• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hustler woo

LashL said:
It makes no sense that you would bother to come here to deliver that little message, no. As long as you twoofers spout BS to people, we will be here to counter your BS. If you've come here to tell those of us who rely upon facts and evidence - instead of woo - to leave you poor little misguided twoofers alone, I fear you're on a fool's errand as it appears you have no idea about why we do what we do.

Skeptics here do what we do for a myriad of reasons, some of which follow. I do not purport to speak for others, and I'm not likely to touch upon all of the reasons of all of the members here, but you'll get the idea and others will correct me or add to what I say if I've left something out or misrepresnted anything. (Because around here, that's what we do. We don't just jump on a bandwagon and cheerlead like the vast majority of the twoof movement adherents are wont to do.)

We do this because we don't like to see people misled by BS, which is all that the twoof "movement" feeds people. We do this because we don't like seeing twoofers disparage the family members of those who died that day. We do this because we will not leave unchallenged the attempts of the twoof "movement" to label everyone who doesn't buy into their unsubstantiated nonsense as "disinfo", "agents", "government shills", etc. We do this because critical thinking is important, so vitally important, and the twoof movement encourages the exact opposite - mindless followers who do not think at all.

We do this because thinking, research, facts, and evidence are important - vitally important - and the twoof movement waves away facts and reality and science and critical thinking as though they matter not a whit.

We do this because we don't like seeing woowoos trying to convince people that they should blindly follow morons like those that are embraced by you twoofers as demi-gods. We do this because lurkers and fence sitters need to see twoofers exposed for what they are, and because we want lurkers and fence sitters to see that facts, evidence, science, proof, expertise, knowledge and experience not only matter but are orders of magnitude above the alternative espoused by the twoof movement (blind belief, blind following, lack of ability or incentive to think, lack of ability or incentive to research, lack of ability or incentive to consult experts, lack of ability or incentive to become experts, etc.)

And mostly, we do this because we find the behaviour of twoofers utterly despicable when they accuse innocent people of mass murder; because we find it utterly despicable that twoofers suggest that firefighters and other first responders were "in on it" or that they are too scared to speak up for their deceased brothers and sisters; because we find the lies of the twoof movement morally repugnant; because we find it reprehensible that twoofers laugh - literally - at the heroic efforts of thoroughly decent people who died that day, in order to further the twoofers' own goals, financial and otherwise; because we never lose sight of the fact that real people died that day. Not cartoon characters, not abstract non-entities, not just a number on a piece of paper, but real people. And because the deceased left behind other real people, also victims - not cartoon characters, not abstract non-entities, but real people. Twoofers disparage these innocent victims and their families every day.

That last paragraph is reason enough all on its own for skeptics and critical thinkers to take it upon themselves to rail against twoofers. I'm surprised you had to ask.

There is much more, of course, but it's late and that will have to do for now.
Click to expand...

Nominated. Couldn't have said it better myself.. :)
 
Wow, what if skepticalcriticalguy is right, and we're wrong? Wouldn't that be, like, mind-blowing? I'm going to go ponder that for a while...
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
OK, here's a chance to educate me without taking rude and obnoxious pot-shots.

So, past that; wouldn't pancaking floors leave the core beams standing? Has that been scientifically analyzed? If the NIST only hypothesized up to the collapse initiation, then they don't cover the science of the collapsed core. So doesn't the collapsed core raise some skepticism?

I'm just asking.

And as for whether it disappeared or not: of course it did! It was sold as scrap. It is no longer here to analyze. But I do think I saw some video of nice neat angle cuts. Must have been in a documentary I watched. I've seen pictures too. So have all of you. So tell me, nicely, if you have it in ya, what caused the angle cuts? Need the pictures?
Click to expand...

Your error is thinking the core could have continued to stand after the outer walls and floor trusses failed. And Remember the core suffered damage too.

