Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it me or we are attacked by Jones cultists?
I mean, look at all those threads dealing with that paint he analyzed...
 
It goes in cycles. Last month it was the No-Planers that were all the rage, now it's the Jones Gang.
Next month, it'll be some other group that feels left out, and needs to try to fend off its early demise.
 
Hopefully we don't suffer some catastrophic "man caused disaster" anytime soon to put the wind back in their sails.
 
Whiplash said:
Hopefully we don't suffer some catastrophic "man caused disaster" anytime soon to put the wind back in their sails.
Click to expand...

Believers need to believe. What they believe is not the big problem - until they find a cause which becomes their fixation.

But be assured they will always find something to "Believe"

...so looking after their needs is our contribution to "community service" ???? ;):rolleyes:

:dig:
 
Slate's "Explainer" talks about the 9-11 Truthers in the context of whether firefighters really believe in this nonsense.

The most common conspiracy theory held by firefighters is that the Twin Towers—as well as a third building, 7 World Trade Center—collapsed not because planes crashed into them but due to a "controlled demolition."
Click to expand...

And check out this bit:

Another common theory is that federal agents found three of the planes' four black boxes and then hid or destroyed them because they contained incriminating evidence. Nicholas DeMasi, a firefighter formerly with Engine Company 261 in Queens, was quoted in a 2003 book saying that he was there when federal agents made the discovery. Another first responder corroborated his account.
Click to expand...

Hilariously, Slate links to American Free Press under the word "corroborated". So now Slate's effectively google-bombing that page with the word "corroborated".

It's not hard to see where the "Explainer" went off the rails; check out the acknowledgments:

Explainer thanks Mike Berger of 911Truth.org, Mark Fenster of University of Florida, Erik Lawyer of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Barrie Zwicker.
Click to expand...

Not sure what Fenster contributed to this piece; he wrote a book arguing that conspiracy theorists are not paranoid nutbars (while simultaneously panning the 9-11 CTs).
 
Has Slate been made aware that one of their staff is linking to anti-Semitic hate rags as "corroboration"? Slate considers itself respectable source of online news and commentary, does it not?
 
KellyG said:
There are a lot extreme left-wing young ones at my college who are politically active truthers. It took me a little while to realize this
Click to expand...
That's one serious bummer for those of us on the left... because our side can be seen as being 'against the status quo', we get an unfair share of the whack-jobs; all the anarchistic wannabes and the emo peak-oil doom'n'gloom merchants etc etc ad-bloody-nauseum - and they all KNOW all of the answers :mad:

I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde​
 
I have another question.

Its about the phone call from Thomas Edward Burnett Jr, one of the passenger of flight 93.

His wife, Deena Burnett, claims that there was four calls from her husband, and three of which she noticed that they were from the cellular phone, because she saw the CallerID.

Deena has testified in front of 9/11 Commission and FBI, although, FBI concluded that there were only three calls from GTE airphone.

According to the 9-11 Commission MFR, the call Thomas Burnett made from the cell phone did not show up on the cell phone bill.

It seems that these things imply that Deena's statement is not very accurate.

Is there any followup concerning this matter?
Did Deena ever made a public statement against FBI's claims?

(Sorry for my broken English)
 
So I was commenting on some Twoofer’s youtube video, setting him straight, and he told me to come debate him on his forum instead, and blocked me.

This is his forum. I kid you not; it has 3 whole members, including him and me.
 
NagP said:
I have another question.

Its about the phone call from Thomas Edward Burnett Jr, one of the passenger of flight 93.

His wife, Deena Burnett, claims that there was four calls from her husband, and three of which she noticed that they were from the cellular phone, because she saw the CallerID.

Deena has testified in front of 9/11 Commission and FBI, although, FBI concluded that there were only three calls from GTE airphone.

According to the 9-11 Commission MFR, the call Thomas Burnett made from the cell phone did not show up on the cell phone bill.

It seems that these things imply that Deena's statement is not very accurate.

Is there any followup concerning this matter?
Did Deena ever made a public statement against FBI's claims?

(Sorry for my broken English)
Click to expand...

It is definitely an area of vagueness and inconsistency. However, in the grand scheme of things, even to us, let alone the non-involved (in CTs or their debunking), it hardly matters, and would change very little regardless. As a result, I doubt the issue was resolved.

There are threads here that deal with it, but good luck finding them

TAM:)
 
TheDaver said:
So I was commenting on some Twoofer’s youtube video, setting him straight, and he told me to come debate him on his forum instead, and blocked me.

This is his forum. I kid you not; it has 3 whole members, including him and me.
Click to expand...

Tell him to come here and join...lol, yah like that will happen.

TAM:)
 
I posted this in the Jones thread, but it has yet to be posted. It is too good to wait.

In a reply to an email to Dr. Greening, Jones makes a STUNNING comment...

So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!

Thus, after all the fuss about high-tech nano-thermites, we are back to good-old "bombs in the buildings" as the answer to how the buildings were destroyed.
Click to expand...

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html

Yes, thats right, Jones, after years of "thermite this and that" has now admitted, that the thermite used in the WTC was used for "Explosive FUSES!!!"

I am speechless.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I posted this in the Jones thread, but it has yet to be posted. It is too good to wait.

In a reply to an email to Dr. Greening, Jones makes a STUNNING comment...



http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html

Yes, thats right, Jones, after years of "thermite this and that" has now admitted, that the thermite used in the WTC was used for "Explosive FUSES!!!"

I am speechless.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
He's "circling" like the proverbial Mugwump Bird which flies in ever diminishing circles till its "Mug" disappears up it's "Wump"

Alternatively the Earwig Oh song

"Earwig Oh round the mulberry bush, mulberry bush, mulberry bush,
Earwig Oh round the mulberry bush,
.. on a cold and frosty morning...



...(trusting that both those old corny jokes can cross cultural boundaries...)
 
TheDaver said:
So I was commenting on some Twoofer’s youtube video, setting him straight, and he told me to come debate him on his forum instead, and blocked me.

This is his forum. I kid you not; it has 3 whole members, including him and me.
Click to expand...

I'm having a similar, extremely bizarre conversation with the same individual, as I remarked on my Hardfire thread (and buried in the noise). On e-mail, he refuses to respond to my questions unless I post on his forum. On his forum, he pretends he's never contacted me, and "his friend" is the one sending me e-mails. It's truly bizarre.

He's posted some answers to my first few questions (that "his friend" must have forwarded), and he's answered them wrong. It's too bad. His model is actually pretty good, it just has a few incorrect assumptions in it, all easily fixed. Of course, if you fix them, it predicts collapse in almost exactly the right length of time.

ETA: He also apparently reads the JREF Forum constantly. Read into that what you will.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
Yes, thats right, Jones, after years of "thermite this and that" has now admitted, that the thermite used in the WTC was used for "Explosive FUSES!!!"
Click to expand...

:D Well, that's the end of that theory. If even the would-be lead author disagrees with their own conclusions, then the paper is completely moot.

My compliments to Dr. Greening. I knew he wouldn't be fooled.
 
Dr G tells Jones; and the surge tide of kool-aid filled followers ebbs.

So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!

Thus, after all the fuss about high-tech nano-thermites, we are back to good-old "bombs in the buildings" as the answer to how the buildings were destroyed.
Click to expand...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html

This is typical Jones; what can you expect for a delusions made up September 2005.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom