Loose Change - Page 6

Alek · 17th March 2006, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

So, not only are you a liar, but you're a little punk who would "snitch" on someone in order to hopefully ruin her career, just because you disagree with what she has to say. I can't say I'm surprised.

Please refrain from name-calling.

Posted By:Lisa Simpson

delphi_ote · 17th March 2006, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

... and you should accept this without interpretation.

Why? If something sounded like a bomb, it must be a bomb? That's absurd.

Originally Posted by Alek

Bankers trust suffered damage similar to what was claimed by the firefighter about WTC 7, and there is photographic evidence:

Do you have video of the building burning on multiple floors like we've seen here for WTC7?

delphi_ote · 17th March 2006, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

So, not only are you a liar, but you're a little punk who would "snitch" on someone in order to hopefully ruin her career, just because you disagree with what she has to say. I can't say I'm surprised.

Please point out where I have lied. That was unfair.

WildCat · 17th March 2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

Another interesting video I found is this:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...20collapse.mpg

Note the static position of the camera (probably due to the use of a tripod), then note the tremor that occurs moments before the collapse. Could you offer an explanation as to what this is?

Yes, I can. It is obviously taken from very far away w/ a very long telephoto lens. This is obvious because the WTC is in focus, as is the building on the left which is much, much closer. This deep depth of field is the result of a long lens. My guess is that someone bumped the tripod (actually, it was probably a TV camera mounted on something much sturdier than a typical tripod, but that's irrelevant for our purposes). W/ this long lens, the slightest bump of the camera support would have the effect shown.

Now IF, as you claim, it shook because of demolition charges going off, then why didn't it shake when 200,000 tons of concrete and steel collapsed and struck the ground w/ many times the force of the alleged demolition charges? This is a huge problem for your theory, isn't it?

Quote:

The Banker's Trust building appears just north of 6 o'clock directly south of the South Tower (WTC 2). Bankers trust suffered damage similar to what was claimed by the firefighter about WTC 7, and there is photographic evidence:

So what is the difference between Banker's Trust and the WTC 7 building?

Was the Banker's Trust building left burning out of control for hours? Therein lies your answer.

Quote:

It was later admittedly "pulled" according to the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds".

Funny how you conspiracy guys are desperately trying to re-define that word to fit your purposes.

Alek · 17th March 2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Please point out where I have lied. That was unfair.

You opened the thread with a reference to a movie that you supposedly watched, at least in part. Then towards the end of the thread you admit to watching for the first time in some four years other footage of the towers collapsing, qualifying it with "willingly". Did someone coerce you into watching Loose Change version 2, or did you watch it willingly? If you consented (more like deigned) to watch it and were angrily surprised by footage that you didn't want to see, then obviously you aren't intelligent enough to intuit that a 9/11 documentary would feature plenty of footage of the towers collapsing.

Since there is evidence that you aren't stupid, I have to conclude that you didn't in fact watch the movie, or you became too emotional and ended your viewing prematurely, otherwise you would have seen plenty of footage of the towers. Which, given your first post and the subject of the thread leads me to believe you're a liar.

So, did you or did you not watch the film in its entirety?

Did you manage to suppress your admitted emotional bias so that you could watch the film objectively, or did you fail in your self-proclaimed skepticism?

If you haven't watched it, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and then attempt to debunk it point by point, as opposed to cherry picking what you would like? The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.

Alek · 17th March 2006, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

So, not only are you a liar, but you're a little punk who would "snitch" on someone in order to hopefully ruin her career, just because you disagree with what she has to say. I can't say I'm surprised.

Please refrain from name-calling.

Posted By:Lisa Simpson

Please moderate fairly. I've been called plenty of names. Scroll up.

WildCat · 17th March 2006, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

If you haven't watched it, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and then attempt to debunk it point by point, as opposed to cherry picking what you would like? The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.

I have watched it, there's far too much there to do a point-by-point debunking. Why don't you just post what you think are the strongest points the movie makes, and we'll start from there?

So far, all your points have been debunked. As far as cumulative evidence goes, 0+0+0+0+0+0=0...

Do you have any responses to my point-by-point rebuttal of this post?

Hellbound · 17th March 2006, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.

You realize that evidence is like multiplication, more than addition, right?

In other words, ten pieces of unlikely evidence doesn't make one piece of likely evidence. If you had ten unlikely evidences, any one of which proved conspiracy, then it'd be more like addition. However, all of your evidence must be true, plus more, to support your theory. That means it's like multiplication. If one piece falls, the entire thig crumbles. Or, .2+.2+.2+.2+.2 may equal one, but .2*.2*.2*.2*.2 equals .00032

Besides, we're still waiting for evidence of anything outside of what would be normal for a plane impact and fires.

