• 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.

(UK) The Daily Mail joins the circus!

jon said:
Actually, fair enough - I misread your post. Still, if one views the debate as many sided, then 'life not just being something that happens to you' would surely be many sides of the debate, not just one side.
Click to expand...
It's a side in the sense that I am required to disregard a specific area of the debate in order to 'see the truth'. A side could be 90% of the polygon.. if you see what I mean :eye-poppi
 
dumb title, dumb stuff

mookid said:
It's a side in the sense that I am required to disregard a specific area of the debate in order to 'see the truth'. A side could be 90% of the polygon.. if you see what I mean :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11

The article is a rehash of lies, it is not fresh. Explosion?, only in the minds of CT dolts.

This article is full of CT junk and the author missed the chance to expose the fraud LC is.

You could expose Dylan as a fraud, instead of what ever you are doing. You are lost if you believe CT junk from LC.

There is a story, and it is the fraud of LC. Why papers and the news do not expose the $100,000 plus of fraud going on at LC. Dumb people buying videos of lies on 9/11. Fraud on the dumb.

Name one great thing the article did and why are you even worried about it?

One dumb article, one dumb paper, what is your point?
 
mookid said:
I don't have an agenda, I don't have an objective, I don't want to change your mind I just want to (try and) understand it. I'm merely addressing the points that were originally raised at the beginning of this article that the Mail is spouting meaningless, fictional ******** in order to damage reputations and cause a stir.
Click to expand...
Source of the bolded statement, please. I don't see it.

I'll elaborate briefly:

If you believe that this paper is making claims that are based on nothing but thin air, then cite either:

1. Legitimate facts that directly contradict the facts on which you are basing these accusations against the article.

2. The logic behind what you believe.

Whether you chose to give a link to a previous posting you or someone else has made, or write it out specifically in this thread; is up to you.
Click to expand...
Since you don't seem interested in bringing up specifics, I'll merely point you to a document that disputes every single claim made in Loose Change: 2nd Edition. Many of these claims are repeated in the Mail article.

HTML: http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
or DOC: http://www.911myths.com/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc
 
"911 Mysteries" had some interesting questions that have not been answered:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

"Stranger than fiction" is also 'interesting'

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1585562142333161866&q=stranger+than+fiction

Something that has always confused me is that there was only one investigation allowed to investigate what happened; to me this makes little sense considering it's the most dramatic 'terrorist' attack on the West of our generation.

Anyway - I would love you to hear what you all think


ETA:

This is one of the first videos I watched around the subject and probably one of my favorites:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=209842906347732903&q=they+want+your+soul
 
Last edited:
mookid said:
I don't have an agenda, I don't have an objective, I don't want to change your mind I just want to (try and) understand it. I'm merely addressing the points that were originally raised at the beginning of this article that the Mail is spouting meaningless, fictional ******** in order to damage reputations and cause a stir.

I'll elaborate briefly:

If you believe that this paper is making claims that are based on nothing but thin air, then cite either:

1. Legitimate facts that directly contradict the facts on which you are basing these accusations against the article.

2. The logic behind what you believe.

Whether you chose to give a link to a previous posting you or someone else has made, or write it out specifically in this thread; is up to you.
Click to expand...

They're the ones making the claims, therefore they need to establish their veracity. Regardless, surely you can see how objectionable the general Mail editorial line is and how lax their journalism? Wiki has a good summary. Richard Littlejohn alone is a reason ignore their output. Seriously, even if I believed a 9/11 CT, hell, even if there was actual incontravertable evidence, the last place I'd look for support would be the Mail.
 
Of course.. one could look at it as a 'clever' double bluff.
"Let's pretend that we're on the conspiracy bandwagon but just introduce it to the public in an stupid and unreasoned fashion so we can put people off the idea before they start"

I'm not suggesting that's a reality.. but it is a possibility at least. Anyone here play poker? :)
 
mookid said:
"911 Mysteries" had some interesting questions that have not been answered:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
Click to expand...
The Doc can handle this one:
Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


"Stranger than fiction" is also 'interesting'

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1585562142333161866&q=stranger+than+fiction

Something that has always confused me is that there was only one investigation allowed to investigate what happened; to me this makes little sense considering it's the most dramatic 'terrorist' attack on the West of our generation.

Anyway - I would love you to hear what you all think
Click to expand...
The investigation was actually several investigations carried out over several months (in fact, some of it is still an open investigation--NIST's WTC7, for instance) by several thousand people. They did a fantastic, thorough job.

