The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

On second thought, I think I will participate in this thread, because this forum is such a wealth of incredibly valuable information, that even the likes of me can use it to refute every 9/11 CT theory to date. For example, in response to the comment about we OCT supporters being either misinformed or deluded, I direct your attention to this. These are your 9/11 CT shining lights, the people who made the movement what it is today. Look at that list -- kind of reads like a stroll though Who's Who in the Land of the Misinformed and Deluded, doesn't it? With these people as your leaders, just where do you think you're going to end up?

But hey, let's play along and suppose that I'm one of the misinformed ones. Please pick from that list the one person whose body of work is most likely to lift me from my misinformed state, and finally allow me to see the truth concerning 9/11. Please point out the one who has brought forward the most irrefutable facts, that can only be answered by willful ignorance or delusion. Seriously, direct me to your most cogent, informed, and persuasive source of information, and allow me to be enlightened.
 
Stellafane said:
(snip) If this is typical of your postings there, the resource most exhausted may have been patience, rather than intellectual firepower.
Click to expand...

BINGO!

T.A.M. said:
(snip)

Since it is clear you already have your mind made up, I will not waste your time with links to reliable evidence, as I am sure you consider the 9/11 commission report, NIST, FEMA, Moussaoui Trial all "Govt Shill" type material.
Click to expand...

Nope, he just insinuates that you're too stupid to comprehend at his level. His favourite pejorative is to call people NASA chimps. Oh, Mr. Mackey...

You may remember his Stundie nomination:
mjd1982@SLCF said:
[Oxford] Arts and humanities, yes. Hence why i dont argue on science, but on simple and rational analysis.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=humanities&pid=19945
Click to expand...
mjd1982@SLCF said:
I am in fact an Oxford grad.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=oxford&pid=19810
Click to expand...

Don't expect any arguments on the, y'know, sciencey stuff.

T.A.M. said:
Good luck. I am sure if we all tell you we are tired of addressing the issues, you will claim victory...good for you.
TAM:)
Click to expand...

On that you're very correct, that's his MO.

Slayhamlet said:
Yep. But by "foreign experts" they really only mean Danny Jowenko, who happens to disagree with troofers about WTC1 and 2, and who now refuses to talk about WTC7 since making his careless and imprudent claim that it was a CD before he knew all the facts.
Click to expand...

Just to get everyone further up to speed, he also uses Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider as 'foreign experts', who've said this (bolding and highlighting mine):
"In my opinion the building WTC 7 [610 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane]was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."
linky
Click to expand...

As nicepants said, without saying "with certainty" requires them to leave the door open for the collapse to have happened absent explosives.

mjd doesn't seem to care:

mjd1982@SLCF said:
This is true, if one accepts "with great probability" as being (more or less) synonymous with "certainly"
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=19150
Click to expand...

ConspiRaider said:
(snip)
So let's hope those foreign CD experts were French or something like that.
Click to expand...

They're Swiss; does that count?:D

Stankeye said:
:socks:
Click to expand...
Nope. He could be here for the long haul.

He's big on 'bending' facts to fit his theories:
mjd1982@SLCF said:
No, it is bending, although this can be misleading. You take the established truth, and you fit whatever other facts are necessary into the parameters it provides.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=schneider&pid=19139
Click to expand...

Indeed, just do a search at the SLCF for 'bend' in posts by mjd1982 to see what I mean:

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=fc80a2da27beec0d0ff88e8ff99689a4&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&highlite=bend
 
Stellafane said:
On second thought, I think I will participate in this thread, because this forum is such a wealth of incredibly valuable information, that even the likes of me can use it to refute every 9/11 CT theory to date. For example, in response to the comment about we OCT supporters being either misinformed or deluded, I direct your attention to this. These are your 9/11 CT shining lights, the people who made the movement what it is today. Look at that list -- kind of reads like a stroll though Who's Who in the Land of the Misinformed and Deluded, doesn't it? With these people as your leaders, just where do you think you're going to end up?

But hey, let's play along and suppose that I'm one of the misinformed ones. Please pick from that list the one person whose body of work is most likely to lift me from my misinformed state, and finally allow me to see the truth concerning 9/11. Please point out the one who has brought forward the most irrefutable facts, that can only be answered by willful ignorance or delusion. Seriously, direct me to your most cogent, informed, and persuasive source of information, and allow me to be enlightened.
Click to expand...

Wow now that is a tough call but once you have figured out the answer mjd1982 maybe you could look at this list and tell me why these guys don't agree with you or the super sleuths who run the truth movement.
 
mjd1982 said:
Hello all!
Alright… Let’s go! Starting from the top would be best. I await your responses.M
Click to expand...
You posted the largest pile of dung I have seen in a long time. Not one new thing. Why are 9/11 truth researchers so bad. You post stuff that does not support a single conclusion you have made. You are like DRG, with some hearsay here, some hearsay there, you connect the dots with no logical critical thinking involved, you ignore evidence and other ideas, and just declare there should be another investigation. Fine, I vote you and the truth movement raise money and do it yourself. Good old Yankee ingenuity and take the millions Dylan rakes off of dupes and apply that money to find some real experts to do your bidding. BTW, the experts in the truth movement now maintain ideas that are nuttier than your ideas.

I hate to estimate the money already being swindled out of willing dolts on 9/11 truth. That money alone could be used to get you guys some education or mental health help.

The only truth from 9/11 truth has been the same old junk. Over and over again. Not a rational thought or evidence of critical thinking from anyone. Find some better material.
 
mjd1982 said:
WTC7

Another indication of how little the public knows about 9/11 can be gauged from the fact that the vast majority of people in this country are not even aware how many buildings fell on 9/11. And those that are will most likely never have seen the 3rd and final building to fall that day, World Trade Centre 7, collapse.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it is striking how little folks know about how many buildings fell on 9/11. The answer is NOT three.

The official government story is that the tower was damaged by falling debris, and so fell in a manner that just looked like an implosion, but it was actually structural failure. Any doubts as to this can be put to bed by the testimony of 1st responders both at the time, and subsequently, who state they were told to get away from the building, because it was about to be imploded:
(Google video- WTC7- The smoking gun of 9/11)
Click to expand...

When you present references here, it is generally a good idea if they not turn out to be "Google Video" and "YouTube".

In line with this notion of foreknowledge as to the collapse of WTC7, is the astonishing recent revelation that the BBC and CNN both reported the collapse of the building while it was still standing, and in the case of the BBC, while the reporter was standing in front of it:
Click to expand...

And this proves what? That the BBC and CNN rushed a story that had been anticipated for hours?
 
CurtC said:
Got any evidence, besides "common knowledge"? I dislike the man's legacy intensely, but I've looked and have seen nothing reliable about cross-dressing. The fact that Oliver Stone put it in JFK also makes me think it isn't true.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really being serious. I was playing with mjd1982 about him quoting JEH out of context.
 
Plot Warning Follows -

Anything you notice that mjd posts that has ass-all to do with his argument will cause him to invoke the "NASA chimp" insult on you with great vengeance and furious anger.

And yes, this is the same mjd1982 who looked a picture of the collapsed WTC 3 and said it was still standing.

The same mjd1982 who announced he had done exhaustive research on 9/11, and then claimed that William Rodriguez was awarded the Congressional Medal Of Honor for his actions.

The same mjd1982 who argued that implode means the same thing as explode.

And this is, in fact, the very same mjd1982 who went on for days on how noisy NYC was when WTC7 collapsed, and posted videos that went so far against his stance that he then argued that noise was simply not an issue.

Have fun, folks
 
Last edited:
Unsecured Coins said:
Plot Warning Follows -

Anything you notice that mjd posts that has ass-all to do with his argument will cause him to invoke the "NASA chimp" insult on you with great vengeance and furious anger.
Click to expand...
Ook!

Unsecured Coins said:
And yes, this is the same mjd1982 who looked a picture of the collapsed WTC 3 and said it was still standing.
.
Click to expand...
oook?

Unsecured Coins said:
The same mjd1982 who announced he had done exhaustive research on 9/11, and then claimed that William Rodriguez was awarded the Congressional Medal Of Honor for his actions.
Click to expand...
OOk. Oook! Oook?



Unsecured Coins said:
The same mjd1982 who argued that implode means the same thing as explode.

And this is, in fact, the very same mjd1982 who went on for days on how noisy NYC was when WTC7 collapsed, and posted videos that went so far against his stance that he then argued that noise was simply not an issue.

Have fun, folks
Click to expand...
Ook Ook Ook! ook?
 
rwguinn said:
Ook!


oook?

OOk. Oook! Oook?




Ook Ook Ook! ook?
Click to expand...

Damn, I wish I could nominate this -- but how do you explain why anyone should vote for "Ook Ook Ook"?

Easily the laugh of the day. My eight year old son keeps demanding "what's so funny?" If only I could explain...
 
mjd1982 said:
Hello all!
Click to expand...
Hi!

Nothing new then? Nothing that hasn't been addressed here and elsewhere a thousand times?

May I ask why you posted this, if you have nothing new to discuss? Please use the forum search function to find the relevant threads. You'll also find answers to all your questions in the documents linked in my signature. Good luck in your search for enlightenment.

ETA: Ook!
 
Last edited:
Unsecured Coins said:
Anything you notice that mjd posts that has ass-all to do with his argument will cause him to invoke the "NASA chimp" insult on you with great vengeance and furious anger.
Click to expand...

How ironic that mjd refers to us as chimps, yet he is the one hurling the intellectual feces.
 
mjd1982'a style of "debate"

From dealing with him the last few months at SLC...

1. Post the extremely long "blizzard of BS" post.
2. Challenge anyone to debunk it.
3. Point 1 is debunked.
4. mjd1982 calls you a chimp and drops a 100 links that may or may not have anything to do with the points raised.
5. You go through the first 5 links, and are unable to see where any of them support his points.
6. mjd1982 calls you a chimp.
7. repeat ad nauseam.
 
apathoid said:
Hi mjd1982, welcome to the forum.

I'm with Dr Adequate, it seems like you're arguing both MIHOP and LIHOP theories. You talk about the ignored warnings(Lihop) and then jump into controlled demolition of WTC7 and the BBC being "in on it"(Mihop). That's a fairly unique stance..
Click to expand...
Oh, that's been pointed out to him before. He doesn't seem to see the inherent contradictions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom