 bombing when they were cock a hoop because it didn't bring the building down as the bombers planned), it was stated that the design was for a fully fueled 707 traveling at high speed. It was only after 9/11 that he recanted and changed it to low fuel and low speed with mentions of fog. I posted it all on another thread... the full monty

Anyway it is a moot point because NIST admit the impacts had no structural damage on 1 and 2 and 7 wasn't hit by a plane anyway.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Maybe Bloomberg, I don't really know for sure. That decision was an obstruction of justice, even if made with the best intentions.

Apparently he said:
If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything.

He's a dual citizen, so I'd imagine that he'll never be entered into the "threat disposition matrix" and the best simulations that money can buy no matter what he does or says before jetting off to his private island and so forth. (You're not too big to fail but your sodas are too big to drink, etc.)

Meanwhile, the attitude of Team America, World Police with respect to their ruling class seems to be that it's better to be incorporated in assassinating 16 year old Muslim kids* without trial and so forth than to deal with the abject corruption that comes with allowing factions with a tribal/gangster mentality money/debt from nothing. The original banksters are located on 33rd Liberty Street. Just saying. But here's to hoping that more wealth from their global financial empire trickles down on us. More hopium and change incoming... because you know, freedom isn't free.

*A satire: "Let us build the drones... no, us!"
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
That man is laying on a slab in an examination room, bound to undergo an autopsy. The literal body of evidence. Even when a man dies in a shooting, and he seems to have died of gunshot wounds, an autopsy is very, very often performed, to ascertain if/how/why the gunshot wound was the cause of death.

In the U.K it would be obligatory under the law and I suspect the same in most, if not all western Countries.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I have a valid theory which fits the facts and how can I magically produce the evidence when NIST refused to check for thermite as requested by millions of people worldwide as well as in the U.S and in particular by those who lost loved ones on 9/11.

And the fact that you keep trotting out the NIST junk when you know perfectly well that it does not apply to thermite but do not acknowledge that it does not apply to thermite when you post it, is misrepresentation by omission IMO.

Your theory does not fit any facts. The steel was behind drywall which would have needed to be removed and replaced. 100lbs of thermite needed for each column per NIST. NIST directly dealt with the thermite theory in their FAQ. Any evidence that thermite was ever used in demolition anywhere? How did the thermite survive the fire?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...

Anyway it is a moot point because NIST admit the impacts had no structural damage on 1 and 2 and 7 wasn't hit by a plane anyway.

So you must be saying that the collapse, which can be seen to initiate from the collision areas, was pre-rigged, knowing that the planes would impact those exact floors. Wouldn't that pre-rigging have been noticed by the people actually working on those floors? Or do you think these floors were empty 'ghost' floors?
The planes would have to be piloted to hit those exact storeys, to provide the cover reason for the pre-rigged collapse. How was this achieved?
At what point does this constant increasing of complexity to achieve what looks like something simpler, register as completely illogical to you?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Apparently he said:

He's a dual citizen, so I'd imagine that he'll never be entered into the "threat disposition matrix" and the best simulations that money can buy no matter what he does or says before jetting off to his private island and so forth. (You're not too big to fail but your sodas are too big to drink, etc.)

Meanwhile, the attitude of Team America, World Police with respect to their ruling class seems to be that it's better to be incorporated in assassinating 16 year old Muslim kids* without trial and so forth than to deal with the abject corruption that comes with allowing factions with a tribal/gangster mentality money/debt from nothing. The original banksters are located on 33rd Liberty Street. Just saying. But here's to hoping that more wealth from their global financial empire trickles down on us. More hopium and change incoming... because you know, freedom isn't free.

*A satire: "Let us build the drones... no, us!"

Where do your external quotes come from? Please provide a link or source when you post external information.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Not true. The perimeter columns were structural, and it is suspected that some central columns were broken, or at least damaged.

Can you post where NIST say it caused structural damage which aided or was instrumental in the collapse because I have only seen it where they say it was all down to expansion and buckling due to fire, leading to pancake effect.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Which of my comments is false? Oxy.

