ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags part 2 , loose change , 911 conspiracy theory

Closed Thread
Old 25th May 2006, 11:02 AM   #161
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,108
Smile But there is no Moon!

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
And in some cases they're the same person.

See: Eric Hufschmid (and roll in moon-hoaxer while you're at it)

Welcome to the forums, Kiwiwriter.
Yes, Eric Hufschmid...that's a name I've heard....apparently he's the East Coast distributor of neo-Nazi weirdness/conspiracy theories/anti-Semitism. I hope there's a resource where I can look him up.

Yes, 9/11 nuts and Nazis are often one and the same. But once you're into the basic conspiracy theory that everything is controlled by a shadowy and powerful entity, then all these major events are connected.

The other interesting thing to me is the outrageous sense of self-importance conspiracy theorists attach to themselves. They act as if they are the center of the universe...always on the edge of defeat at the hands of their oppressors, while simultaneously leading a popular charge about to win victory to defeat those same opporessors. The reality is that outside of their fellow paranoids, nobody cares about them.

Also, the 9/11 butcher's bill includes one New Zealander.
Kiwiwriter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:07 AM   #162
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,108
Smile Coping with anti-Semites

Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
Welcome Kiwiwriter



I really don't understand why this particular ethnic group/religion is always the target for such accusations, throughout history. Good thing you have kept your sense of humour about it!
I subscribe to the Mel Brooks/Deborah Lipstadt theory...if you laugh at neo-Nazis and their ilk, make them look ridiculous, they cease to be a threat. They get off on frightening people...it gives them a sense of power and self-importance they do not merit or deserve. Laughing at them is better.

Deborah Lipstadt, who had to fight that noted neo-Nazi, David Irving, in London's libel courts, writes at the end of her book of the importance of slapping the jester's cap and bells on neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, and other lunatics. She's absolutely right.

As I say, I wrote about it on my web page, which is my plug, I guess.
Kiwiwriter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:07 AM   #163
SBrown
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 314
So you say James Randi does not feel the need to touch this subject. I am awaiting his reply from my email from him.

It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum. You guys seem very in tune to counteracting these theories. I look around and see this thread has 119 pages about the loose change group, yet no other threads that I see counteracting any other 911 CT group. Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?

My last question is there does not seem to be a lot of folks that are here disputing your claims. Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job? Or are people not willing to challenge the stronger members of this forum?

Thank you.
SBrown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:07 AM   #164
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,827
Originally Posted by Kiwiwriter View Post
The other interesting thing to me is the outrageous sense of self-importance conspiracy theorists attach to themselves. They act as if they are the center of the universe...always on the edge of defeat at the hands of their oppressors, while simultaneously leading a popular charge about to win victory to defeat those same opporessors. The reality is that outside of their fellow paranoids, nobody cares about them.
I've said it on this thread twice: Conspiracy theories are the opiates of the self-impressed.

On the bautforum, someone stated the relevance of CT'ers as this:

Conspiracy Theorists are like guard dogs that growl and bark at every shadow. In their minds, they think they are doing a wonderful job. In reality, they are worse than useless since they cause so many false alarms the real intruders get through.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:11 AM   #165
Abbyas
Muse
 
Abbyas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 684
Quote:
Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?
Interesting question. I seriously doubt anyone here feels threatened by the 9/11 truth movement.

Quote:
My last question is there does not seem to be a lot of folks that are here disputing your claims. Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job? Or are people not willing to challenge the stronger members of this forum?
I'm sure you will get many responses to this, but there isn't anyone here that is stronger than anyone else. You will find that anyone that can present their case in a clear way that can stand up to the evidence or rebuttal will tend to earn the respect of this forum, new or regular poster.

Also, if there is another documentary or theory that you would like to discuss, please feel free to begin a new topic.
Abbyas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:13 AM   #166
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by SylviaBrown View Post
So you say James Randi does not feel the need to touch this subject. I am awaiting his reply from my email from him.
Who said that? I don't think anyone can speak for Mr. Randi except himself.

Quote:
It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum. You guys seem very in tune to counteracting these theories. I look around and see this thread has 119 pages about the loose change group, yet no other threads that I see counteracting any other 911 CT group. Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?
Well, delphi_ote started it. Literally, as his was the OP. LC seems to have the highest profile in mainstream media and, just as Sylvia, or Edwards, or Geller are high profile, you deal with those first as it is the easiest way to get the other side of the equation into visibility.

Quote:
My last question is there does not seem to be a lot of folks that are here disputing your claims. Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job? Or are people not willing to challenge the stronger members of this forum?
Thank you.
I think you'll find the majority of posters here deal with corrobatable evidence, sound logic, rational reasoning, and an effort to limit personal bias when viewing such things. Tenure, or whatever you want to call it that "stronger members" have is moot. If the evidence speaks for itself, is clear, and independently verifyable, you claim will have merit.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:14 AM   #167
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,827
Originally Posted by SylviaBrown View Post
So you say James Randi does not feel the need to touch this subject. I am awaiting his reply from my email from him.

It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum.
Maybe. I'd say it would be lightweight version of the euphoria JFK CTs felt after the release of the Ollie Stone movie. It eventually dries up a bit when people get a handful of facts in their system.

Quote:
You guys seem very in tune to counteracting these theories. I look around and see this thread has 119 pages about the loose change group, yet no other threads that I see counteracting any other 911 CT group. Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?
Loose Change is merely the latest popularization of the nonsense. We have covered stuff from Dr. Jones and a few others. Its all pretty much the same material when you get down to it. What you are then left with is a Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea situation.

Loose Change also gets a bit more attention due to the cult-leader antics of their lord and master, Dylan Avery.

Quote:
My last question is there does not seem to be a lot of folks that are here disputing your claims. Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job? Or are people not willing to challenge the stronger members of this forum?
If you look back you will see there are a handful. They are not as smart as they think they are, and they are very bad art forming arguements. Look up the following names: geggy, love, thesyntaxera and conspiracybeliever. All of these folks came here convinced from all the high-fiving and backslapping on the other forum that their arguements were effectively invincible. in fact, they were horribly wrong and very bad about admitting it.

Edited due to a big speling error.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.

Last edited by kookbreaker; 25th May 2006 at 11:19 AM.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:16 AM   #168
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Kiwiwriter View Post
Also, the 9/11 butcher's bill includes one New Zealander.
And some children, wich to me have no nationality.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:20 AM   #169
joseph k.
Scholar
 
joseph k.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 86
I have lurked for awhile, so let my first post be rife with heartfelt thanks since it is highly deserved.
Thanks to Penn & Teller for introducing James Randi to me through some bullsh[8]t show. Thanks to James Randi for this forum and his many stellar works. Thanks to Gravy for the devastatingly thorough work he's done, as well as his continued and future efforts. I have sent tens of people over here, challenging them to take a jog through the gauntlet, and as expected none tried arguing their inane points. Hopefully they learned something, at least. I have also linked and/or sent the LC guides to anyone I know who bought a bit of that mirage-collage. Thanks to the insight and comic stylings of Delphi, nicK dangeR, i assume, Wildcat and many others. I needed laughs to unravel this excruciatingly twisted thread. It is over 115 pages of babysitting and I read every post, the very useful evidentiary links, as well as too many LC posts (sad, scary and funny all at once) .Thanks to folks like Geggy, Alek, Roxdog and the rest of the LC forum for providing themselves as perfect examples why these uncorroraborated theories are sad exercises in mastubatory cyclical [il]logic.

Again, thanks to everyone!!! You have made my life easier and this forum is like the beacon of sense for which I have been searching. Perhaps, I can find a way to help, though it hardly seems needed.


Sincerely,
David Icke


.................kidding.

Anyway here's a funny link you may or may not have seen from Mr. "Painful Questions":

www[dot]erichufschmid[dot]net/Axis_of_Perverts2[dot]html

k.
joseph k. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:22 AM   #170
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by SylviaBrown View Post
So you say James Randi does not feel the need to touch this subject. I am awaiting his reply from my email from him.
Please ask permission to post it here if he replies.