Sure, you've offered a lot of speculation and post-hoc reasoning, but to borrow from forensics, you haven't met the proof:

You've offered no believable motive.
You haven't offered any method that has reliable evidence to back it up (so far, ONE person out of thousands in and around the buildings that claims to have heard a boom from the basement, with no real detail).
No evidence of anyone sneaking into the building to plant bombs.
No evidence of controlled demolition (in fact, evidecne runs counter to this idea, squibs especially)
No evidence of the free fall speeds you spout (easily disproven by the video, where debris falls faster than the building. Not freefall.)
No "melted steel"
No reason why an already damaged structure should not collapse (when plenty of reasons were offered, by experts in the field, as to why it should, and many suprised it lasted as long as it did)

By the way, those airline stock trades everyone talks about were fully investigated by the SEC. Most of the airline trades were traced back to certain predictions made by investment advisors prior to 9/11, not the government or related parties. The documents advising these trades gave solid market reasons for them, no indication of any sort of prior knowledge.

delphi_ote · 17th March 2006, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

You opened the thread with a reference to a movie that you supposedly watched, at least in part. Then towards the end of the thread you admit to watching for the first time in some four years other footage of the towers collapsing, qualifying it with "willingly". Did someone coerce you into watching Loose Change version 2, or did you watch it willingly? If you consented (more like deigned) to watch it and were angrily surprised by footage that you didn't want to see, then obviously you aren't intelligent enough to intuit that a 9/11 documentary would feature plenty of footage of the towers collapsing.

Since there is evidence that you aren't stupid, I have to conclude that you didn't in fact watch the movie, or you became too emotional and ended your viewing prematurely, otherwise you would have seen plenty of footage of the towers. Which, given your first post and the subject of the thread leads me to believe you're a liar.

So, did you or did you not watch the film in its entirety?

Did you manage to suppress your admitted emotional bias so that you could watch the film objectively, or did you fail in your self-proclaimed skepticism?

If you haven't watched it, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and then attempt to debunk it point by point, as opposed to cherry picking what you would like? The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.

You've confounded so many different logical fallacies and distortions into one post, I can't even really respond directly.

By "watching the footage willingly" I mean I myself sought out and downloaded the footage. It wasn't presented to me in a movie, video, news report, etc. Please retract your statement that I am a liar. That was totally unfair and inaccurate.

I did watch Loose Change, though not the entire movie. Roughly 30 minutes of it. I stopped at that point because so many claims were made without substantiating evidence. When I investigated those claims, it turns out they were wrong. Documentary makers have an obligation to track down facts and genuine experts, but it seems clear to me these students just didn't do that. I saw no reason to continue watching the video. Some day when I have spare time, maybe I'll watch the rest.

Alek · 17th March 2006, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Yes, I can. It is obviously taken from very far away w/ a very long telephoto lens. This is obvious because the WTC is in focus, as is the building on the left which is much, much closer. This deep depth of field is the result of a long lens. My guess is that someone bumped the tripod (actually, it was probably a TV camera mounted on something much sturdier than a typical tripod, but that's irrelevant for our purposes). W/ this long lens, the slightest bump of the camera support would have the effect shown.

The coincidence of the clumsy photographer bumping the camera seconds before the building collapses is a nice try, but I'm not convinced. Frankly, we both know that you weren't going to convince me with that.

Quote:

Now IF, as you claim, it shook because of demolition charges going off, then why didn't it shake when 200,000 tons of concrete and steel collapsed and struck the ground w/ many times the force of the alleged demolition charges? This is a huge problem for your theory, isn't it?

I made no such claim, you made it for me, and then attempted to rationalize it away. Watch the video again, very closely, specifically the building to the left as the debris hit the ground some 10 seconds after the tower begins its collapse. I can see shaking, can you? This is consistent with the seismological data which indicates earthquakes before each collapse.

Seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University stated, "Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

Again, your skepticism is reserved only for the ACT (alternative conspiracy theory) not the OCT. You're obviously quite capable of making any number of spurious rationalizations to fit the evidence to your theory. The video is not proof of anything, but it's interesting, at least to me.

Quote:

Was the Banker's Trust building left burning out of control for hours? Therein lies your answer.

I've observed hydrocarbon and cellulosic fire curves, I've observed the melting and weakening points of steel, and I've observed the reserve strength ratios engineered into typical modern steel buildings. What I haven't observed are any other examples of modern steel structures totally collapsing due to fire, other than WTC 1 and WTC 2. This was admitted in the "Why the Towers Fell" video whitewash. If you can find video and other evidence of this (and no, Korean department stores with shoddy construction don't qualify) then please post it. I would love to see all of these examples, because it would have grave implications for the ethics of sending firefighters into burning steel buildings! Certainly, it was a precedent setting day. Note that no jet impacted the WTC 7 building, so the only source of hydrocarbons would be from the tanks inside the building. WTC 7 was hardened to satisfy tenants like the CIA, the IRS, and the city of New York (Giuliani had a bunker in the building, or didn't you know?). I find it implausible that such a building would pancake symmetrically at virtual free-fall speed due to a miraculous, simultaneous, unilateral failure of it's core columns which in turn were due to asymmetric fire damage. Some other deniers do too, which is why they're coming up with other rationalizations for why the building was "legitimately" demolished.

Quote:

Funny how you conspiracy guys are desperately trying to re-define that word to fit your purposes.

Funny you mention that. Have you actually seen the PBS video in question? Silverstein admits to "pulling it" and then "watching the building collapse." What he meant by "it" isn't exactly clear, he later claimed he was referring to firefighters, except, no firefighters were ever assigned to the building, they just let the building burn. Then later in the video, a worker can be seen and heard exclaiming "We're getting ready to pull building six" just before it collapses.

Odder still, is that I couldn't find any evidence that "pull" is an industry term for controlled demolition. If it is a term that demolitionists use, it isn't documented on the web as far as I can tell.

I'm not going to speculate on what Silverstein meant. I'll leave that up to you and your rationalizations.

Alek · 17th March 2006, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

I have watched it, there's far too much there to do a point-by-point debunking. Why don't you just post what you think are the strongest points the movie makes, and we'll start from there?

So far, all your points have been debunked. As far as cumulative evidence goes, 0+0+0+0+0+0=0...

Proclaiming victory and that you've debunked my claims doesn't make it so. It's more evidence of the vapidity, vanity, and intellectual insecurity I've seen from people who self-identify as "skeptics". The only thing that has been debunked in my mind, so far, is the idea that the towers should have toppled more due to the asymmetric nature of their damage. Clearly there weren't many possible ways in which they could have fallen, other than about straight down. And this was by a user on the bautforum.

Is this about your ego, or about finding the truth?

Quote:

Do you have any responses to my point-by-point rebuttal of this post?

Not yet, I'll take a look.

delphi_ote · 17th March 2006, 07:44 PM

That was disappointing.

Alek · 17th March 2006, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Huntsman

You realize that evidence is like multiplication, more than addition, right?

In other words, ten pieces of unlikely evidence doesn't make one piece of likely evidence. If you had ten unlikely evidences, any one of which proved conspiracy, then it'd be more like addition. However, all of your evidence must be true, plus more, to support your theory. That means it's like multiplication. If one piece falls, the entire thig crumbles. Or, .2+.2+.2+.2+.2 may equal one, but .2*.2*.2*.2*.2 equals .00032

There are too many logical and conceptual errors in that last bit of inanity to bother with.

I would merely point out that any theory can be disproven with just one piece of evidence, and that the valuation of evidence, particularly non-falsifiable evidence, is subjective.

Quote:

You've offered no believable motive.

This is a forum populated by supposed "skeptics". I'm trying to stick to what can be falsified, which of course is difficult with any conspiracy theory. Offering motives is just speculation. I've spent the last 10 or so years learning about the motives, and they are fantastic. In fact, if I offered them, you would no doubt denounce me as a kook, not that it already hasn't been implied. So lets try and stick to the physical evidence, at least for the time being. We're having enough trouble seeing eye-to-eye with that.

I will admit that my weltanschauung greatly influences my idea of what happend on 9/11. The context of our existence colors all of our perceptions, whether we like it or not, and no one is free from bias.

WildCat · 17th March 2006, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

The coincidence of the clumsy photographer bumping the camera seconds before the building collapses is a nice try, but I'm not convinced. Frankly, we both know that you weren't going to convince me with that.

You're right there. You're a True Believer™ who isn't going to let facts or evidence stand in your way.

Originally Posted by Alek

I made no such claim, you made it for me, and then attempted to rationalize it away.

Are you saying you weren't insinuating that the tremor was the result of explosives being set off? Then what was the purpose of posting the video, and commenting on the shaking?

Originally Posted by Alek

Watch the video again, very closely, specifically the building to the left as the debris hit the ground some 10 seconds after the tower begins its collapse. I can see shaking, can you?

It only appears to be shaking since the WTC is no longer in the shot. It's the same shaking as was there before the collapse - which you apparently admit wasn't due to any explosives or ground tremors.

Originally Posted by Alek

This is consistent with the seismological data which indicates earthquakes before each collapse.

Lerner-Lam, who recorded that seismic data, has commented on your interpretation of his work:

Quote:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

Originally Posted by Alek

Again, your skepticism is reserved only for the ACT (alternative conspiracy theory) not the OCT. You're obviously quite capable of making any number of spurious rationalizations to fit the evidence to your theory. The video is not proof of anything, but it's interesting, at least to me.

I have seen no reasons to be skeptical of the official explanation for the towers collapse. There is video of the planes hitting the towers, an ongoing trial of a defendant who has pled guilty to participating in the plot, numerous reports by structural engineers that confirm that the planes and resulting fires were more than adequate to bring them down.

Your theory has no plausible motive, no opportunity to place the amount (we're talking more than 100 tons) of explosives in the buildings and wire it all together unobserved by the tens of thousands of people working there, no explanation as to why planes would be needed also, etc.

Occam's Razor favors the official explanation, and it's not a close call by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally Posted by Alek

I've observed hydrocarbon and cellulosic fire curves, I've observed the melting and weakening points of steel, and I've observed the reserve strength ratios engineered into typical modern steel buildings. What I haven't observed are any other examples of modern steel structures totally collapsing due to fire, other than WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Funny, because an example was posted earlier in this thread - one you personally cited, the Madrid Windsor Tower fire. To refresh your memory:

Quote:

The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.

If the entire building had been supported by steel (as was the WTC), the whole thing would also have collapsed. But only the upper floors were supported by steel, the rest was concrete.

It also wasn't stuck by a 140 ton fuel-laden battering ram traveling 450 mph. I'm sure you realize this (the WTC incident) was rather unique, don't you? If the answer is "yes", then why do you keep repeating this line?

Originally Posted by Alek

This was admitted in the "Why the Towers Fell" video whitewash. If you can find video and other evidence of this (and no, Korean department stores with shoddy construction don't qualify) then please post it. I would love to see all of these examples, because it would have grave implications for the ethics of sending firefighters into burning steel buildings!

I guarantee you, firefighters won't be rushing into the next high-rise struck by a fully loaded 757.

Originally Posted by Alek

Certainly, it was a precedent setting day. Note that no jet impacted the WTC 7 building, so the only source of hydrocarbons would be from the tanks inside the building. WTC 7 was hardened to satisfy tenants like the CIA, the IRS, and the city of New York (Giuliani had a bunker in the building, or didn't you know?).

One of those tanks was a massive pressurized one in the basement, that had hoses going up to the upper floors. We're not talking about a backyard bbq tank here. There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from earlier you'd know that the firefighters near the building heard it failing several minutes before it collapsed, and got out of there because they believed it was unstable and on the verge of collapse.

Does this evidence fly right over your head? How can you ignore it so?

Originally Posted by Alek

I find it implausible that such a building would pancake symmetrically at virtual free-fall speed due to a miraculous, simultaneous, unilateral failure of it's core columns which in turn were due to asymmetric fire damage. Some other deniers do too, which is why they're coming up with other rationalizations for why the building was "legitimately" demolished.

Which boils down to...

Originally Posted by Alek

Funny you mention that. Have you actually seen the PBS video in question? Silverstein admits to "pulling it" and then "watching the building collapse." What he meant by "it" isn't exactly clear, he later claimed he was referring to firefighters, except, no firefighters were ever assigned to the building, they just let the building burn. Then later in the video, a worker can be seen and heard exclaiming "We're getting ready to pull building six" just before it collapses.

As I also posted earlier, which you've apparently also ignored, is the video, complete w/ firefighters talking, of WTC 7 and how they're pulling everyone out - not because there's bombs going off, but it is unstable! Once again, you want to believe it, so you do. And any evidence to the contrary, you will ignore.

Originally Posted by Alek

Odder still, is that I couldn't find any evidence that "pull" is an industry term for controlled demolition. If it is a term that demolitionists use, it isn't documented on the web as far as I can tell.

Then why do you keep using that term as if it is? Do you admit that when firefighters say "pull it" they mean "stop the firefighting efforts and get everyone out of there"?

Originally Posted by Alek

I'm not going to speculate on what Silverstein meant. I'll leave that up to you and your rationalizations.

But you already have! And as the video I just posted shows, no rationalizations are necessary.

Alek · 17th March 2006, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

You've confounded so many different logical fallacies and distortions into one post, I can't even really respond directly.

By "watching the footage willingly" I mean I myself sought out and downloaded the footage. It wasn't presented to me in a movie, video, news report, etc. Please retract your statement that I am a liar. That was totally unfair and inaccurate.

I did watch Loose Change, though not the entire movie. Roughly 30 minutes of it. I stopped at that point because so many claims were made without substantiating evidence. When I investigated those claims, it turns out they were wrong. Documentary makers have an obligation to track down facts and genuine experts, but it seems clear to me these students just didn't do that. I saw no reason to continue watching the video. Some day when I have spare time, maybe I'll watch the rest.

This is the dialectic in action. Finally, through logical contradiction we have arrived at the truth, that is, you in fact DID NOT watch the documentary in its entirety, but only thirty minutes. I think we're making progress here!

Here's why you are a liar. In your christening post, you said:

Quote:

Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust.

It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain.

ETA: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Loose+Change

Your first question, specifically the use of "anyone else", implies that you yourself have seen the movie, which you've now admitted isn't true. When most honest people talk about movies they've seen, the implication is that they've seen them in their entirety. Maybe this isn't true at the University of Central Florida. I don't know, I live in San Diego, California. Anyway, you lied.

Opening a forum for the purpose of slagging a movie which you haven't even watched is deceitful. Your method of argumentation is patronizing, your demeanor is condescending. Attacking the author of someone I used as a source by sending a whiney email to their superior is downright pathetic. My original sentiment is more than accurate.

So far, I'm not impressed with your credentials as a "skeptic". You're none of objective, rational, or honest, and apparently you can't control your emotions long enough to criticize a film you intend to debunk.