I don't believe any of them are. Please show me where I am wrong. Don't just dismiss my entire post with no explanation.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So you must be saying that the collapse, which can be seen to initiate from the collision areas, was pre-rigged, knowing that the planes would impact those exact floors. Wouldn't that pre-rigging have been noticed by the people actually working on those floors? Or do you think these floors were empty 'ghost' floors?
The planes would have to be piloted to hit those exact storeys, to provide the cover reason for the pre-rigged collapse. How was this achieved?
At what point does this constant increasing of complexity to achieve what looks like something simpler, register as completely illogical to you?

The main integrity of 1 and 2 was in the cores which hosed the lifts and obviously lift shafts. Once you remove a ceiling panel you can get at all the exposed structural beams and columns. Extensive lift renovations were done 10 months before 9/11. See around 11.00.

 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Are you responding to anyone in particular or will I do?

Manning was appalled at the war crimes being perpetrated on civilians, inc women and kids, on a regular basis and that is why he did it. He was sickened by the vileness of their actions. He gave nothing away that would help an enemy. He merely exposed the savagery of U.S actions which are not acceptable even under war conditions.

No, Manning broke the law. The items were classified. He signed a statement where he declared he knew and understood the penalty for revealing classified information.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
The main integrity of 1 and 2 was in the cores which hosed the lifts and obviously lift shafts. Once you remove a ceiling panel you can get at all the exposed structural beams and columns. Extensive lift renovations were done 10 months before 9/11. See around 11.00.


Any evidence to support this?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Can you post where NIST say it caused structural damage which aided or was instrumental in the collapse because I have only seen it where they say it was all down to expansion and buckling due to fire, leading to pancake effect.

You just said there was no structural damage. So I was pointing out that there was structural damage.

https://www.metabunk.org/files/NIST-NCSTAR1-909017_unlocked.pdf

• In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of thebuilding to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their
capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became
overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the
south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely
determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the
south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.

• In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the
east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side
of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter
columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring
columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of
the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft
impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the
perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building.
WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the
building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and
persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged
insulation from the structural steel.


• The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft
impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11,
2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally
dislodged by aircraft impact.

• In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to
or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to
the collapse of a WTC tower.

• NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC
towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to
September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit
the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the
collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the
initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Content from External Source
WTC1:
Even with all this damage, the building still stood. The acceleration from the impact had been so severethat people even on lower floors were knocked down and furniture was thrown about. Some survivors
reported fallen ceiling tiles throughout the building, all the way down to the Concourse Level. The pipes
that fed the automatic fire sprinkler system were severed. At least 166 windows were broken. Damage to
interior walls was reported from the Lobby to the 92nd floors. However, the building was designed with
reserve capacity: it could support significantly more load than the weight of the structure and its people
and contents. The building redistributed the load from the severed perimeter columns, mainly to their
neighboring columns. The undamaged core columns assumed the remaining load, as well as the load
from their damaged neighbors. WTC 1 still stood, and would have continued to do so, if not for the fires
that followed.
Content from External Source
The aircraft damage was structural, and it certainly aided at least a small amount in the collapse, but it was not instrumental. It more altered the when and the how than the if. The removal of insulation was probably more significant than the structural damage.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No, Manning broke the law. The items were classified. He signed a statement where he declared he knew and understood the penalty for revealing classified information.

So war atrocities are classified?

You are probably right. So he broke the law as a matter of conscience. Good on him. I hope he is shown leniency due to the fact that he was exposing war atrocities.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
So war atrocities are classified?

You are probably right. So he broke the law as a matter of conscience. Good on him. I hope he is shown leniency due to the fact that he was exposing war atrocities.

The documents were classified. If you want to talk about Bradley Manning you should start a new thread.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
The fire proofing being removed due to the impact is key. Does anyone who believes in controlled demo think that the fire proofing was not ripped off? Or it was ripped off but it is of little meaning? Or it was ripped off and it means a lot?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Given the obvious and considerable spread of the debris from the WTC towers that was sure to result from their collapses, I fail to understand how, if those collapses were planned, there'd be any doubt about debris hitting building 7. Buildings for several surrounding blocks were heavily damaged, as I understand it.

There was nothing identical about the impacts. They occurred on different floors, in different areas, resulting in entirely and visibly different kinds of damage. That they both collapsed in essentially the same way with neither building left partially intact, and that neither building experienced any gradual deformation or deterioration prior to complete and utter collapse and obliteration, strikes me as suspect. As often mentioned, these buildings were specifically designed to withstand plane impacts. I understand designing something to perform a function doesn't guarantee it's going too, but for both buildings to fail so completely in withstanding the damage dealt to them, and to fail in the same way twice, strikes me as suspect.

I honestly didn't think the matter was so confused. We all saw the collapses, all saw how they happened. It should be pretty evident what we're talking about. If I'm covering someone's false claims, that's their business... I'm expressing my interpretation, and what I believe the general interpretation of 'falling into its footprint' means in this context. No ones suggesting that the buildings collapsed into neat piles. Obviously they didn't. They did, however, fall relatively neatly in a straight-downward direction, with little to no diversion from the 'footprint' of their foundations as they did. I'm not a demolition person, didn't even know 'footprint' was a common term of the trade (is it?). If I've ever used the term, I've used it in the context of the collapses themselves... as I'm pretty sure most everyone else who uses it does. All the buildings fell more or less straight-down.
It seemed as if all the roofs were more or less aligned with their foundations as they came down. The buildings looked very much like they were collapsing down 'into themselves'. Hence 'into their own footprint'.
That's a flexible argument you have there.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Sorry Cairenn but that is false. I know Jazzy likes to keep trotting it out as well but 'originally', (after the 93 bombing when they were cock a hoop because it didn't bring the building down as the bombers planned), it was stated that the design was for a fully fueled 707 traveling at high speed.
That has no possibility of truth in it whatsoever.

Why, in the early sixties, when pressurized airliners and their airports, and air travel itself, were small and crude, when international terrorism hadn't extended beyond Che Guevara, would anyone factor in a high-speed fully-loaded passenger aircraft crash into their building structural strength calculations?

It is illegal to fly faster than 250 knots below a height of ten thousand feet, I think, so you are suggesting the architects planned for being struck out of the blue by a passing aircraft purely accidentally, the odds of which not being not too different from being struck by a meteorite. Or were they prescient?*

Or, perhaps, they planned for an aircraft low on fuel, traveling slowly in fog, off course from a local airport. What do YOU think?

It was only after 9/11 that he recanted and changed it to low fuel and low speed with mentions of fog. I posted it all on another thread... the full monty
Where?

Anyway it is a moot point because NIST admit the impacts had no structural damage on 1 and 2 and 7 wasn't hit by a plane anyway.
We have been through all this before. Perhaps you should re-read what has been written. You appear to be once more re-writing 911 history. The utility of this is also moot.

* an interesting term. Pre-science, pre-reason, pro-faith, profane.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Let's try to keep the thread to Chomsky and his opinions. New topics make new threads
Wow. What were his opinions, again? LOL. Yes, Noam points out the unreality of 911T.

[video=youtube_share;TwZ-vIaW6Bc]http://youtu.be/TwZ-vIaW6Bc[/video]

Hitchens:

[video=youtube_share;go5AGck6e-w]http://youtu.be/go5AGck6e-w[/video]

He seems to be talking about the real issues.

What a gift - he left us with.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
That has no possibility of truth in it whatsoever.

Why, in the early sixties, when pressurized airliners and their airports, and air travel itself, were small and crude, when international terrorism hadn't extended beyond Che Guevara, would anyone factor in a high-speed fully-loaded passenger aircraft crash into their building structural strength calculations?

It is illegal to fly faster than 250 knots below a height of ten thousand feet, I think, so you are suggesting the architects planned for being struck out of the blue by a passing aircraft purely accidentally, the odds of which not being not too different from being struck by a meteorite. Or were they prescient?*

Or, perhaps, they planned for an aircraft low on fuel, traveling slowly in fog, off course from a local airport. What do YOU think?


Where?


We have been through all this before. Perhaps you should re-read what has been written. You appear to be once more re-writing 911 history. The utility of this is also moot.

* an interesting term. Pre-science, pre-reason, pro-faith, profane.

See https://www.metabunk.org/posts/29756

Cut down version as I'm off topic here:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...pic/3873416/1/
Content from external source:

In another interview, with the BBC recorded 2 months after 9/11, Leslie Robertson had this to say; "And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two."

Well, based on documentation that the NIST obtained in 2003, the Towers most definitely were designed to handle a 600 mph Boeing 707 impact.

In a followup article for the NY Times, published on December 3, 2003, the same reporter, James Glanz, now, in effect retracted his earlier story;

"The investigators also said that newly disclosed Port Authority documents suggested that the towers were designed to withstand the kind of airplane strike that they suffered on Sept. 11.

Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour.

The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department said."

Of course I am profane... most of us are... we are the ones who should be kept in the dark and fed BS and keep quiet.

However, if I agreed with the principles and followed the rules, I would no doubt be illumined.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
He seems to be talking about the real issue.

And what was he talking about when he was vehemently opposed to the war. What a turnaround. And which side of the debate is the more lucrative. Sold his principles for the dollar? I think so.

Galloway wins this argument hands down IMO. Hitchins turned into an apologist for the warmongers and the reason is money. He sold himself as a hatchet man for the U.S but he cannot escape his past.

Galloway outright condemns Saddam and always has. The U.S supports any old dictator so long as they can get what they want from them.

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They were NOT hit by 707s. The engineering was a low speed crash with a plane on approach.

The damage done is effected by the speed. Hit a lamppost with your car at 10 miles an hour and then compare the damage done to hitting it at 100 miles an hour.

Answered above

Why do think that there is a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon? The plane left its mark in the building and it's wreckage was found there. WHY do you need a video of it hitting?

Since I am late comer, can you show the insider trading and evidence of the war games? Didn't the first plane hit, within a few minutes of the stock market opening? Any evidence for insider trading BEFORE the plane hit? Like the day or week before?

Sorry, off topic. This was not addressed to me anyway was it. Addressed elsewhere . Pentagon most surveilled area in U.S, SEC destroyed massive amounts of evidence.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Serious issues need to be ROOT issues. Things like the Iraq sanctions are in some ways the end result, and not an issue in themselves. For me the key issue is the role of money in politics, which then leads to the military-industrial and prison-industrial complexes, and corrupt revolving door politics, which leads to unnecessary wars, and an insane domestic prison population.
Hitchens points out that the serious and most pressing point is that there is a cultural war taking place between "civilizations" where one side isn't going to stop, and until only one side remains.

In that sense, the role of money seems a bit further down the list of issues. Perhaps it'll solve the first problem before God wills a WMD into the hands of someone pure in heart and at peace with Him.

Perhaps it won't.
 

hiper

Active Member
The engineering was a low speed crash with a plane on approach.

Wrong.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/3873416/1/

Why do think that there is a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon? The plane left its mark in the building and it's wreckage was found there.

It was a joke Cairenn... they never released a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon which is absurd.

WHY do you need a video of it hitting?

Because I am not going to take it on faith that a plane hit it. The amount of things the supporters of the official theory take on faith.... this is taking on religious proportions.

Since I am late comer, can you show the insider trading and evidence of the war games? Didn't the first plane hit, within a few minutes of the stock market opening? Any evidence for insider trading BEFORE the plane hit? Like the day or week before?

These questions show your lack of study and your ignorance.

And if they had tested for explosives and reported that no traces of explosives were found, I suspect that the findings would be dismissed as false by the
folks who believe that the 9/11 tragedy was orchestrated by the government. It is called 'moving the goalposts'.

If they had tested. They didn't test. Which constitutes pseudo-science.

The theory that explosives were used to bring down WTC7 was ruled out due to lack of any evidence whatsoever.

I can't even see you anymore in the hole you are digging.
Evidence is produced by scientific investigation Jazzy not by "ruling" something out.

Your standards of evidence are quite high, I see. Do you hold the evidence that supports
your belief in building 7 as a controlled demolition to those same standards?

What matters is that NIST's scientific standards are in serious question. How do you call ignoring physical evidence?

Don't pretend you don't see the red blotchy hives, they are as obvious as the controlled demolition evidence of building 7 that was never found.

This is getting tiresome.... you begin to sound like the NIST spokesperson :

Code:
NIST spokesperson Michael Neuman was challenged by Hartford Advocate reporter Jennifer Abel 

ABLE: … what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time….


I'll give you an example of how supporters of the official theory are inverting reality...
What Mick is suggesting is that NIST's ignorance of the physical evidence constitutes an "out" for the people questioning the official explanation.
What he is doing is not only leveling the importance between the physical evidence and speculation he bluntly inverts the importance in favor of speculation.
This is very manipulative because the investigatory results of even 1 single piece of physical evidence would outweigh a 1000 pages of speculation.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
100lbs of thermite needed for each column per NIST. NIST directly dealt with the thermite theory in their FAQ.

They could have spared us all a lot of aggravation with the truther movement and the families a lot of extra stress if they would have actually investigated it instead of just including it in a FAQ. Are they running a public relations campaign or a scientific investigation?

I'd imagine that you don't know how much explosives a Skull and Bones type of Masonic faction and privateers within the military industrial complex would need, what technologies they have access to.... or even what an actual investigation instead of a public relations campaign by NIST might have led to if it was more of an investigation and less of the simulation of an investigation. I'd agree that imagining things about Masonic factions is speculation. But there's a lot of evidence to justify doing so. If they can build buildings that encrypt their beliefs while conscripting the resources of an entire nation to do so and so forth, then it's likely that they could use resources and networks to bring them down in a ritual fashion that encrypts their beliefs and so forth also. This would have some explanatory power with respect to the tone of resignation in the 911 Commissioner's voice when he spoke of a 30 year conspiracy and the body language of Bush (the Pet Goat) when he said, "I thought it might be another CON... uh, highly organized plot. Fool me once, shame on me!" Etc.

I'm reminded of the questions of the Seal Team Six families with respect to the military industrial complex recently.

Seal Team Six Families Demand Justice

Because that's another case where it's almost as if a clash of Right/Left civilizations is being manufactured on purpose. In any event, generally it's the families who demand real investigations because they care. For Chomsky it's all "who cares?" For Mick, it's a hobby. For those who entertain themselves with Cremation of Care ceremonies, it's a chess piece on the board of politics and business. For those opposing them like Tarpley and Griffin, it's a way to organize groups to oppose the ruling class. For those entertaining people with a fear loop to sell some tangy tangerine, it's a business model. I could go on. That's why all those different types of people tend to distort the truth in one way or another... because one way or another, they just don't care.

Anyway, notice how there's a vast amount of bureaucratic and mental inertia (e.g. Chomsky) that any top secret* Masonic/Skull and Bones "gang" of gangsters in the military industrial complex could count on if they ever did conspire to do something. I'm reminded of the comment of a foreign analyst who said, "Whoever did 911 were geniuses, I wish they were working for us." Yes... but only one problem that would remain in that imaginary scenario, they might decide that their top secret game on The Grand Chessboard requires that you and other pawns be blown up. And you wouldn't get a vote in it.

*The closer you get to the top of the pyramid scheme, the more secret it gets.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
However, if I agreed with the principles and followed the rules, I would no doubt be illumined.

Indeed. If you didn't live by the law of the jungle then you could be one of the thousand points of light in civilization. You probably need to be told by an authority figure at the temple... I mean bank, that money doesn't grow on trees. At least not until some banksters print enough money to monetize every tree on the earth while others patent their genes and so forth. The interesting thing about it, money doesn't grow on trees for free but fruit does. So given the "laws of the jungle," you could have a free lunch.

Off topic but it does have to do with the mentality of the ruling/measuring class that like the symbolism of the compasses and squares that they originally surveyed/measured the land with. It has to do with the justification for speculation and """"conspiracy theories"""" about them and the way they tend to build and destroy civilizations. I.e... what if the clash of civilizations was being manufactured by top secret Masonic networks within the intelligence services and "brotherhoods" like the Muslim Brotherhood?