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown View Post
It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum. You guys seem very in tune to counteracting these theories. I look around and see this thread has 119 pages about the loose change group, yet no other threads that I see counteracting any other 911 CT group. Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?
There are no other threads devoted to other 9/11 CT groups, but this thread touches on many of them, and Gravy has moved on to other groups in his formal critiques (see his sig). Loose Change became a focal point because of its rapid spread through Google video, and many of us had stumbled across it on our own or had had people recommend it to us or ask us about it. Dylan Avery, for better or for worse, has become the de facto flag-bearer for the 911 Truth Movement. As such, he gets the lion's share of attention. I hope that answers your question--I don't really see it in terms of the either/or that you presented.

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown View Post
My last question is there does not seem to be a lot of folks that are here disputing your claims. Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job? Or are people not willing to challenge the stronger members of this forum?
It's my belief, based on anecdotal evidence and at least one informal poll, that it's almost unanimous among JREF regulars that there's little to no chance that 9/11 was an Inside Job.

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown View Post
Thank you.
You're welcome.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:22 AM   #171
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Kiwiwriter View Post
I subscribe to the Mel Brooks/Deborah Lipstadt theory...if you laugh at neo-Nazis and their ilk, make them look ridiculous, they cease to be a threat.
Yeah, to me they don't even have to make them look ridiculous, the whole anti-semitism thing is so senseless by itself. Jewish humour has a way of making us see things as they are, they become laughable. It has a lot of existentialism to it doesn't it?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:23 AM   #172
Abbyas
Muse
 
Abbyas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 684
Quote:
.................kidding.
Please feel free to detail what you have a problem with. No one is stopping you, and I guarantee you will not be banned for dissent.
Abbyas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:25 AM   #173
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
If you look back you will see there are a handful. They are not as smart as they think they are, and they are very bad art forming arguements. Look up the following names: geggy, love, thesyntaxera and conspiracybeliever. All of these folks came here convinced from all the high-fiving and backslapping on the other forum that their arguements were effectively invincible. in fact, they were horribly wrong and very bad about admitting it.
Don't forget Alek!
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:25 AM   #174
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
 
Shrinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,048
Originally Posted by SylviaBrown View Post
So you say James Randi does not feel the need to touch this subject. I am awaiting his reply from my email from him.
Mr Randi is a magician who uses his knowledge to expose conmen. Conspiracy theorists don't use a lot of magic tricks in their act so it may not be of much interest to him. I get the feeling however that he will have some strong opinions.

Quote:

It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum. You guys seem very in tune to counteracting these theories. I look around and see this thread has 119 pages about the loose change group, yet no other threads that I see counteracting any other 911 CT group. Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?
Those of us outside the 'movement' don't see any difference between Loose Change and all the other 911 'groups'. In fact I don't think we see any distinction between them either. It's just a continuum with dumb at both ends.

Quote:
My last question is there does not seem to be a lot of folks that are here disputing your claims. Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job? Or are people not willing to challenge the stronger members of this forum?

Thank you.
This forum has its fair share of contrarians and clowns but this thread is far too big to interest their lazy minds. A CT supporter posted a poll a while back about the 911 issue. I think he only got 2 votes on his side. (Yes you can vote in your own poll.)
Shrinker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:27 AM   #175
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
 
Mr. Skinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,506
Originally Posted by Abbyas View Post
Please feel free to detail what you have a problem with. No one is stopping you, and I guarantee you will not be banned for dissent.
He was "kidding" about the David Icke signature.
__________________
U.S.L.S 1969-1975
"thanks skinny. And bite me. :-) - The Bad Astronomer, 11/15/02 on Paltalk
"He's harmless in a rather dorky way." - Katana
"Deities do not organize, they command." - Hokulele
Mr. Skinny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:28 AM   #176
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Abbyas View Post
Please feel free to detail what you have a problem with. No one is stopping you, and I guarantee you will not be banned for dissent.
edit: What Mr. Skinny said.

Welcome, joseph k.! I'm glad this forum has been a useful resource for you.

Last edited by chipmunk stew; 25th May 2006 at 11:33 AM.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:28 AM   #177
Abbyas
Muse
 
Abbyas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 684
Quote:
He was "kidding" about the David Icke signature.
Oh. I thought it was an "I like you...not!" after taking a look at the link he/she posted.
Abbyas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:28 AM   #178
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,108
Smile Mo-mentum

Originally Posted by SylviaBrown View Post

It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum. You guys seem very in tune to counteracting these theories. I look around and see this thread has 119 pages about the loose change group, yet no other threads that I see counteracting any other 911 CT group. Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?