The bickering is pointless. Can we agree to just mutually ignore each other?

kookbreaker · 17th March 2006, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

This is the dialectic in action. Finally, through logical contradiction we have arrived at the truth, that is, you in fact DID NOT watch the documentary in its entirety, but only thirty minutes. I think we're making progress here!

Puh-leeze. You are attacking Delphi for not watching a pile of junk to its entirety? If someone tells you that a cup of milk is spoiled, do you attack them for not drinking the entire cup?

Quote:

Here's why you are a liar. In your christening post, you said:

No. Not even close. This is like saying someone did not read all of StormFront's doctrines is lying for saying they've seen their stuff and found it to be racist.

Quote:

Your first question, specifically the use of "anyone else", implies that you yourself have seen the movie, which you've now admitted isn't true.

Wrong. That wasn't even a good try.

Quote:

When most honest people talk about movies they've seen, the implication is that they've seen them in their entirety.

I have, and known plenty of people who have walked out of really bad movies without seeing them to their end. When someone later asks them their opinion do they have to say they haven't seen it?

Quote:

Maybe this isn't true at the University of Central Florida. I don't know, I live in San Diego, California. Anyway, you lied.

Just keep telling yourself that and you might beleive it. You'll be the only one, but that's better than none.

Quote:

Opening a forum for the purpose of slagging a movie which you haven't even watched is deceitful.

Does this mean if a movie really, really sucks and we don't watch it until the end, then we cannot hold an opinion on the matter? That's beyond weak.

Quote:

Your method of argumentation is patronizing, your demeanor is condescending.

Have you even read the snide, sniping remarks that you've made? You are busting irony meters here! Just look at your second post on this forum. You've got patronizing hostility out the wazoo!

Quote:

Attacking the author of someone I used as a source by sending a whiney email to their superior is downright pathetic. My original sentiment is more than accurate.

Sorry bub, but in the real world if you try to use your professional status to support something you have to account for your employer. If what this person did was not wrong, then there would be no consequences. But they were using their status as an employee at an educational facility to enhance their arguement. That stuff will have consequences. Deal with it.

Quote:

So far, I'm not impressed with your credentials as a "skeptic". You're none of objective, rational, or honest, and apparently you can't control your emotions long enough to criticize a film you intend to debunk.

Pure ad hominen, that is all you have left at this point beyond your faith to 9/11 conspiracies.

Not surprising that you resort to bluster. You've been trying to salvage this pathetic attack since yesterday and it won't hold a drop of water. Give it up.

Quote:

The bickering is pointless. Can we agree to just mutually ignore each other?

Sounds like Delphi's got your number.

Speaking of lies, didn't you say you were leaving?

delphi_ote · 17th March 2006, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

The bickering is pointless. Can we agree to just mutually ignore each other?

If you want me to ignore you, a good start would be to stop posting your conspiracy theory garbage in my thread on my forum. You came here and picked a fight. You got soundly beaten, and now you want the other side to wave the white flag? That's just adorable.

It might also be a good idea not to call me a liar for no apparent reason. Your first accusation was that I had deleted my post to cover my tracks. When I pointed out that they were all still there, you dropped that accusation without apologizing and pretended it never happened. Then you back tracked and said that I hadn't watched the video at all, and said once again that I was a liar etc. etc. for criticizing a movie I'd never seen. When I pointed out that even this allegation was false, you again avoided making apologies for being completely wrong about me. Now you're hiding in the corner with some minor point that I didn't watch every minute of the train wreck. I never said I watched every minute of it. Anyone who watches this entire movie without stopping to check their facts is no skeptic.

delphi_ote · 17th March 2006, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

Maybe this isn't true at the University of Central Florida. I don't know, I live in San Diego, California.

You know, isolating that statement makes you look pretty silly. It's even more ridiculous in context, but it's worth bringing people's attention to this special moment in Alek nonsense.

Did you think this was acerbic invective? Were we supposed to be cowed by your mighty wit? Did you understand that anyone reading your post would only scratch their heads and wonder just what would cause a human mind to wrench itself into a shape awkward enough to puke out an idea like that? Just what were you going for there?

Alek · 17th March 2006, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

You're right there. You're a True Believer™ who isn't going to let facts or evidence stand in your way.

Are you using the forum equivalent of soundbite rebuttal? Very nice.

Your guess as to what caused the tremor in that video aren't "facts or evidence".

Quote:

Are you saying you weren't insinuating that the tremor was the result of explosives being set off? Then what was the purpose of posting the video, and commenting on the shaking?

Of course I was, but I didn't "claim" it, as you said. The evidence itself led you to your rightful conclusion, and then you did what you've been doing with all of the evidence: rationalizing it away.

Quote:

It only appears to be shaking since the WTC is no longer in the shot. It's the same shaking as was there before the collapse - which you apparently admit wasn't due to any explosives or ground tremors.

It's amazing how two people can view the exact same video and come to completely different conclusions, isn't it? That's the sad, polarized state of the world these days. No, it isn't the same shaking. There is no shaking at all, followed by an obvious tremor, followed by stillness, followed by very minor shaking, presumably caused by debris hitting the ground.

Quote:

Lerner-Lam, who recorded that seismic data, has commented on your interpretation of his work:

Lerner-Lam's subsequent testimony is unsubstantial and irrelevant. His little disclaimer is either because he's ignorant, a moral coward, or both. Maybe he made that disclaimer so that unethical cowards wouldn't send his boss emails regarding his kooky incompetence. The data is all that's important.

Quote:

I have seen no reasons to be skeptical of the official explanation for the towers collapse. There is video of the planes hitting the towers, an ongoing trial of a defendant who has pled guilty to participating in the plot, numerous reports by structural engineers that confirm that the planes and resulting fires were more than adequate to bring them down.

That's because your eyes are closed, and you're unwilling to open them.

Quote:

Your theory has no plausible motive, no opportunity to place the amount (we're talking more than 100 tons) of explosives in the buildings and wire it all together unobserved by the tens of thousands of people working there, no explanation as to why planes would be needed also, etc.

You already disparaged one of my plausible motives. $1.98, remember? "We" are talking 100 tons of explosives? No, that's all you. Are you seriously claiming it would require 100 tons of explosives to demolish one of the roughly 500,000 ton towers? You've lost credibility. Congratulations.

Quote:

Occam's Razor favors the official explanation, and it's not a close call by any stretch of the imagination.

I was wondering when I'd see a misuse of Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor only suggests a preference for simpler theories over more complex ones. It doesn't either a) address disproven/discredited theories like the government's OCT or b) preclude less obvious and more complex theories from being true *ESPECIALLY* concerning theories involving human nature, and criminal motive.

Quote:

Funny, because an example was posted earlier in this thread - one you personally cited, the Madrid Windsor Tower fire. To refresh your memory:

I made a mistake in citing it, as it obviously wasn't a steel, but concrete structure! The Madrid fire is commonly cited by many theorists, and they are wrong, as was I. However, I'm still not convinced that fire was responsible for the total symmetrical collapse of World Trade Center 7. Please find me a modern steel structure that has collapsed due solely due to fire (and video of the collapse if possible). You can't.

Quote:

If the entire building had been supported by steel (as was the WTC), the whole thing would also have collapsed. But only the upper floors were supported by steel, the rest was concrete.

It also wasn't stuck by a 140 ton fuel-laden battering ram traveling 450 mph. I'm sure you realize this (the WTC incident) was rather unique, don't you? If the answer is "yes", then why do you keep repeating this line?

Wrong, that's unscientific speculation on your part. More steel implies more thermal conductivity, and vastly more load capacity. You have no basis to assume such a thing.

You've got your facts slightly wrong. The heaviest variant of the 757 weighs about 122 tons, fully loaded, not 140 tons. Additionally the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impacts of multiple Boeing 707 aircraft, which although weighing about 60,000 lbs. (iirc) less, actually has a higher cruising speed than the more modern 757 (possibly resulting in more energy delivered to the target. Admittedly, a designer of the towers said that they didn't plan for kerosene fires because they had no way of modeling them at the time. This is from the documentary "Why the Towers Fell".

Yes, I agree the incident is unique, but that doesn't require me to accept the official conspiracy theory, when it is riddled with more holes than a piece of swiss cheese.

Quote:

I guarantee you, firefighters won't be rushing into the next high-rise struck by a fully loaded 757.

I can't disagree with you there. I can understand why they didn't rush into WTC 7, either, and why they thought that it was on the verge of collapse. Which brings me back to exactly what Silverstein was referring to by "pull it", if "it" isn't "the firefighters".

Quote:

One of those tanks was a massive pressurized one in the basement, that had hoses going up to the upper floors. We're not talking about a backyard bbq tank here. There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from earlier you'd know that the firefighters near the building heard it failing several minutes before it collapsed, and got out of there because they believed it was unstable and on the verge of collapse.

Does this evidence fly right over your head? How can you ignore it so?

I haven't ignored it. I've read it, analyzed it, thought about it, and rejected it. It still doesn't add up to this. Well, maybe in your mind.

Quote:

Which boils down to...

Great. Break out the flying saucers. And you want to believe the official lie because the government says so, and because the cost of accepting the truth is too much to bear.

Quote:

As I also posted earlier, which you've apparently also ignored, is the video, complete w/ firefighters talking, of WTC 7 and how they're pulling everyone out - not because there's bombs going off, but it is unstable! Once again, you want to believe it, so you do. And any evidence to the contrary, you will ignore.

I saw that, and I appreciate you bringing that video to my attention, I hadn't seen it before. However, I *still* don't find it relevant as I don't believe asymmetric fire damage could be responsible for the type of collapse which is documented in the videos linked above. I also fully understand firefighters' reluctance to enter WTC 7, and I understand why they would think it would be in danger of collapsing, given the prior events of the day. I also tend to believe it wasn't in danger of collapsing without a LOT of help. If I'm wrong and fire can be used to implode a 600' skyscraper into a tight little rubble pile by causing it's core columns to all fail simultaneously then I suggest demolition teams are vastly overpaid.