To reply to Jazzy's point, the manufacturing* of the clash of civilizations is something that Hitchens never seemed to consider because he was basically a "base" man. Not to mention irrational enough to be a true believer in the "order out of chaos" Darwinian creation myths given to him by his betters.

*I'm not denying that the ruling classes often have a lot of material to work with among "the base"/Al Qaeda and Islamists in general, same as the political "base" of the Right in America. But they are working with and manipulating "the base," that can't be denied.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Hitchens points out that the serious and most pressing point is that there is a cultural war taking place between "civilizations" where one side isn't going to stop, and until only one side remains.

Right. So what's going on in Turkey right now?

Why is America allied with the Saudis if Hitchens was correct that geopolitics is being shaped by a "war" between civilizations?

I could go on.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
And what was he talking about when he was vehemently opposed to the war. What a turnaround. And which side of the debate is the more lucrative. Sold his principles for the dollar? I think so.
I know.

Galloway wins this argument hands down IMO.
Maybe the video arrives in two forms.

Hitchins turned into an apologist for the warmongers and the reason is money.He sold himself as a hatchet man for the U.S but he cannot escape his past.
George sold you that.

Galloway outright condemns Saddam and always has.
Then he should have been in favor of the war to remove him. And what happened to the relief money? Whereas Hitchens changed his mind?

The U.S supports any old dictator so long as they can get what they want from them.
People aren't very nice.

​[/QUOTE]

I've seen it before. I'm a firm believer of step-by-step, which is AFAIK being done.

Can't wait for global warming.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Right. So what's going on in Turkey right now?
Don't really know, but I'll take a stab at it. The Yanks don't trust the Turks with weapons. An Islamic revolution is taking place but being brutally suppressed by the rightwing establishment, impeding its future war of occupation to the southeast/Kurdish elimination/anything it can get. Tourism has dropped off due to increased travel costs.

Why is America allied with the Saudis if Hitchens was correct that geopolitics is being shaped by a "war" between civilizations?
Because they have mutual trusts in weapons and oil. An oily tolerance has ensued. I'm not sure Saudi power is religiously devout.

I could go on.
Do.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Don't really know, but I'll take a stab at it.

I don't really know either. I can only imagine what's going on there, as usual.

An Islamic revolution is taking place but being brutally suppressed by the rightwing establishment...

That's not my impression from being loosely connected with the decentralized media and Anonymous. (I.e. the internet, as long as the freedom to connect is maintained... RIP Aaron Swartz, etc.) Instead, to me they look like a bunch of students, common people... and tree huggers. Literally... because the way the herd got spooked into stampeding in this case seems to have been preserving a park. You never know with the herd, it often seems mysterious to me. Regardless, it doesn't seem to be the same type of Islamic revolution that's going on Syria... where people are eating each others hearts and so forth. (Eat your heart out, John McCain... why doesn't he go stand with the tree huggers and park protectors in Turkey?)

In any event, people could bump up their information content by simply connecting with some people in Turkey or Syria or wherever and skipping the "main streams" of information trickling down on them in the pyramidal structures typical to the corporate media. Off topic, although this all seems to be... but the experiment with KONY 2012 and the impact of decentralized media on the body politic (inverted pyramid scheme, "V", etc.) didn't go that well. Just saying. It's always bad when the guy handling his experiment winds up naked on the street and so forth.

Tourism has dropped off due to increased travel costs.

There's always that.

I'm not sure Saudi power is religiously devout.

They aren't. But "the base" in their country are. If only they had a Corrections Corporation of Saudi Arabia then they might need even more religious police or "the base" of a religion to police the base in politics, I'd imagine. Sharia Inc.?

In any event, with respect to the whole clash of civilizations idea... isn't it true that the ruling classes and the builders of civilizations might have something to do with that? Or are we really supposed to blame the freedom to connect and Youtube like Hillary tried to and so forth? I wonder, is Youtube and the decentralized media typical to the internet really bringing about a clash of civilizations like the psychopaths and liars within the current power structure insist... or is it bringing about a clash of "We the people..." with their ruling classes?

In any event, too bad the KONY 2012 experiment with a change in the pyramidal structure of power apparently didn't go very well... is there a debunking thread here for that experiment? Because it seems to me that there probably should have been, given how much bunk they mixed into it.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Hitchens points out that the serious and most pressing point is that there is a cultural war taking place between "civilizations" where one side isn't going to stop, and until only one side remains.

If this logic is sound and it justifies preemptive action then it would seem that we should establish networks to infiltrate Muslim civilizations and get them to blow each other up. And if we really had to, we might sacrifice some of our own people or blow them up in a false flag (as the AIPAC guy was saying) in order to annihilate the other "side."

But there are a number of problems with these ideas. It seems to me that the main problem is that the "clash of civilizations" premise for preemptive war and so forth is only partly true and there is a lot of evidence that "the base" on all sides are being instigated, guided and manipulated. (But not based on Youtube videos as Hillary claimed... etc.)
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Yes, that's the reason that his account lends credence to the theory of some sort of controlled demolition taking place (or perhaps going wrong and then being finished later).

I am sorry- I still don't understand the supposed logic behind this.

The Towers did not have to fall to have debris coming crashing down onto WTC 7- as is noted in this quote:

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.
In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.
Content from External Source
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/anin-depthlookatconspiracistclaimsaboutw

Look at all the debris that was ejected from the impacts of the planes...

That Jennings heard "explosions" before the towers fell is likely and logical simply based on the impacts and the deteriorating buildings before they collapsed.

WTC 7 was supposedly just like a controlled demolition....using explosives hours before the actual demolition is not standard demolition procedure....

Combine that with the lack of explosives during the actual "demolition" and you have a very implausible scenario.

So, you have logical and plausible scenario for sources of loud "explosions" hours before collapse- debris from pre-collapse WTC 1&2...or you have an illogical and implausible scenario-demolition bombs going off hours before demolition and no bombs going off during collapse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
jackprune Interesting Chomsky 9/11 video Escaping The Rabbit Hole 18
P Friend has fallen into COVID-conspiracies Coronavirus COVID-19 96
Mick West TFTRH #44 - Steven Hassan: Cults and Conspiracies Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Coronavis and the Food Supply: News, Rumors, Spin, and Conspiracies Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mick West 2018 Hurricane Season and Weather Control Conspiracies Current Events 16
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
MikeG Claim: DC officials are "flocking" to "Doomsday Camps" Conspiracy Theories 4
MikeG Resilient Cities Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Cults, Conspiracies, and Addiction - Similarities and Differences in Interaction Approaches Practical Debunking 12
MikeG Everything wrong with Hillary Clinton/Medical Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 8
MikeG Florida Zika Response a "Martial Law Exercise" Conspiracy Theories 0
MikeG VA Taking Veterans' Guns Conspiracy Theories 0
MikeG Explained: UN Vehicles Spotted (Again) in the US [Delivery from US Manufacturer to Overseas] Conspiracy Theories 13
MikeG Unreported Abuse of US Troops Conspiracy Theories 0
MikeG FBI Spying on School Children Conspiracy Theories 0
MikeG College Course on Conspiracies Practical Debunking 89
Mick West Explained: Why Clouds Appear Behind the Sun and Moon Flat Earth 59
CeruleanBlu Project scientist Eric Korpela talks about SETI, aliens, and government conspiracies. UFOs and Aliens 0
derrick06 Debunked: HAARP ELF waves causing a earthquake Contrails and Chemtrails 12
vooke Need debunking:Ebola conspiracies video Conspiracy Theories 10
MikeC Lorde conspiracies General Discussion 21
BlueCollarCritic Debunked Conspiracies Update - The Government Is Not Confiscating Guns General Discussion 18
Cairenn Washington Post Blog on weather conspiracies Contrails and Chemtrails 11
AluminumTheory Zimmerman Trial Conspiracies..... Conspiracy Theories 12
Cairenn Pres Kennedy on conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 0
B Backpack conspiracies Boston Marathon Bombings 1
Cairenn Debunked: Gulf of Mexico oil spill conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 22
Dan Wilson Why do people believe conspiracies? General Discussion 86
Mick West Election Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 52
Giuliano Taverna satanic cults/conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 7
Related Articles
































Related Articles

Top