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
 

Notices


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.
Reply
Old 17th September 2013, 01:14 AM   #41
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
The truth is never inconvenient to a genuine truth-seeker....
True enough BUT we are now in 2013 not 2006-7-8. Back then many - probably most - of the truth seekers were genuine and would accept reasoned arguments. That is not what we see now in 2013.

Without arguing what proportion of currently active truth movement members are "genuine truth-seeker" versus what proportion are not genuine......it is simple fact that we see untrue statements made by members of the truth movement.

One aspect of that untruth relevant to your current query is the meme that "free-fall means CD not 'natural collapse'". That statement is false. Basic physics. Arguments that assume "free-fall" == "CD" are false arguments.

The associated issue of "over G" acceleration - usually claiming that there cannot be "over G" in a "natural collapse" is also false. That also a matter of basic physics albeit it requires understanding of free body explanations and those are notoriously difficult for many folk to comprehend. Therefore it is doubly hard for people who are physics illiterate to comprehend.

Now if we have a "genuine truth-seeker" asking questions they should and, in 2006-8-9, usually did accept reasoned explanations of the physics. So reality is of no concern to those members of the truth movement. But currently the active membership of the truth movement seems balanced more to those who are not genuine truth-seekers.

Which answers your final question:
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
...Why exactly would you feel this fact would be inconvenient to the "truth movement" ?
It wouldn't be "inconvenient" to genuine truth seekers. But it will discomfort those who are not genuine and want to rely on false memes about "free fall == CD" or "cannot have 'over G' acceleration" OR any related false premises.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 07:03 AM   #42
ArchStanton
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 16
Apparently the OP listing the 24 alleged "hard facts" has been "auto moderated" for breaching rule 4 - thou shalt not copy and paste.

I'm not sure exactly what I was supposed to do there, since my post count is too low to post links. The board settings don't exactly make it easy for newcomers. :-/
ArchStanton is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 07:34 AM   #43
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by ArchStanton View Post
Apparently the OP listing the 24 alleged "hard facts" has been "auto moderated" for breaching rule 4 - thou shalt not copy and paste.

I'm not sure exactly what I was supposed to do there, since my post count is too low to post links. The board settings don't exactly make it easy for newcomers. :-/
Post a summary, then post the link with spaces added (or something). One of the members with link-posting privileges will helpfully fix it for you.
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 07:52 AM   #44
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,027
Originally Posted by ArchStanton View Post
Apparently the OP listing the 24 alleged "hard facts" has been "auto moderated" for breaching rule 4 - thou shalt not copy and paste.

I'm not sure exactly what I was supposed to do there, since my post count is too low to post links. The board settings don't exactly make it easy for newcomers. :-/
This one?

http://www.collective-evolution.com/...t-be-debunked/

If you want to up your post count, go over to community or humor and post in few threads. You'll have full privileges in no time.
__________________

Last edited by AJM8125; 17th September 2013 at 07:54 AM.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 08:16 AM   #45
ArchStanton
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
This one?
*link*
That's the one, thanks.
ArchStanton is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 11:00 AM   #46
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by ArchStanton View Post
"18) The 911 commission was given extremely limited funds.

$15 million was given to investigate 9/11.

(Over $60 Million was spent investigating Clintons’ affairs with Monica).
"
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
"This is a lie by omission. The "9/11 Commission" was only one small part of the investigation. "Truthers" really don't like truth.

The total investigation cost over shadows the "BJ" investigation by orders of magnitude.
"
So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 17th September 2013 at 11:03 AM.
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 11:17 AM   #47
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,583
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM
Absolutely not. Do you believe we spent $60 Million on the Monica Lewinsky investigation?

Do you also think this a fair representation as to what was spent on 9/11 investigations? Ever hear of the FBI or NIST?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 17th September 2013 at 11:20 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 11:23 AM   #48
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM
What's it like being a member of a moribund movement?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 11:39 AM   #49
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,923
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM
What does the 911 Commission have to do with 24 idiotic lies made up by nuts on the internet? The 911 truth movement has spent zero dollars looking up zero evidence and making zero difference. Save my typing practice.

You make a post of BS to support 2 hard facts? lol, you got nothing, and that sums up the 911 truth movement.