ETA:

This is one of the first videos I watched around the subject and probably one of my favorites:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=209842906347732903&q=they+want+your+soul
Click to expand...
The video starts by repeatedly suggesting that if you don't buy its propaganda, it's the result of your own bias (oh, but it's not your fault, I don't blame you, it's the inevitable outcome of decades of programming by the elite-controlled gov't & mass media) so you can either choose to believe this video or remain a sheeple.

It then seamlessly starts making unsubstantiated claims about the 9/11 attacks. It continues with poorly-considered conclusions about civil liberties and the roles of "the Dems", "the Reps", and "the mainstream media". (Does it not bother you that after asserting that the media are controlled, the video uses mainstream media sources for damning evidence against the Bush admin?) It goes on with such ridiculous unsourced claims as: "ALL street cameras are part of the federal artificial intelligence (AI) system known as 'ITS'" [10:18] and crazy ranting about "tranhumanism" and "hive mind" using nanotechnology.

And then, we get to the punchline. It's all a set-up for 2012 Mayan calendar prophecy woo. *sigh*

You REALLY buy into this, mookid? It's so painfully specious. Write out the text line by line and read it over without the imagery and soundtrack. It's absolutely, embarassingly ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
mookid said:
Of course.. one could look at it as a 'clever' double bluff.
"Let's pretend that we're on the conspiracy bandwagon but just introduce it to the public in an stupid and unreasoned fashion so we can put people off the idea before they start"

I'm not suggesting that's a reality.. but it is a possibility at least. Anyone here play poker? :)
Click to expand...
Is that what your endorsement of "They Want Your Soul" is? A clever double bluff? Because you don't get much more stupid or unreasoned than this video.

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
 
chipmunk stew said:
It goes on with such ridiculous unsourced claims as: "ALL street cameras are part of the federal artificial intelligence (AI) system known as 'ITS'" [10:18] and crazy ranting about "tranhumanism" and "hive mind" using nanotechnology.
Click to expand...
I'm a computer science student and my interests actually include AI, A-life, and I have a very basic understanding of nanotech stuff (at least from the computational perspective).
An extremely interesting and informative website about new developments in the aforementioned areas (and others) is:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1

Home to Ray Kurzweil ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil ) and several other highly respected researchers in the field. It is his (and many others') view that the capabilities of these new technologies have far reaching implications for the world as we know it.

If you'd like to know more just ask or read up on the site, he's written a few books as well which are all very interesting indeed.
 
mookid said:
"911 Mysteries" had some interesting questions that have not been answered:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

"Stranger than fiction" is also 'interesting'

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1585562142333161866&q=stranger+than+fiction

Something that has always confused me is that there was only one investigation allowed to investigate what happened; to me this makes little sense considering it's the most dramatic 'terrorist' attack on the West of our generation.

Anyway - I would love you to hear what you all think


ETA:

This is one of the first videos I watched around the subject and probably one of my favorites:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=209842906347732903&q=they+want+your+soul
Click to expand...

You have found the big CT lie videos with no facts. Total CT tripe with no facts.
 
beachnut said:
You have found the big CT lie videos with no facts. Total CT tripe with no facts.
Click to expand...
Kind of like describing something as being "without facts" when much of it is based on video footage, interviews, and independent analysis.

1. These debunking videos merely point towards the 'official' explanation and say "Look - the guys who are 'the' experts back up the official story".

So the argument goes something like.. "Your conspiracy can't possibly be true because the people you're accusing of lying have told us that what they said was true. And they have to be right because they have the people that are the most knowledgeable and expert in every area that's covered - we know this is true because they told us so."

Compelling stuff..

2. I've noticed nobodies commented on "Stranger than Fiction". Very well reasoned, fairly well written (for the most part), and very clear. Anyone care to comment on this one?
 
Last edited:
mookid said:
Can someone explain where the heat to cause metal to melt like this has come from? (The fire you can see is not likely to be jet fueled - that should be long gone at this point - and even if it was it doesn't burn anywhere near the temperature needed to cause that degree of melting):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774
Click to expand...
Finally, a real question! This was addressed in a preliminary report from NIST in June 2004, pages H38-39:
[FONT=Arial,Bold]
H.7.2 Molten Material​
[/FONT]It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photographs indicate that the material first Interim Report on Evolution of WTC Fires Based on Image Analysis appeared at 9:51:52 a.m. and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of collapse. Some of the material can be seen falling in Fig. H–21. Close-up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is, floor 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit.

The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggests that significant wreckage from the plane passed through the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed. Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 and closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temperature, but melt over a temperature range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of liquid increases. The Aluminum Association handbook (Aluminum Association 2003) lists the melting point ranges for the alloys as roughly 500°C to 638°C and 475°C to 635°C for alloys 2024 and 7075, respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca. 1,000°C), and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom