Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Ultimate who did 9/11 thread Ultimate who did 9/11 thread
View Poll Results: Who was responsible for 9/11
Al Qaeda acting alone
167 34.65%
Al Qaeda with the help of Iran
30 6.22%
Saudi Arabia
20 4.15%
Israel
34 7.05%
The USA
128 26.56%
The Gingerbread man
70 14.52%
Other
33 6.85%

01-29-2015 , 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
Primarily because truthers tend to come across as mouth breathing nut jobs who think the government is simultaneously geniuses and imbeciles.
Three factors at work here -

1) Alex Jones, David Icke, 'no planes,' 'space lasers,' the normal tendency for everything outside the mainstream to attract neurotics basically (future Orwell Explains You to You potential there but I digress)

2) sheer prejudice from a lifetime of being swaddled in the US corporate media, which, sorry to be the one to tell you this, has been deep-state compromised since forever and since its buy-up by half a dozen huge corporate firms 15-20 years ago has essentially become Pravda

3) the 'geniuses & imbeciles' paradigm - this is actually an understandable head-scratcher for most people, based on a misunderstanding by the public of how governments work, particularly from the 20th century on. That is to say, a lack of recognition of the difference between the massive bureaucratic structure of the public government & its offices, and the private networks of interest groups that shape and execute policy whether in or out of power officially. This separation is particularly striking in the modern day with the exponential growth of the 'deep state' - the military-intelligence complexes and their completely black budgets, the revolving door between corporate boards and appointed officials, so on and so forth. The former is the 'imbecile' factor; the latter is the 'evil genius' factor, to put it in an absurdly oversimplified way.

I again have to take a moment to express my astonishment at the fact that the 'politics unchained' section of a board of allegedly intelligent, skeptical, anti-superstition and anti-conventional wisdom people is apparently unfamiliar with what I again think of as basic concepts from about a year's worth of off-hours digging and research.
01-29-2015 , 04:34 PM
The problem is we're not anti-fact.
01-29-2015 , 04:38 PM
But when you're presented with facts you don't like you won't even look at them. You won't even let them into your consideration for fear of being tainted.
01-29-2015 , 04:42 PM
The problem is most of the facts have no way of being independently verified and are often grossly misrepresented by conspiracy theorists.

Take for example the fact that the NIST didn't present a collapse mechanism for the WTC. The way Deuces interprets that and presents that fact is 100% dishonest and inaccurate.

So frankly I'm not going to expend the effort wading through this crap in a whole new area - especially one where it's actually hard to prove/disprove what's being said.
01-29-2015 , 04:42 PM
Willful ignorance!
01-29-2015 , 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Orwell
But does all this mean that the general public should not be more scientifically educated? On the contrary! All it means is that scientific education for the masses will do little good, and probably a lot of harm, if it simply boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, etc., to the detriment of literature and history. Its probable effect on the average human being would be to narrow the range of his thoughts and make him more than ever contemptuous of such knowledge as he did not possess: and his political reactions would probably be somewhat less intelligent than those of an illiterate peasant who retained a few historical memories and a fairly sound aesthetic sense.
DING DING DING DING DING

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/sc...nglish/e_scien
01-29-2015 , 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjshabado
The problem is we're not anti-fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjshabado
So frankly I'm not going to expend the effort wading through this crap in a whole new area
I'M NOT ANTI-FACT EXCEPT WHEN I'M ANTI-FACT
01-29-2015 , 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anacardo
I'M NOT ANTI-FACT EXCEPT WHEN I'M ANTI-FACT
What he is saying is that you can't just take every lunatic stepping up and yelling "LOOK AT THESE FACTS" that have absolutely no corroborating evidence and evaluate every single one of them. We don't have enough hours in the day. Luckily there are people out there that do stuff like that for a living and we are able to evaluate their valuations of these issues.
01-29-2015 , 05:13 PM
Why can't you at least start with what actual 9/11 fact-finding commissioners have actually said on the actual record? Maybe the daylight between just that and what you think you know would make you a little less eager to consider yourself 'informed.' You have plenty of time to have the same ****ing conversation on the same minutiae for 2900 posts on something purporting itself to be the 'ultimate 9/11 thread.'

Indeed there are those people you mention; they're just not the people you think they are.

At least you've acknowledged your willful ignorance insofar as you've started arguing for its actual *merits.* Jesus.
01-29-2015 , 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anacardo
Why can't you at least start with what actual 9/11 fact-finding commissioners have actually said on the actual record? Maybe the daylight between just that and what you think you know would make you a little less eager to consider yourself 'informed.'

Indeed there are those people you mention; they're just not the people you think they are.
What in particular are you talking about? Are we talking about the people involved? The reasoning for 9/11 happening?
01-29-2015 , 05:17 PM
Anacardo, since you're coming across as so damn desperate, pick one thing you wish we knew about 9/11 that you think we're being wilfully ignorant about.
01-29-2015 , 05:17 PM
Anyone who hasn't seen any of the well out together documentaries about 9/11 shouldn't be allowed to speak in this thread...

We were attacked by terrorist on 9/11, the American kind.
01-29-2015 , 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anacardo
I'M NOT ANTI-FACT EXCEPT WHEN I'M ANTI-FACT
Lol, this isn't going to go well.

Those two quotes are in no way contradictory...
01-29-2015 , 05:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BELLIGERENT_
Anyone who hasn't seen any of the well out together documentaries about 9/11 shouldn't be allowed to speak in this thread...

We were attacked by terrorist on 9/11, the American kind.
Since JJ and I are being open to review at this point, please present your evidence of this
01-29-2015 , 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukraprout
I think this is the more appropriate NIST faq quote, since Deuces wants to talk energy and speed:
Quote:
The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.
This is why it's important to know what NIST is actually referring to, in their own words if you will just read.

They. Are. Referring. To. The. Section. Just. Below. Impact. In. Their. Explanation. Of. The. Collapse. Initiation.
01-29-2015 , 07:47 PM
"the stories below"
Note the plural. And it's an answer to:
Quote:
11. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
Maybe you should consider reading that faq.

Also, stfu and read the paper.
01-29-2015 , 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjshabado
Anacardo, since you're coming across as so damn desperate, pick one thing you wish we knew about 9/11 that you think we're being wilfully ignorant about.
Just one? Thinking about it, particularly in the context of an article / interview / podcast that isn't too lengthy.
01-29-2015 , 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuces McKracken
This is why it's important to know what NIST is actually referring to, in their own words if you will just read.

They. Are. Referring. To. The. Section. Just. Below. Impact. In. Their. Explanation. Of. The. Collapse. Initiation.
What point are you trying to make with that statement?
01-29-2015 , 09:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anacardo
Just one? Thinking about it, particularly in the context of an article / interview / podcast that isn't too lengthy.
Just one. And then we'll see how we do with that.
01-30-2015 , 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
What point are you trying to make with that statement?
That knowing the scope of the investigation, as clearly stated by NIST in the report and has been quoted to you, will help you interpret what they are talking about in the FAQ.
01-30-2015 , 02:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
I gave you the actual laws that they have to follow, not a "general statement."
No you said NIST, in practice, actually has done does X at every opportunity. Then to support that, you posted a set of rules allowing NIST the option to do X, Y, or Z. Your support doesn't match your claim.

That's about as far as I should have to break it down for anyone.
Spoiler:

In before you show again you're not just anyone, but extra extra special.
01-30-2015 , 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlevictory
1. But they didn't directly address it, as Bazant states in his 2008 paper:
hahahahahahahaaaaaa

Even this Bazant dude is saying that NIST didn't provide a complete collapse mechanism? Well if the great Bazant said it then it must be true since his word has been elevated above the the 4 year $20 million NIST effort by the new wave truther regime here.
01-30-2015 , 03:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjshabado
I don't understand how fire collapsing a building is bewildering though...
JJ I think you should reread my post directed at you concerning limitations.
01-30-2015 , 03:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjshabado
The problem is we're not anti-fact.
I laughed pretty damn hard at this inadvertently funny little derp chirp, in response to such a lucid post on a nuanced topic. You should have been flooded with understanding but instead you quip back the biggest anti-fact statement imaginable, the one which gives you cover for all the other anti-fact missions. Too much.

The flurry of activity in this thread has been a treat, thanks in large part to you JJ. You coincitards are anti-fact the way fat people are anti-jogging or the way small children are anti-medicine: you want no part of it but in the back of your minds you know it's the right thing.
01-30-2015 , 03:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuces McKracken
Kukra, you know damn well you can answer that question without taking a measurement. Do you measure the empty trunk of your car before you put one small bag of groceries in it?

Now, you already made the mistake allowing the discussion to get to the point of this comparison. Save what dignity you have left and just answer the question. Just admit there is a major conservation of energy crisis in the official story. Again, we have narrowed it down to a comparison:1-2 seconds of moving the top portion through air or crushing hundreds of thousands of pounds of steel support in the portion of the towers below the impact site- which energy requirement (if any) is higher and why?
Hey Deuces I still cant figure out how to compare these energies easily! (yes, I'm that dumb.)

I know your in-depth analysis of the scope of the NIST investigation is taking you a lot of time, but if you could find a moment to explain the energy thing to me it would be great. I mean, if you can show me that there is a major energy problem in the progressive collapse explanation I will definitely admit that you were right. I will even apologize for being aggressively wrong and stubborn and wasting everyone's time. You cannot abandon the energy argument now that you are so close from unveiling the truth.

      
m