How much did the FBI investigation cost? The political investigation, you want the political one, or the criminal one?

Too bad the overwhelming evidence you have is fantasy.

Where is your 60 million come from?
The FBI, 911 commission, NIST, FEMA, NTSB, and more agencies were involved in investigating 911. Your 15 million is bogus, you left out all the rest.

You can't supply facts

Last edited by beachnut; 17th September 2013 at 12:39 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 12:20 PM   #50
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM
False comparison. The 9/11 Commission was one aspect of the investigation of the events of 9/11. There was also a FEMA report and of course the compendium of reports created by the NIST. The 9/11 Commission report is also the least technical of the three, involving mostly a review of history leading up to 9/11 as well as a fairly detailed description of the events of the day.
Ask yourself this; why did the author of this list of 24 issues ignore the budgets of all gov't sponsored investigations dealing with 9/11? Surely he/she knows of the existence of the FEMA and NIST reports.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 12:35 PM   #51
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,118
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM
MM: Protip, you might want to read the thread before you come out swinging given that statement was a lie has already been explained.

So.... yeah, thanks for posting.

/I'm baffled why truthers don't get royally pissed off when idiotic lists that contain easily explained lies are published.
__________________
Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzokís decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear
-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.
The Big Dog 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 12:37 PM   #52
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM
Did you even read the thread, before posting in it? Sheeesh!
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 12:46 PM   #53
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,424
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Welcome to the forum Arch. I can debunk every one of the 24. Every single one of those 24 fails the "So what?" test.

They are all claims without demonstrated "relevance" - unless they are shown to be both true and relevant they are pointless speculation. By relevance I mean "If the fact is true what does it change about 9/11 explanations and how does it effect those explanations."

So #1 is defeated on grounds of relevance. BUT sadly from my perspective most members here wont accept that simple fact. They enjoy the detailed technical arguments and don't like simple facts which pre-empt the need for technical discussion. "They" (both sides ) want to be convinced whether the claim for thermXte in dust is true or false.

No matter how many times we point out that it is irrelevant most people won't get the message and will merrily go pursuing the truth in the details which is precisely where the truthers want to keep the debate. And going round in circles.
For the record, I use the "so what" argument all the time now. It is so much more relaxing then endless games of whack-a-mole.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 12:47 PM   #54
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM
Sure. Planes crashing into buildings that were videotaped is a lot easier to prove than a blowjob by an intern.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 12:56 PM   #55
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,346
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Both those obsessions on the same level to this English born Aussie.

Footballs are spherical and the game played with bat and ball has the initial letter "C"

Only girls play camogie.

Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
T
Also, the planes they were struck by were both larger than the ones he had said they had been tested with, and didn't even exist when the towers were finished.
And moving much faster.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 01:31 PM   #56
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,424
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
False comparison. The 9/11 Commission was one aspect of the investigation of the events of 9/11. There was also a FEMA report and of course the compendium of reports created by the NIST. The 9/11 Commission report is also the least technical of the three, involving mostly a review of history leading up to 9/11 as well as a fairly detailed description of the events of the day.
Ask yourself this; why did the author of this list of 24 issues ignore the budgets of all gov't sponsored investigations dealing with 9/11? Surely he/she knows of the existence of the FEMA and NIST reports.
Don't forget the FBI.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 02:36 PM   #57
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
The truth is never inconvenient to a genuine truth-seeker.

Do you have a link to where this evidence that the 7WTC tower collapse exhibited
"greater than free fall speed acceleration "

is noted and documented ?

Why exactly would you feel this fact would be inconvenient to the "truth movement" ?
Since the references to the documentation have been posted already , I'll address your final question.
Its quite simple really, in straight line vertical fall nothing can achieve greater than free fall. The documentation of such then indicates one of two things
- directed additional force such as rocket motors driving the structure down and mounted on the roof or exterior walls( and if you ask why they have to be mounted on the exterior you will illustrate something about yourself)
- a rotational effect, I.e. not straight line vertical motion, is involved and thus any attempt to relate this acceleration to straight line vertical acceleration is irrational and incorrect. But this slightly greater than basic high school physics is inconvenient and thus is ignored.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 17th September 2013 at 03:44 PM. Reason: autocorrect did me an injustice
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 02:41 PM   #58
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
I'll go further with the speculation that free fall=CD.
Since the only case study of acceleration of a collapsing building is 7WTC, and no study has ever been done to determine under what conditions FFA or greater will be observed at locations of the structure, in a 2d rendering of the event, in a structural collapse, the premise is without any substantiation other than the erroneous application of high school physics principles.

Clear now, fonebone?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 17th September 2013 at 02:44 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 05:10 PM   #59
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
For the record, I use the "so what" argument all the time now. It is so much more relaxing then endless games of whack-a-mole.
Precisely.

However the reality is than many of our debunkers enjoy "whack-a-mole"

And often the mole that gets whacked is a phantom mole. For the cognoscenti the thread "Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth" provided many examples. Look in the vicinity of those posts of mine which referred to something as being "bleedingly obvious". Most of them were associated with the whacking of phantom moles.

In fact most of Tony's contributions automatically set the scene for whacking of non-existent moles. Explanation available if required - it arises from his SOP of setting false premises or a false starting point for his "arguments".

One example is the mole whack of using geometry to show that tilt would prevent axial contact of columns. If you have tilt it is too late for axial contact. Therefore that is a phantom mole. Despite it having been whacked many times - it isn't there There's no point whacking at the space where it isn't....if I'm not pushing the metaphor too far...

HOWEVER mole whacking can be fun even when it is redundant and as a thread/forum activity it at least one grade higher than "Feeding The Trolls"
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 05:19 PM   #60
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Its quite simple really, in straight line vertical fall nothing can achieve greater than free fall.
Maybe...
You have some implied limits on what is falling and what falling is. (Excuse the word play. )

I stand you vertically in a closed box. The box height set so that your feet are on the bottom and your head is in contact with the top. I put a tennis ball in your right hand and close the box.

Then I drop the box + you + tennis ball off a high building with you and box upright.

To occupy yourself during the journey you throw the tennis ball down onto the floor/bottom of the box.

What is the acceleration of the tennis ball:
a) Before you move your arm;
b) As your arm/hand moves downwards to throw it? AND
c) Immediately after release before it bounces off the bottom of the box?

Get that lot under the belt and understanding "Over G" possibilities at WTC7 is only one extra step.

Last edited by ozeco41; 17th September 2013 at 05:23 PM. Reason: spelling
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 06:20 PM   #61
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,779
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Don't forget the FBI.
Nobody forgets the FBI. Their main weapon is...
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 07:51 PM   #62
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Maybe...
You have some implied limits on what is falling and what falling is. (Excuse the word play. )

I stand you vertically in a closed box. The box height set so that your feet are on the bottom and your head is in contact with the top. I put a tennis ball in your right hand and close the box.

Then I drop the box + you + tennis ball off a high building with you and box upright.

To occupy yourself during the journey you throw the tennis ball down onto the floor/bottom of the box.

What is the acceleration of the tennis ball:
a) Before you move your arm;
b) As your arm/hand moves downwards to throw it? AND
c) Immediately after release before it bounces off the bottom of the box?

Get that lot under the belt and understanding "Over G" possibilities at WTC7 is only one extra step. http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif
Yes, we have already done this exercise a while ago.
Of course in the context of 7WTC the frame of reference is the surface of the Earth. My argument above includes the concept that says that while the center of mass of any object in free fall near the surface of this planet may achieve an acceleration near 'g' of 9.8 m/s/s(air resistance and distance to the CoM of the earth slightly affecting dense large mass objects), if that object is rotating with axis of rotation other than aligned with the force due to gravity, then points other than its COM can achieve greater than 'g' wrt to the surface of the Earth.

Better?
Will fonebone understand it?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 17th September 2013 at 07:54 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 08:15 PM   #63
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Sabretooth View Post
Holy flashbacks. I swear it's 2006 again. This has been a banner year for complete rehashings of nonsense that was already debunked.
The sad fact is that there are no magical silver bullets to dispatch woo. Stories and lies that were debunked a thousand times will be drug out and paraded around as brand new time after time.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 08:19 PM   #64
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,403
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Yes, we have already done this exercise a while ago.
Revision is part of the learning process.
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
...Of course in the context of 7WTC the frame of reference is the surface of the Earth. My argument above includes the concept that says that while the center of mass of any object in free fall near the surface of this planet may achieve an acceleration near 'g' of 9.8 m/s/s(air resistance and distance to the CoM of the earth slightly affecting dense large mass objects), if that object is rotating with axis of rotation other than aligned with the force due to gravity, then points other than its COM can achieve greater than 'g' wrt to the surface of the Earth.

Better?
Yes...and you have taken that next step I referred to.

Here is my version - rather than drop the box in a stable vertical orientation - tip it over the side so that it starts to spin.

COM falls (near enough) G - one end cyclically exceeding G then G then less than G then....... (that mechanism was probably the WTC7 "part of faÁade over G" scenario.)

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Will fonebone understand it?
If he doesn't AND he is one of his beloved "genuine truth-seekers" he can ask for more clarification.



C22
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 08:25 PM   #65
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Yeah the sum of instantaneous acceleration of all points in the rotating object will still equal 'g'.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2013, 08:35 PM   #66
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
Nobody forgets the FBI. Their main weapon is...

Reliable and deadly accurate, it is the handgun of choice for the FBI, the DEA and the Secret Service to name a few; and it has just been awarded contracts from the Coast Guard and Homeland Security. Law enforcement's baby: the SIG SAUER P229.
http://www.bvvinc.org/WebPages/Milta...20accurate.htm
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2013, 05:40 PM   #67
Jhau
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 54
The Spanish Inquisition?

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
Nobody forgets the FBI. Their main weapon is...
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Reliable and deadly accurate, it is the handgun of choice for the FBI, the DEA and the Secret Service to name a few; and it has just been awarded contracts from the Coast Guard and Homeland Security. Law enforcement's baby: the SIG SAUER P229.
http://www.bvvinc.org/WebPages/Milta...20accurate.htm
Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr Kcin's comment may have been a riff on the old Monty Python "Spanish Inquisition" routine (apologies if I'm mistaken).

Quote:
The door flies open and Cardinal Ximinez of Spain enters, flanked by two junior cardinals. Cardinal Biggles has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang is just Cardinal Fang.
Ximinez: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise... surprise and fear... fear and surprise.... our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... amongst our weapons.... amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."
Jhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2013, 08:29 PM   #68
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Jhau View Post
Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr Kcin's comment may have been a riff on the old Monty Python "Spanish Inquisition" routine (apologies if I'm mistaken).
I too suspected as much.
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2013, 09:13 PM   #69
911KookDetector
Thinker
 
911KookDetector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 235
Originally Posted by djlunacee View Post
I am sure I speak for everyone here that all of them can be debunked and have been for quite awhile now.
Lol yes. I have seen all of these a minimum of 50 times each throughout my Youtube Twoofer debunking career. I have become so accustomed to hearing most of them that I have concise rebuttals practically memorized. Of course, with a touch of ad hominem.
911KookDetector is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2013, 09:54 PM   #70
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,278
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.

0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation.


Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation?

MM

And no matter what figure was spent on the 9/11 Commission, Truthers will claim that it was both too little and therefore couldn't get the job done and too much because the money was obviously used to stuff the mouths of fellow conspirators and all part of the plan to fleece the taxpayer and Dick Cheney is cackling on a pile of money or something.
angrysoba 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2013, 08:02 AM   #71
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,225
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
Nobody forgets the FBI. Their main weapon is...
The joke from the old days was : "The Marines are looking for a Few Good Men...The FBI is looking for the rest."
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2013, 10:24 AM   #72
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Jhau View Post
Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr Kcin's comment may have been a riff on the old Monty Python "Spanish Inquisition" routine (apologies if I'm mistaken).
I thought so to but I thought a deadpan fact answer might be in the spirit of the sketch.

tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2013, 10:50 AM   #73
Myron Proudfoot
Master Poster
 
Myron Proudfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern VA/DC
Posts: 2,361
not to derail, but I thought the first Gulf of Tonkin attack was real, and the second time the US sailors fired on radar "ghosts." Is that wrong?
__________________
InfoWars. Punching logic in the face on a daily basis. (from Facebook)
Myron Proudfoot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2013, 12:45 PM   #74
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,225
Originally Posted by Myron Proudfoot View Post
not to derail, but I thought the first Gulf of Tonkin attack was real, and the second time the US sailors fired on radar "ghosts." Is that wrong?
My belief is that the whole episode was fueled by active imaginations and itchy fingers, and there were "blips on the radar," but once the smoke cleared there were red faces and exposed asses in evidence.

Contrary to assertion, the NV's were shooting at whoever they had in range, and they had been engaging in the south and in Laos.

Giap's comment on Tonkin:

In 1995, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara met GiŠp to ask what happened on 4 August 1964 in the second Gulf of Tonkin Incident. "Absolutely nothing", GiŠp replied.[9] The attack on 4 August 1964, had been imaginary,[10] although it had not started as a deliberate fabrication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vo_Nguy...After_the_wars
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2013, 01:43 AM   #75
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Larry Silverstein makes a statement that he never repeats or acknowledges again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk

How is it possible that within a few hours of making the decision to demolish Bldg 7 it falls into its own footprint?

According to Larry Silverstein the NYFD achieved in a few hours what demolition teams and engineers take weeks to accomplish.

Given that before 911 no high rise has fallen to its basement due to fire, this is not just suspect this is arguable proof of pre meditation given who made the statement. Can any poster propose a scenario that rebuffs the obvious?

This piece adds more "obvious" scenarios needing to be explained. The detractors last statement of "reporters do your job...ask some questions" expresses the exasperation of those who for good reason do not believe the media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OE3Adu4l0g

Last edited by sonofgloin; 1st October 2013 at 02:10 AM. Reason: Add link
sonofgloin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2013, 03:32 AM   #76
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,583
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post

According to Larry Silverstein the NYFD achieved in a few hours what demolition teams and engineers take weeks to accomplish.
The FDNY would be the only ones that would pull their fire fighting efforts. I don't know what you're talking about.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2013, 06:01 AM   #77
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,424
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Larry Silverstein makes a statement that he never repeats or acknowledges again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk

How is it possible that within a few hours of making the decision to demolish Bldg 7 it falls into its own footprint?

According to Larry Silverstein the NYFD achieved in a few hours what demolition teams and engineers take weeks to accomplish.

Given that before 911 no high rise has fallen to its basement due to fire, this is not just suspect this is arguable proof of pre meditation given who made the statement. Can any poster propose a scenario that rebuffs the obvious?

This piece adds more "obvious" scenarios needing to be explained. The detractors last statement of "reporters do your job...ask some questions" expresses the exasperation of those who for good reason do not believe the media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OE3Adu4l0g
So your hypothesis then is that a real estate developer ordered the FDNY (not NYFD) to blow up a building? And you think that said real estate developer, after pulling off the most fiendish and secretive criminal plot in all of human history just decided to casually admit to the whole thing on national TV, right? And you don't find it odd there was not a hint of follow-up after that alleged admission from his insurers, the FBI, etc, etc, etc... And you find this whole thing more plausible than 19 terrorist thugs with a long history of attacking the United States hijacking 4 airplanes and crashing them into symbols of American economic, military and political power to achieve their own political aims?

Really?

This begs two rather obvious questions that most of the rest of us have already considered but I suspect you have not:

1. Since when does the FDNY take orders from a real estate developer AND
2. Since when is the FDNY is the business of blowing up buildings?

Beyond that there are additional obvious questions which I suspect you may not have considered. What is the motive for example?

What's that you say? Insurance scam?

OK, let us consider that. Silverstein properties got what from its insurers, about $4.6 billion? Seems like a lot doesn't it? But wait, what were the conditions on the use of those funds? They could only be used to rebuild on the same site, right? How much did that cost? Best estimates are about $9 billion. Even using Truther math I'm not finding the big windfall here and we have not even considered 12 years of lost rental revenue, legal expenses, etc, etc, etc,... which will add up to several billion more dollars at least. Not to mention they billions that would have to be paid out to the co-conspirators in the FDNY who were in on the plan. I mean, they lost several hundred of their brothers in that whole thing - it is going to take a LOT OF MONEY to hush them up about something like this.

But wait, if 9/11 was just a big insurance scam, how does one explain Flight's 77 and 93 and the attacks on Washington DC? How does that fit into an insurance scam? Did Larry Silverstein Properties own the lease on the Pentagon?

I'm starting to think this whole Larry did it for insurance money angle doesn't hold much water. Besides, no 47-story high-rise building has ever been destroyed in a controlled demolition before and of course we all know that if something has never happened before it can never happen. And of course the FDNY has never blown up a building before either and since things that have never happened before can never happen,...

But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Really we need to examine exactly what is it Mr. Silverstein claims to have said. During an interview for the documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, broadcast on PBS in 2002 Mr. Silverstein made the following statement when discussing the loss 7 World Trade Center, a non-descript and virtually unknown office building in the WTC complex that collapsed at 5:21pm on 9/11:

Quote:
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Sounds to me like this means; "there has been so much loss of life already lets pull the firefighting operation so as to not risk the lives of more FDNY members on a lost cause." I honestly don't know how or where one gets there has been so much loss of life already lets blow the thing up from. That strikes me as the Chimpanzee part of the brain at work.

What do the FDNY have to say about the collapse of 7? How about this from Chief Hayden;

Quote:
"But also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oíclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oíclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

"It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didnít make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started PULLING the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to PULL guys back because we were concerned for their safety. Yeah, we had to PULL everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didnít want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasnít even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didnít know how stable any of this area was. We PULLED everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 oíclock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then." (emphasis added)
Seems to me that when the FDNY says "pull" they literally mean pull their people out of harms way not blow up building.

That's my explanation. Can you do better?
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2013, 06:09 AM   #78
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Larry Silverstein makes a statement that he never repeats or acknowledges again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk

How is it possible that within a few hours of making the decision to demolish Bldg 7 it falls into its own footprint?

According to Larry Silverstein the NYFD achieved in a few hours what demolition teams and engineers take weeks to accomplish.

Given that before 911 no high rise has fallen to its basement due to fire, this is not just suspect this is arguable proof of pre meditation given who made the statement. Can any poster propose a scenario that rebuffs the obvious?

This piece adds more "obvious" scenarios needing to be explained. The detractors last statement of "reporters do your job...ask some questions" expresses the exasperation of those who for good reason do not believe the media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OE3Adu4l0g
Mark F. has done a fine job of rebuffing the obvious utterly simplistic.

So all I could possibly add would be the reaction I had at first reading your post.

Aaaaahahahahahahaha
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2013, 06:39 AM   #79
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,583
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post

What's that you say? Insurance scam?

OK, let us consider that. Silverstein properties got what from its insurers, about $4.6 billion? ......................................
Silverstein (themselves) only got about 900 Million*. The only building they owned was WTC 7. It had a 400 Million dollar mortgage and the cost to rebuild was about 700 Million. Silverstein had to borrow money to complete this scheme.

*PANYNJ hold the purse strings for most of the insurance money.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2013, 06:46 AM   #80
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,838
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Larry Silverstein makes a statement that he never repeats or acknowledges again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk

How is it possible that within a few hours of making the decision to demolish Bldg 7 it falls into its own footprint?

According to Larry Silverstein the NYFD achieved in a few hours what demolition teams and engineers take weeks to accomplish.

Given that before 911 no high rise has fallen to its basement due to fire, this is not just suspect this is arguable proof of pre meditation given who made the statement. Can any poster propose a scenario that rebuffs the obvious?

This piece adds more "obvious" scenarios needing to be explained. The detractors last statement of "reporters do your job...ask some questions" expresses the exasperation of those who for good reason do not believe the media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OE3Adu4l0g
The FDNY and NYC DOB would be responsible for public safety when a building or structure in the city is under stress, fire, severely damaged. Their assessment was that 7WYC was becoming increasingly unstable and subject to inevitable collapse. They may a call to set up an evacuation zone and pulled all the FDNY and other personnel from the building late in the afternoon. They used the press to inform the public of their decision. To the commissioner it was not whether the building would come down but when it would. It did... he was correct. His decision saved the lives of FDNY and other responders near the building.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 08:22 PM.
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.