The only was to build the WTC so tall was to also build the light, there were in fact floor for floor some of the lightest buildings in NY. The construction depended on distribution of load between the three main building components Perimeter wall, floor trusses and center core. No two alone could hold the weight of the structure. I doubt the walls or core could stand on its own without the floors. It's a system that made for large open office space unlike the traditional way of using a web of many vertical beams and horizontal girders.

Unfortunately once one fails the others have to take the load and at a certain point you have total collapse. So in the case of WTC 1+2 floor trusses overheated and sagged pulling the perimeter wall in and causing it to fail. If you look at the videos the core was the last thing to fall but it was doomed without the other two parts to hold it up. Plus its only logical to think the floors were attached to the core and as they fell pulled the core down with them.

You can't think of the WTC as toy buildings or even compare them to buildings half their size. The physics is different at that scale.
 
Essentially, the floors were part of the structural integrity of the building, not just hanging, suspended, from the outer and inner walls.
 
Oliver said:
By the way: Does someone know if this one is true? :

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/111074543b902d0828.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from?

Are all these from the same month issue? The US one shows a picture of a pregnant Demi Moore at the top right corner, which is more than 10 years old.
 
Pardalis said:
Where did you get that from?

Are all these from the same month issue? The US one shows a picture of a pregnant Demi Moore at the top right corner, which is more than 10 years old.
Click to expand...

I can´t remember the exact source but it was
a conspiracy site. I always wondered if it´s some
type of cynicism or if it´s real - meaning the same
edition in different countries. :confused:
 
You can't tell anything from those tiny pics. It could as well be a cut and paste job.

I would need to see the dates.

Come on Oliver...
 
Pardalis said:
You can't tell anything from those tiny pics. It could as well be a cut and paste job.

I would need to see the dates.

Come on Oliver...
Click to expand...

I really cant remember the exact source because the
picture is pretty famous and spread all over the net.
But it seems that many people have the same question:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22losing+afghanistan%22+newsweek+%22life+in+pictures%22&spell=1

 ETA: Wiki says it´s true but the date is wrong in the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek
Regional cover changes

The September 27, 2006 edition of Newsweek in the United States featured a cover story titled "My Life in Pictures" based around photographer Annie Leibovitz and her new book, with the cover photo featuring her with several children. Foreign editions featured, instead, a cover story called "Losing Afghanistan" with a picture of an Islamic extremist about the U.S. fight and struggles in Afghanistan. The story was still featured in the American edition and was still mentioned on the cover.
In 2005, Newsweek had featured a picture of an American flag in a trash can on the Japanese edition, absent from all other editions.[5]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
skepticalcriticalguy said:
You're absolutely unreal. I asked a couple questions! See, you smug folks are not in the least bit interested in educating or discussing. It's all paranoia and insult. Just like the other side! (Actually, you are worse).

SERIOUSLY, drop the paranoia. I'm not some agent in your war with 911blogger (as I just posted). If that's what this is all about, I'll accept your apologies, if anybody cares to make one. Or are you always this way?

I haven't even read Reynolds and Woods theory. But I will soon. Have any of you really read it?
Click to expand...

Can't understand why you hang around such a site I would think it was a club you would not be a member of.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Who are you?

Nice way to welcome somebody to your club!

The point was, what if some of these theories are correct? More people are going to be exposed to the possibility that things might not be as they seem; not as we were told. I suppose they'll all just be Hustler-reading perverts. But Hustler-reading perverts are people too! (I've been known to imbibe).

Who knows; maybe there will be a new investigation, with subpoena power and testimony under oath.

Or has every single aspect of the official story been proven to be true here at this forum? And every single alternate theory fully debunked?
Click to expand...

I think someone who reads an article about the WTC in hustler would have to be a real pervert.
 
WildCat said:
You haven't yet posted one fact that supports your 9/11 CT, and now you want to start talking about the JFK assasination?
Click to expand...

Well, at least he's willing to admit a foundational reason for believing 9/11 woo - believing JFK woo. Pointing this out in DU and other forums really kicks the anthill over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom