Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[ozeco41]

That's quite exactly Jon Gold's position and i share his view to an extent. But fact is, the "truth movement" is not an organization, has no leader and nobody is able force the rest of the world to promote what they consider to be the key issues. As much as duhbunkies pretend that "we" have to apologize for every stupid statement by someone who also happens to realize that the crime of 9/11 isn't solved - that demand is and will ever be utter nonsense, fallacies of lazy minds. Same with the "alternative narrative" nonsense (a Mackey special)...

Understood. In fact the "debate" over the last year or so has polarised to a greater extent than say 3-4 years back and now both "sides" tend to regard the other side as an homogeneous bloc. Some of my technical opinions about WTC collapse run counter to the "accepted wisdom" and posting them is not without some hazards because they do not conform to the "club".

...Duhbunkies who are politically literate (a rare species, i admit) and aware of the facts outlined by Gold are guilty of aiding the cover-up, regardless of the truthfulness of the claims of Alex or Stephen Jones.

Not sure that the "accessory after the fact" would hold in law but...

My own interest is primarily technical - I am civil and military engineering trained - but that aside, the technical facts are clear black and white issues available for assessment. The political issues are far "woollier", harder to grasp, define, prove or disprove. I am not into politics and the arena of political conspiracy discussion offers no possibility of resolving issues. So two (related) reasons why I steer clear.

When I first started discussing 9/11 on the Internet (WTC collapses only and on the former Richard Dawkins net forum) I separated the technical from the political and made a naive decision. I thought the "no demolition case" would be easy to "prove" so get that out of the way to clear the ground for discussion of the political conspiracy material.

Reason being that so much of the Alex Jones Stephen Jones Richard Gage level of debate bases concerns about political conspiracy on the presumption of "demolition" at WTC and similar issues at the other sites. So resolving the simple, I then thought, technical questions would clear a lot of the alleged conspiracy - "Demolition of the WTC was an inside job" fails if there was no demolition.

Naive in the extreme I was.

 

[GlennB]

That's quite exactly Jon Gold's position and i share his view to an extent. But fact is, the "truth movement" is not an organization, has no leader and nobody is able force the rest of the world to promote what they consider to be the key issues. As much as duhbunkies pretend that "we" have to apologize for every stupid statement by someone who also happens to realize that the crime of 9/11 isn't solved - that demand is and will ever be utter nonsense, fallacies of lazy minds. Same with the "alternative narrative" nonsense (a Mackey special).

Duhbunkies who are politically literate (a rare species, i admit) and aware of the facts outlined by Gold are guilty of aiding the cover-up, regardless of the truthfulness of the claims of Alex or Stephen Jones.

Inspired by your post (and wishing to become more <cough> 'politically literate') I visted Gold's blog. But it was extremely difficult to plough through it and ascertain his position.

Care to summarise?

 

[jaydeehess]

Hu?

edit: oh, i see. crossposting.

Actually no, it was a post directed at bill as was the revious of my posts. You posted between them that's all.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes you have.

Every time you claim the firefighters aren't telling the truth about the damage and fires in WTC7.

the dictionary indeed describes "liar" as one who is knowingly not telling the truth.

RedI perhaps needs to buy an Oxford dictionary before they stop printing them.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Inspired by your post (and wishing to become more <cough> 'politically literate') I visted Gold's blog. But it was extremely difficult to plough through it and ascertain his position.

Care to summarise?

Noticed the title of the article? "The facts speak for themselves". Gold compiled them to enable you to draw your own conclusions. His briefly described position, which is irrelevant to the facts, however, is at the bottom of the article.

@jaydeehess: Crossposting^WP:

A second meaning has evolved on some internet message boards. Crossposting (also known as x-posting) occurs when two persons post responses to the same message thread at almost the same time, often rendering the slightly later post irrelevant, funny, meaningless or inappropriate.

 

[RedIbis]

Yes you have.

Every time you claim the firefighters aren't telling the truth about the damage and fires in WTC7.

And where have I made the claim that ffs aren't telling the truth?

If you could quote me, you wouldn't be a liar.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And where have I made the claim that ffs aren't telling the truth?

Then you agree that there were massive raging fires in WTC7, severe physical impact damage, visible bulges and leaning of the entire structure?

(Disagreeing with one or all of the above = calling firefighters liars)

 

[T.A.M.]

I gotta think it was This thread, or one similar where a moderator posted to stop the bickering. Now granted, if there were an appropriate thread for it, this would be the one, but still....

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

Noticed the title of the article? "The facts speak for themselves". Gold compiled them to enable you to draw your own conclusions.

But he didn't give any facts...that's the whole point. The title of the article is 100% misleading...

The whole article was a rehash of BS that has already been debunked years ago and the "facts" he offers up are nothing but more assumptions and/or completely unrelated to his statement.

People are upset because you posted this garbage and paid no mind to the validity of the article...

 

[beachnut]

Important, after failing the first time, rehashed trash from 911 truth; fails again

A post so important, it was void of comment from the poster since it was posted by direction of a top 911 truth failed quixotic non-leader. This was a post directed by Jon, and blindly posted by a loyal 911 truth followers. Posted without comment, without thinking, just doing as told. No support offered, no evidence, just nonsense used to make the inside job, cover-up claims.

Originally Posted by Jon Gold
Because of the release of 911truthnews.com, and the fact that I want to support this new site, I have taken the liberty of updating my facts piece. I have added new information, and reformatted it for easier reading. Please spread widely. Thank you.

http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

But he didn't give any facts...that's the whole point. The title of the article is 100% misleading...

The whole article was a rehash of BS that has already been debunked years ago and the "facts" he offers up are nothing but more assumptions and/or completely unrelated to his statement.
...

Jon lists a bunch of junk and proclaims an Inside Job. Jon is delusional on 911.

There is no cover-up, 911 truth made it up. Jon is confused and stunned, he takes junk and makes up a lie, a delusion, a fantasy to make him feel good. He has no facts to draw his conclusion, he makes a conclusion because he is confused, has not logical skills, and lacks knowledge.

911 truth has nothing, Jon has nothing. Jon has failed to make progress past the delusional opinions based on nothing. Jon thinks he has evidence, Jon does not understand what evidence is! Jon has no evidence, it is absent; missing for 8 years.

8 years of pathetic tripe making him look like a nut.

Jon asked people to post his failed article; it will be posted by those who can't comprehend reality, weak-minded gullible cult members of 911 truth all over the Internet.

 

[Sabretooth]

@sabretooth47: Pffft. He didn't give any facts. Sure. For your orientation: Black is the writing, white is the background.

So, by your logic, because it is written, it constitutes fact?

For your reference:
http://en.wikipedia.com/fact
http://en.wikipedia.com/evidence

 

[jaydeehess]

Understood. In fact the "debate" over the last year or so has polarised to a greater extent than say 3-4 years back and now both "sides" tend to regard the other side as an homogeneous bloc. Some of my technical opinions about WTC collapse run counter to the "accepted wisdom" and posting them is not without some hazards because they do not conform to the "club".

This is precisly why I refer to people on the other side of the debate in as "persons who do not believe the commonly accepted narritive of the events of Sept. 11/01" or similar. CE, and a few others chaff at being lumped in with the 911TM. Of course that does not stop CE from seemingly believing that all 'debunkies' are either politically illterate or ardent supporters of the neo-con agenda and/or accessories after the fact to mass murder.

My own interest is primarily technical - I am civil and military engineering trained - but that aside, the technical facts are clear black and white issues available for assessment. The political issues are far "woollier", harder to grasp, define, prove or disprove. I am not into politics and the arena of political conspiracy discussion offers no possibility of resolving issues. So two (related) reasons why I steer clear.

When I first started discussing 9/11 on the Internet (WTC collapses only and on the former Richard Dawkins net forum) I separated the technical from the political and made a naive decision. I thought the "no demolition case" would be easy to "prove" so get that out of the way to clear the ground for discussion of the political conspiracy material.

Reason being that so much of the Alex Jones Stephen Jones Richard Gage level of debate bases concerns about political conspiracy on the presumption of "demolition" at WTC and similar issues at the other sites. So resolving the simple, I then thought, technical questions would clear a lot of the alleged conspiracy - "Demolition of the WTC was an inside job" fails if there was no demolition.

Naive in the extreme I was.

Quite the same for me though I first came upon 911 conspiracies in "The Blackvault" and "Apollo Hoax" forums, and my training is in physics and electronics.
"Bombs in the towers" was the first claim I read, then "missile at the Pentagon", and it was so very easy to see that neither contention held water. Dispel the notion by pointing out facts, I thought, would quickly put that to rest. The more politically driven so-called LIHOP therories would be much harder to disprove and thus, I again thought errorneously, this would be the continuing theme in 911 conspiracies.

I too was naive then since instead of focusiing all that politically driven ideology on theories that cannot be easily shown to be bunk, the majority of persons who do not adhere to the common narritive still promote the various, and sometimes mutually exclusive, so-called MIHOP conjectures. In fact rather than accept technical explanations of why any conjecture was not valid the whole group seemed bent on coming up with increasingly more bizzare claims.

I should not have been suprised as I was. After all I have seen this before with the Apollo HB's. Is a space-a-beam weapon that much more outlandish than extra-terrestrial warnings not to pursue space exploration? Are faked planes in Manhattan far removed from faked Apollo missions?

 

[jaydeehess]

bill, did any other MSM other than ONE late night talk radio show in Australia cover or even mention the speech you refered to?

Its a simple question.

Also simple would be an explanation of what the "911 was an inside job" song and the Pearl Jam song "Inside job" have to do with each other.

Will you get to these again sometime soon or are these topics now in the wind?

 

[funk de fino]

If you could quote me calling the ffs liars, you wouldn't be the lackey for a liar.

You have accused them of being dupes who were fooled into believing statements from higher ups?

That means higher ups were involved in the deception? This means you think that some members of the FDNY were involved in covering for the collapse of WTC7.

You said there was no discernible inferno at the WTC7. That is a false statement that contradicts what many of the FDNY say they witnessed. It contradicts what Mike Catalano said and he was in the building while it was on fire.

You have said that it is the first unadulterated comment or statement about a situation that is the important one yet you fail to apply this to Willie Rodriguez tall stories from later dates.

You have accused Myers of deserting his duty on 911. You have accused Silverstein of being a liar. You have lied about another member here saying it was proven that they lied.

You are a hypocrite. A dishonest one.

 

[funk de fino]

It's not our fault that they messed up starting with Venezuela in 2002. .

Another falsehood.

 

[Childlike Empress]

This is precisly why I refer to people on the other side of the debate in as "persons who do not believe the commonly accepted narritive of the events of Sept. 11/01" or similar. CE, and a few others chaff at being lumped in with the 911TM. Of course that does not stop CE from seemingly believing that all 'debunkies' are either politically illterate or ardent supporters of the neo-con agenda and/or accessories after the fact to mass murder.

You can call me a truther all you want, and by most definitions i am. I "chaff" at lazy thinking and treating the "TM" as if it were a political party with a programm and a leader - most often for "guilt by association" purposes. That's simply not the case - only individuals with very different (or none) theories, agreeing on the basic fact that a new investigation is needed. So, for educational and comedic purposes, i turn around and do the same to you (not you personally). The word is "duhbunkies" and describes those who call 9/11 skeptics "twoofers".

 

[ozeco41]

This is precisly why I refer to people on the other side of the debate in as "persons who do not believe the commonly accepted narritive of the events of Sept. 11/01" or similar. CE, and a few others chaff at being lumped in with the 911TM. Of course that does not stop CE from seemingly believing that all 'debunkies' are either politically illterate or ardent supporters of the neo-con agenda and/or accessories after the fact to mass murder.

I commented recently in another thread that we used to have three categories of people posting - say around 2007 - viz: (1) CTs or truthers, (2) sceptics who were genuinely unsure and seeking truth; AND (3) debunkers. (Plus (4) CTs or truthers pretending to be genuine skeptics. ) Now we only allow two classes. "truthers" and 'debunkers", and if your status is in doubt you get classed as "truther".

Early in my time debating WTC 9/11 matters - demolition or not? for the twin towers - the CT/truther side would often have the objective of proving NIST wrong. A distraction which still lives on in the truther claims that we are denialists and blind supporters of the official line. I have always sought to distance myself from the official line. Simply stated I cannot fully, 100% support NIST. I simply have not read 3/4ths of their reports - the ones dealing with matters other than the 9/11 collapses. And even on the collapse I only agree with the main points - I have no position on the rest of the details. And that detail is irrelevant given the reason truthers want to disprove it.

...I should not have been suprised as I was. After all I have seen this before with the Apollo HB's. Is a space-a-beam weapon that much more outlandish than extra-terrestrial warnings not to pursue space exploration? Are faked planes in Manhattan far removed from faked Apollo missions?

True.

I was even "fresher" to the debate. Totally naive as to how Internet forums worked and the social dynamics involved. My very first post on the Internet was a quite bold "here I am - don't try to ignore me" - a backup copy is at http://beyondyourken.com/phoenix/Pages/33993-129.html#p498649 As the first paragraph explains what prompted me to post was Tony Szamboti's first paper - two years before his "Missing Jolt" nonsense.

...one month later I was dominating the WTC 9/11 discussion and just over two months later I was moderating the forum.

 

[jaydeehess]

I too have some issues with NIST, specifically the thermal expansion phase failure of column 79 of WTC 7.

I don't believe they investigated the possibility that the girder was pulled off its column seat by contraction in the cool down phase after the fire moved on, rather than their theory that it was pushed off by thermal expansion during the heating phase.

I think that NIST could have recommended more strongly that fiberous insulation be replaced by cementatious insulation on steel.

I think NIST could have done more to investigate the differences between the fire codes for the PANYNJ and those of NYC and how they affected the fire behaviours on Sept 11.

but these are relatively minor points.

 

[jaydeehess]

You can call me a truther all you want, and by most definitions i am. I "chaff" at lazy thinking and treating the "TM" as if it were a political party with a programm and a leader - most often for "guilt by association" purposes. That's simply not the case - only individuals with very different (or none) theories, agreeing on the basic fact that a new investigation is needed. So, for educational and comedic purposes, i turn around and do the same to you (not you personally). The word is "duhbunkies" and describes those who call 9/11 skeptics "twoofers".

Correct me if I am wrong CE but you do indeed 'chafe' (my bad before) at being lumped in with the so-called 911 Truth Movement?

I have also been told in no uncertain terms by others, on this and other forums, not to refer to some posters as 'truthers' specifically because those persons associate the term with the 911TM and those persons generally also refer to the 911TM as "left wing" , "socialists", etc. Those political labels are also used by some to tag the 911 debunkers, which is odd since the exact opposite is said of that group by others who do not believe in the common narritive of the events of sept 11/01.

A poster on The Blackvault listed PfT, CIT, S.Jones and Gage as 'socialists' and possible 'agents'. A.Jones, ChristopherA and others were listed as more credible.

Now with all this political talk I have lost track of what technical issues about the destruction on Sept 11 you support. Given that the politics is not really my concern , as noted above, and since I have nevertheless engaged in such talk to some degree, how do you feel about the following?
- DEW weapons used to take down the WTC structures
- the use of explosives to demolish the WTC structures
- the use of therm(?)te to cut large steel columns
- using building demolitions to destroy 'evidence'
- faked aircraft over Manhattan
- faked aircraft impact at the Pentagon


Its only 6 items, and I would be quite satisfied with a single sentence on each one indicating how credible each one is. Feel free to list any other you feel is more, or most, credible though. That would include the so-caled LIHOP senario. This would be that there actually was a plan by a loose organization, dedicated to ridding the Middle East Islamic Holy Land of western influence, to hijack several aircraft at the same time, using them as suicide weapons agaisnt strutures that represent American wealth and power, and that this plan was simply allowed to go forth rather than be stopped before implementation.

 

[jaydeehess]

bill, did any other MSM other than ONE late night talk radio show in Australia cover or even mention the speech you refered to?

Its a simple question.

Also simple would be an explanation of what the "911 was an inside job" song and the Pearl Jam song "Inside job" have to do with each other.

Will you get to these again sometime soon or are these topics now in the wind?

bump for bill.