Thank you.
I've heard Holocaust deniers spout the same thing...that Holocaust denial is gaining momentum. That the "Holocaust is unraveling faster than a three-dollar suit." But even the Holocaust deniers themselves admitted at the time that David Irving's 2000 London legal defeat was a crusher for their movement, after blasting Irving for not putting other deniers on the stand. They're angrier at him now for backpedaling on the Holocaust when he stood trial in Austria. So I'm amused by that "momentum" quip.

Also, I think Loose Change is getting a lot of attention now because every time I check E-bay, someone's selling the darn thing for $1.50 a pop, so it's seemingly ubiquitous. That makes it like the class nerd who insists on coming to school wearing a suit and tie...a very obvious target.
Kiwiwriter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:30 AM   #179
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Hello again, Thanks for the comments. You are all correct in that I don’t have specific numbers. I said “all of the beams cut,” when it really should be “most, or allot of the beams were cut.” (I was not suggesting that a worker cutting steel beams apart with a torch was a conspirator. That of course would be ludicrous.) I used many generalizations that for me, gave a “picture” or “overview,” since no, I don’t have access to the actual numbers. However it seems like anybody who believes the official NIST account is likewise accepting generalizations, which in my opinion, are much more vague than the ones I used. I also saw somebody point to a link, explaining the cause of the collapse. (I was going to put the link, but the system won't let me being a nubie. whoever posted it, if you can repost) This explanation, in my opinion, is much more vague, and leaves out many factors, like the pulverizing of concrete, the horizontal movement of steel, the breaking of steel bonds (Correct, the steel was not one continuous piece, but pieces welded/bolted together.)

My question then is: why are you so convinced of the validity of this explanation, and of the NIST report? They have absolutely no math. They left out many important points.

I would love to have all of the math numbers, however, the pieces of evidence, the steel, the concrete, the “puzzle pieces” of the towers are all long gone. Nobody can do the math now. And the NIST wrote an official report without using these pieces. I consider this to be incompetence.

But, instead of crying over spilled-milk, or calling “fowl,” that all of the hard physical evidence is gone, I am trying to put together a “picture.” To me the analogy would be “Is $100 enough to buy 5 music CDs, 4 hamburgers, and a large pepperoni pizza?” You might say “No,” but I think most reasonable people would say “Yes,” or at least, “Very highly probable.” In contrast, “Is $100 enough to buy 5 CDs, 4 hamburgers, a 24” TV, and cheap portable mp3 player,” I think most people would say “No.”

Is the top of a building able to fall very fast, pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain, eject steel out in a complete circle around its footprint?

I say no.

I chose not to discus energy, because in my opinion/experience, it relies too much on references, which, can be a little confusing and too complicated. (Yes, I know you’re all laughing at me right now.) An entry in wikipedia says, “For example, a speeding bullet has kinetic energy in the reference frame of non-moving observer, but it has zero kinetic energy in its proper (co-moving) reference frame -- because it takes zero work to accelerate a bullet from zero speed to zero speed.”

How about if we come up with an equation that balances the work done (the amount of time the top floors fell + the pulverizing of all of the concrete + the breaking of most vertical steel welds + horizontal ejection of many steel beams)

With

The energy available, which was the mass of top floors accelerated until they hit the ground. We will take as a given the steel cut by the plane. We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash. I think it safe to assume the steel below the crash was still sound.

This will be our equation. Let me hear your opinions for how to set up this equation. I’m sure you all will have no problem with general numbers (for weight of steel, weight of concrete, strength of steel, etc.), since you had no problem with the NIST version that had absolutely no specifics.


(Tailgator, your comment about, extra floors means extra mass has problems in it. I see your logic, but you’re forgetting that extra floors also means extra load bearings to have to overcome. The energy/force that they add ends up being cancelled out because of the structural support that they provide. In the end, a true equation would be VERY complicated, and I’m sure I would not understand it. I do know what you mean, you watch the videos, you see floors falling, you see **** flying all over the place. “What’s the big deal?” I never saw a big deal until maybe a year ago. I think it’s because we’re seeing something we’ve never seen before. We’ve never seen a building that size come down before. So it’s easy to accept the explanation that “the building destroyed itself from pancaking floors.” Our “gut reaction” is that it all makes sense. To me it doesn’t. The Nova special was for ****.)

I also want to add a clarification about “collapsing in its footprint.” Steel was found hundreds of feet from the towers “footprint,’ but this steel was ejected outward. We see it happen in the video. The building did not tip over. There was no angular momentum. Anything outside of the footprint was ejected in a circle around the “Footprint.”

Anybody who wants to participate the formulation of this equation, please submit your opinions. If you feel the NIST report with no specifics is adequate, please explain why.

Thanks.
Mutton-Head is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:34 AM   #180
joseph k.
Scholar
 
joseph k.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 86
Me and my "jokes". Yes, I was kidding about being David Icke. I could be wrong, though, maybe his most recent book "proves" that he and I are both the same exact lizard inside.

Not a very successful comedic beginning, luckily this isn't the humor subforum (purposely).
joseph k. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:35 AM   #181
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,108
Smile Humor and looney tunes

Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
Yeah, to me they don't even have to make them look ridiculous, the whole anti-semitism thing is so senseless by itself. Jewish humour has a way of making us see things as they are, they become laughable. It has a lot of existentialism to it doesn't it?
Another interesting thing about these fanatics (all fanatics, really) is how they are humorless...notice how they explode when challenged with humor. There's a guy at The History Channel who's a perfect example of that. Yep, a neo-Nazi, hates Jews, spouts conspiracy garbage, has been banned under 47 identities, but keeps coming back for more banning. All he gets now is ridicule, and when he does, he gets enraged...hurls obscenities, demands his opponents kill themselves, roars about his own self-importance.

You see this with other fanatical groups...they can't laugh at anything or anyone, particularly themselves...except when they're stomping on their "enemy." And those "jokes" are merely vicious and cruel.

Another thing connected to the humorlessness is their inability to realize what a negative public image they create with their behavior, statements, and antics. When they spout utter rubbish about conspiracies, space aliens, and the Trilateral Commission, people start laughing. When they denounce their opponents with obscenities, vulgarities, and personal abuse, people turn away. But the fanatics don't realize they're losing their audience.

Being unable to properly assign blame and responsibility, and being convinced that they are bringing the definitive truth to the world (and therefore should be the objects of respect, awe, and fear), they blame their straw enemies: the Jews, the Bilderbergers, the World Wildlife Fund, and so on.

Lyndon LaRouche is a good example of this.
Kiwiwriter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:36 AM   #182
Abbyas
Muse
 
Abbyas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 684
Quote:
Me and my "jokes". Yes, I was kidding about being David Icke. I could be wrong, though, maybe his most recent book "proves" that he and I are both the same exact lizard inside.
Ooops! I think it was a problem of me and my "oversensitive bs detector". My apologies.
Abbyas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:36 AM   #183
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,827
Originally Posted by Kiwiwriter View Post
I've heard Holocaust deniers spout the same thing...that Holocaust denial is gaining momentum. That the "Holocaust is unraveling faster than a three-dollar suit." But even the Holocaust deniers themselves admitted at the time that David Irving's 2000 London legal defeat was a crusher for their movement, after blasting Irving for not putting other deniers on the stand. They're angrier at him now for backpedaling on the Holocaust when he stood trial in Austria. So I'm amused by that "momentum" quip.
What comes to mind with me and the 'momentum' crap is on USENET in the middle-late 90's the following phrase was heard from a few diehard supporters:

'Scientology Keeps on Expanding and Expanding!"
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:39 AM   #184
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,108
Smile Expanding scientology

Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
What comes to mind with me and the 'momentum' crap is on USENET in the middle-late 90's the following phrase was heard from a few diehard supporters:

'Scientology Keeps on Expanding and Expanding!"
And it did.

Until Katie Holmes gave birth!
Kiwiwriter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:44 AM   #185
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
(Yes, I know you’re all laughing at me right now.)
I think I can speak for the other posters and say we are not, we value your point of view and your thoughts.

Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
The energy available, which was the mass of top floors accelerated until they hit the ground. We will take as a given the steel cut by the plane. We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash. I think it safe to assume the steel below the crash was still sound.
That's a good point tho. But with all due respect, I think it's a little too quick to jump to the conclusion of explosive demolition.

Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
(Tailgator, your comment about, extra floors means extra mass has problems in it. I see your logic, but you’re forgetting that extra floors also means extra load bearings to have to overcome. The energy/force that they add ends up being cancelled out because of the structural support that they provide. In the end, a true equation would be VERY complicated, and I’m sure I would not understand it. I do know what you mean, you watch the videos, you see floors falling, you see **** flying all over the place. “What’s the big deal?” I never saw a big deal until maybe a year ago. I think it’s because we’re seeing something we’ve never seen before. We’ve never seen a building that size come down before. So it’s easy to accept the explanation that “the building destroyed itself from pancaking floors.” Our “gut reaction” is that it all makes sense. To me it doesn’t. The Nova special was for ****.)
Why is what I outlined so unbeleavable to you? Why is the "unexpected" so difficult to accept? Why does this "uncertainty" and "unknown" factor of the equation the cause for such conspiracy beliefs?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:47 AM   #186
dubfan
Critical Thinker
 
dubfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 452
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
My question then is: why are you so convinced of the validity of this explanation, and of the NIST report? They have absolutely no math. They left out many important points.
NIST used finite element analysis to arrive at their conclusions. Do you know what that is?

If you'd like to look at some math that's a little more accessible, I suggest you look at Dr. Frank Greening's work. Links to his papers can be found here:

http://911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

Like you, he has questions about the NIST report, but none of his questions lead to a conclusion that controlled demo was responsible.

There is a question about whether or not the figure he uses for M is correct (5M tonnes vs. 3.5M-4.0M tonnes), and that has some bearing on some of the downstream calculations. It appears that 5M tonnes is too high a figure, and the number is closer to 4M tonnes.

It would be a good exercise for you and help establish your credibility in this forum if you could argue successfully that a figure of 5M tonnes vs. 4.0M tonnes affects the basic conclusion of his analysis, which is that structural damage from the aircraft alone was sufficient to cause the collapse.
__________________
"I'd rather be Locked up with those throat slitting terrorists, then with JREF." -- e-dog@Loose Change

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." -- Jonathan Swift
dubfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:48 AM   #187
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
 
Shrinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,048
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post

Anybody who wants to participate the formulation of this equation, please submit your opinions. If you feel the NIST report with no specifics is adequate, please explain why.

Thanks.
Here's the problem Mutton-Head, you're trying to investigate the specifics of the collapse but you'll never have enough data to do it. I don't think there's even consensus on the mass of the towers let alone the trajectory and fate of every piece of metal and every lump of concrete. Simple physics equations aren't going to be of any use. That is why your equation isn't in the official reports.

In order to determine the cause of collapse, the investigators got off their asses, and looked at real evidence on-site. With the help of people who know what to look for, they found physical clues to the cause of the collapse. They failed to find clues for the alternative theories.
Shrinker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:50 AM   #188
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
... I used many generalizations that for me, gave a “picture” or “overview,” since no, I don’t have access to the actual numbers...
Generalizations are acceptable if they can be back by numbers. For example, we accept that the sun is "really hot". We accept this because it is possible to independently go and do the research, or read someone else's research that explains why the sun is "really hot".

Quote:
However it seems like anybody who believes the official NIST account is likewise accepting generalizations, which in my opinion, are much more vague than the ones I used. I also saw somebody point to a link, explaining the cause of the collapse. (I was going to put the link, but the system won't let me being a nubie. whoever posted it, if you can repost) This explanation, in my opinion, is much more vague, and leaves out many factors, like the pulverizing of concrete, the horizontal movement of steel, the breaking of steel bonds (Correct, the steel was not one continuous piece, but pieces welded/bolted together.)

My question then is: why are you so convinced of the validity of this explanation, and of the NIST report? They have absolutely no math. They left out many important points.
For the same reason we accept S. Hawking's work on black holes, or Einstein's work on relativity; the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.

Quote:
I would love to have all of the math numbers, however, the pieces of evidence, the steel, the concrete, the “puzzle pieces” of the towers are all long gone. Nobody can do the math now. And the NIST wrote an official report without using these pieces. I consider this to be incompetence.

But, instead of crying over spilled-milk, or calling “fowl,” that all of the hard physical evidence is gone, I am trying to put together a “picture.” To me the analogy would be “Is $100 enough to buy 5 music CDs, 4 hamburgers, and a large pepperoni pizza?” You might say “No,” but I think most reasonable people would say “Yes,” or at least, “Very highly probable.” In contrast, “Is $100 enough to buy 5 CDs, 4 hamburgers, a 24” TV, and cheap portable mp3 player,” I think most people would say “No.”
The thing you will find at this forum, the response to your $100 question will commonly be, "How much are the CDs, hamburgers, pizza, TV, and mp3 player?"

Quote:
Is the top of a building able to fall very fast, pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain, eject steel out in a complete circle around its footprint?

I say no.
Prove it. Otherwise it is no different than saying, "There is an invisible, heatless fire-breathing, flying dragon in my garage."

Quote:
I chose not to discus energy, because in my opinion/experience, it relies too much on references, which, can be a little confusing and too complicated. (Yes, I know you’re all laughing at me right now.) An entry in wikipedia says, “For example, a speeding bullet has kinetic energy in the reference frame of non-moving observer, but it has zero kinetic energy in its proper (co-moving) reference frame -- because it takes zero work to accelerate a bullet from zero speed to zero speed.”

How about if we come up with an equation that balances the work done (the amount of time the top floors fell + the pulverizing of all of the concrete + the breaking of most vertical steel welds + horizontal ejection of many steel beams)

With

The energy available, which was the mass of top floors accelerated until they hit the ground. We will take as a given the steel cut by the plane. We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash. I think it safe to assume the steel below the crash was still sound.

This will be our equation. Let me hear your opinions for how to set up this equation. I’m sure you all will have no problem with general numbers (for weight of steel, weight of concrete, strength of steel, etc.), since you had no problem with the NIST version that had absolutely no specifics.
Science doesn't work this way. You don't see cosmologists say, "Gee, all those moons around Jupiter make it a lot more difficult to calculate its orbit; let's just ignore them." and you don't see medical doctors saying, "Double-blind studies are a hassle. Screw it, let's just test it like homeopaths do."

Quote:
...The Nova special was for ****.)
Why? Or is this only a statement of opinion?

ETA: You can post links after your post count reaches 15, iirc.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 11:51 AM   #189
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
 
Shrinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,048
Originally Posted by joseph k. View Post
Me and my "jokes". Yes, I was kidding about being David Icke. I could be wrong, though, maybe his most recent book "proves" that he and I are both the same exact lizard inside.

Not a very successful comedic beginning, luckily this isn't the humor subforum (purposely).
Joseph K I though it was the funniest first post ever. However its JREF tradition for all the best gags to get an angry response from someone who misread it.
Shrinker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 12:00 PM   #190
Abbyas
Muse
 
Abbyas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 684
Quote:
Joseph K I though it was the funniest first post ever. However its JREF tradition for all the best gags to get an angry response from someone who misread it.
Angry? Who said I was angry? For cryin' out loud gall dang stupid (kicks chair and computer) mother-flippin' bah!
Abbyas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 12:01 PM   #191
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Mutton-Head--

Math:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=503
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9&postcount=22
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=158
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=85
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5&postcount=88
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=434

As for the NIST report--the one you're referring to is an executive summary. Like a Cliff's Notes version. They've put out far more detailed analyses: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 12:02 PM   #192
milesalpha
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by Kiwiwriter View Post
I've heard Holocaust deniers spout the same thing...that Holocaust denial is gaining momentum. That the "Holocaust is unraveling faster than a three-dollar suit." But even the Holocaust deniers themselves admitted at the time that David Irving's 2000 London legal defeat was a crusher for their movement, after blasting Irving for not putting other deniers on the stand. They're angrier at him now for backpedaling on the Holocaust when he stood trial in Austria. So I'm amused by that "momentum" quip.

Also, I think Loose Change is getting a lot of attention now because every time I check E-bay, someone's selling the darn thing for $1.50 a pop, so it's seemingly ubiquitous. That makes it like the class nerd who insists on coming to school wearing a suit and tie...a very obvious target.

Thanks for mentioning this, it is something I have noticed as well while butting heads with revisionists. I would add that, in the same way that CTs lack structural engineers, the revisionists lack real historians. I have been confronted with enough "articles" from psychiatrists, lawyers, political figures to paper a wall, but almost nothing from a trained historian (as opposed to an "internet-trained" historian). Not to mention that both sides want one more big investigation that, they fervently believe, will conclude that their side was right after all.
milesalpha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 12:02 PM   #193
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post

This post reminds me; anyone seen delphi_ote recently?
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 12:02 PM   #194
Manny
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,290
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
Anybody who wants to participate the formulation of this equation, please submit your opinions. If you feel the NIST report with no specifics is adequate, please explain why.
The main reason for me is that it fits with the other evidence. It's not like the buildings fell after being empty for months for no apparent reason and then cleaned themselves up. They were hit by airplanes. I saw one of them with my own eyes. Others saw the other one. If you look at closeups of videos of the collapses, you can see the buildings begin to buckle before they fall, and the buckling occurs at the points where the structure was already weakened by those airplanes.

People worked in those towers. They had their desks against the walls which would have had to be cut to insert explosives. They walked down stairwells which would have had to be similarly cut, used the bathrooms, etc. None of them -- none! -- reported any disturbance to the walls which would indicate that explosives had been placed in the buildings.

Other people worked for the building's security. After the 1993 bombing, every incoming vehicle was searched for explosives. Dogs, mirrors to see under the vehicles, interior searches, explosives sensors. It was a pretty expensive operation. Of the people who conducted that security, none of them -- none! -- reported any activity which would indicate that explosives had been placed in the buildings.

Then approximately 10,000 New York City Firefighters spent months at the scene. These are guys who lost 343 of their brothers and who are trained in many cases to examine fire debris to find the causes of fire. None of them -- none! -- reported finding any blasting caps or fuses or wires or anything else which indicate that explosives had been placed in the buildings.

No offense, since you seem so far at least to be less insane than some of the other Loosers, but it is literally insane to believe that there is any substantial evidence that explosives had been placed in the buildings. Actually, "insane" is by far the most favorable word which can be applied to persons who claim to believe it. There just isn't any evidence -- none! -- that explosives had been placed in the buildings.

Mutton-Head, arguing about the exact method of the collapse is an honorable pursuit. It can improve future building safety. Maybe the truss design wasn't what it was supposed to be. Maybe it was, but not properly maintained (fireproofing being allowed to narrow over time, etc.). Maybe there's a problem with the interior column design or the exterior ones. Maybe there are misunderstandings about material properties under extreme stress. But that argument has to be based on actual evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.
Manny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 12:05 PM   #195
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,850
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
Oh, he just cracks me up! I just love having a good laugh at his expense! ROFLMAO!!!

Long live Teh BOSS!!!
That's kinda sick.

I like how he writes "Movie" and "Members" with capital "M"s.

And what does ROFLMAO means ?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 12:06 PM   #196
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
That's kinda sick.

I like how he writes "Movie" and "Members" with capital "M"s.

And what does ROFLMAO means ?
Rolling On the Floor Laughing My A** Off.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 12:06 PM   #197
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,850
Originally Posted by chucksheen View Post
Any serious debaters should join the LooseChange911.com forums.

Just to get banned ?

Non merci.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 12:09 PM   #198
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Manny View Post
The main reason for me is that it fits with the other evidence.[...].
Nominated! Manny, you have a way of exactly formulating my ideas in clear english.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 12:10 PM   #199
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by chucksheen View Post
Any serious debaters should join the LooseChange911.com forums.
I'm banned there, chuck. Since Loose Change is the #1 video you promote, are you ready do discuss it here with me? Or would you like some time to study up? People on the LC forum have no problem throwing my name around over there and calling me a liar and my work garbage, but no one has come here to face me. Why do you think that is, chuck? They all know I'm here, and they all know I can't post there.

So are you ready, chuck, or would you like more time?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2006, 12:10 PM   #200
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,850
Originally Posted by chucksheen View Post
If you can prove the pancake theory, Jimmy Walters will reward you with $1,000,000. ReOpen911.org.
Maybe you'd care to build a miniature version of the damn thing and test it out, dufus.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.