Quote:

Then why do you keep using that term as if it is? Do you admit that when firefighters say "pull it" they mean "stop the firefighting efforts and get everyone out of there"?

A few paragraphs up, you said this:

"There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from ..."

Which is it?

Quote:

But you already have! And as the video I just posted shows, no rationalizations are necessary.

If they weren't necessary, you wouldn't be making them.

Alek · 17th March 2006, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

You know, isolating that statement makes you look pretty silly. It's even more ridiculous in context, but it's worth bringing people's attention to this special moment in Alek nonsense.

Did you think this was acerbic invective? Were we supposed to be cowed by your mighty wit? Did you understand that anyone reading your post would only scratch their heads and wonder just what would cause a human mind to wrench itself into a shape awkward enough to puke out an idea like that? Just what were you going for there?

I admit it was pretty juvenille, but far less juvenille than your email stunt. I grew up in Miami, so I can attest that central Florida pretty much sucks. It's got a bunch of people with parochial attitudes.

delphi_ote · 17th March 2006, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

I admit it was pretty juvenille, but far less juvenille than your email stunt.

What was juvenile about my e-mail? What Dr. Wood is doing is dishonest and unprofessional. She wants to use her credentials and the reputation of her university to support her conspiracy theory writings, but she isn't subjecting those writings to academic criticism, because she won't place her name on the actual writings themselves.

I e-mailed her at her university e-mail account and asked if she was responsible for the website. She has not yet responded. I'll let you know if she does.

Alek · 17th March 2006, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Puh-leeze. You are attacking Delphi for not watching a pile of junk to its entirety? If someone tells you that a cup of milk is spoiled, do you attack them for not drinking the entire cup?

I'm attacking him for lying, and being a weasel in general. I fully support people's right to stop watching films that they think suck. However, If you start a thread on a skeptic's forum to slag a film you haven't watched you run the risk of getting called out by someone like me. I think a little reading comprehension is in order here.

Quote:

I have, and known plenty of people who have walked out of really bad movies without seeing them to their end. When someone later asks them their opinion do they have to say they haven't seen it?

Nobody asked him his opinion. He slagged a film he hasn't watched. How's that for skepticism?

Quote:

Does this mean if a movie really, really sucks and we don't watch it until the end, then we cannot hold an opinion on the matter? That's beyond weak.

You can hold whatever you want. I'm only suggesting he try the honest approach.

Quote:

Have you even read the snide, sniping remarks that you've made? You are busting irony meters here! Just look at your second post on this forum. You've got patronizing hostility out the wazoo!

That's probably because I'm outnumbered and feeling defensive. Maybe if you were a little nicer, and maybe if people were a little more honest and objective, things would be different.

Quote:

Sorry bub, but in the real world if you try to use your professional status to support something you have to account for your employer. If what this person did was not wrong, then there would be no consequences. But they were using their status as an employee at an educational facility to enhance their arguement. That stuff will have consequences. Deal with it.

I wasn't aware the use of the 1st amendment was contingent on your degree-issuing university's approval. It appears that she posted her analysis using the pseudonym "Jane Doe", with no mention of her identity or credentials what-so-ever. Then the Scholars website linked her page with her identity. Then slimeball decided to make a lame attempt to get her in some sort of trouble, which probably won't happen anyway because she didn't do anything "wrong". The only thing he's exposed is the fact that he has a little snitch-like mentality which is more suited to the East German Stasi secret police than the United States of America. Exercising your right to free speech in this country, anonymously or not is never "wrong", YOU, are wrong.

Quote:

Pure ad hominen, that is all you have left at this point beyond your faith to 9/11 conspiracies.

Pure whine. Do you want some cheese to go with that?

Quote:

Not surprising that you resort to bluster. You've been trying to salvage this pathetic attack since yesterday and it won't hold a drop of water. Give it up.

Sounds like Delphi's got your number.

It sounds like delphi has a little friend to run a smokescreen for him.

Quote:

Speaking of lies, didn't you say you were leaving?

I didn't lie, I left, and came back. Would you prefer I go? Why don't you get Delphi to write the moderator a nasty email about me so I get banned? Then you can go back to debunking Bigfoot sightings.

WildCat · 17th March 2006, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

Are you using the forum equivalent of soundbite rebuttal? Very nice.

You believe in the conspiracy despite having no evidence. If you have evidence of a conspiracy, post it please.

Originally Posted by Alek

Your guess as to what caused the tremor in that video aren't "facts or evidence".

You haven't even said what you think this is evidence of. Frankly, it isn't evidence of anything, and you've pretty much admitted as much.

Originally Posted by Alek

Of course I was, but I didn't "claim" it, as you said. The evidence itself led you to your rightful conclusion, and then you did what you've been doing with all of the evidence: rationalizing it away.

Look Alek, you can't just post some half-ass video, say "whoa, look at that" and hold it up as some sort of evidence. It's not. If you think it is, be specific what you think it means and why. Otherwise, what use is it? Your little game of saying "it isn't evidence, but then it is" is tiring and pointless.

Originally Posted by Alek

It's amazing how two people can view the exact same video and come to completely different conclusions, isn't it? That's the sad, polarized state of the world these days. No, it isn't the same shaking. There is no shaking at all, followed by an obvious tremor, followed by stillness, followed by very minor shaking, presumably caused by debris hitting the ground.

There is no way you can tell what causes the shaking of the camera! The seismic data shows no tremors before the towers fell. That is a fact, if you claim otherwise I will call you a liar because you cannot produce a seismogram showing otherwise - at least not the one from Columbia U., which is the only one that recorded the tremors.

Originally Posted by Alek

Lerner-Lam's subsequent testimony is unsubstantial and irrelevant. His little disclaimer is either because he's ignorant, a moral coward, or both. Maybe he made that disclaimer so that unethical cowards wouldn't send his boss emails regarding his kooky incompetence. The data is all that's important.

Listen Alek, your conspiracy heroes published incomplete data and quoted Lerner-Lam out of context. The evidence for that is obvious and overwhelming. Now you call him a "moral coward"? You are a dishonest liar and have no interest at all in the facts of the matter. The data is all that's important, it's too bad your bunch of conspiracy kooks deliberately misrepresented it. The seismograms can be seen here. They don't show what you claim they do.

Originally Posted by Alek

That's because your eyes are closed, and you're unwilling to open them.

PT Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute". Looks like you get to claim the distinction for your minute...

Originally Posted by Alek

You already disparaged one of my plausible motives. $1.98, remember? "We" are talking 100 tons of explosives? No, that's all you. Are you seriously claiming it would require 100 tons of explosives to demolish one of the roughly 500,000 ton towers? You've lost credibility. Congratulations.

It took 20 tons of explosives to implode the Kingdome. The Kingdome is much, much smaller than the WTC. Yes, I am claiming that it would take at least 100 tons of explosives to bring down the 2 towers and WTC 7.

Please explain how this was accomplished.

Originally Posted by Alek

I was wondering when I'd see a misuse of Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor only suggests a preference for simpler theories over more complex ones. It doesn't either a) address disproven/discredited theories like the government's OCT or b) preclude less obvious and more complex theories from being true *ESPECIALLY* concerning theories involving human nature, and criminal motive.

Except you'd better have a whole lot of evidence to ignore the simpler theory. And so far, you have none at all!

Originally Posted by Alek

I made a mistake in citing it, as it obviously wasn't a steel, but concrete structure! The Madrid fire is commonly cited by many theorists, and they are wrong, as was I. However, I'm still not convinced that fire was responsible for the total symmetrical collapse of World Trade Center 7. Please find me a modern steel structure that has collapsed due solely due to fire (and video of the collapse if possible). You can't.

This is yet another display of your dishonesty and mischaracterizing of this event - it was not due solely to the fire and nobody has claimed it was. That you so desperately insist on bringing up this completely moot point shows the your desperation at the complete inefficacy of your theory. Now, show me a building that was set on fire due to a 140 ton jetliner hitting it at 450 mph that didn't collapse. And why are you so dumbfounded that it collapsed symmetrically? Would you expect 250,000 tons of steel and concrete to fall over on its side due to a collapse on the 80th floor? If you do, you're an idiot.

Originally Posted by Alek

Wrong, that's unscientific speculation on your part. More steel implies more thermal conductivity, and vastly more load capacity. You have no basis to assume such a thing.

I'm not assuming anything! The steel portion of the Madrid tower completely collapsed, there's even pictures on the site for cryin' out loud! Are you seriously going to dispute this?

Originally Posted by Alek

You've got your facts slightly wrong. The heaviest variant of the 757 weighs about 122 tons, fully loaded, not 140 tons. Additionally the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impacts of multiple Boeing 707 aircraft, which although weighing about 60,000 lbs. (iirc) less, actually has a higher cruising speed than the more modern 757 (possibly resulting in more energy delivered to the target. Admittedly, a designer of the towers said that they didn't plan for kerosene fires because they had no way of modeling them at the time. This is from the documentary "Why the Towers Fell".

This is why nobody here can take you seriously. You swallow this crap from your conspiracy sites hook, line, and sinker w/o even thinking it might not be the way it is portrayed. The fact is (according to Leslie Robinson, chief structural engineer of the WTC) they were designed to absorb the impact of a 119,000 kg 707 that was lost in fog, had dumped excess fuel, and was flying at just above stall speed (290 kph). The 767's (my mistake, it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon) that hit the WTC weighed in at 125,000 kg and were traveling at 944 kph. Full details here. Now, that's a bigger impact by order of magnitude over the design specs.

The fact that they held up as long as they did is the wonder here. But, I'm sure, this will be one more fact you'll brush aside in favor of your pet theory.

Originally Posted by Alek

Yes, I agree the incident is unique, but that doesn't require me to accept the official conspiracy theory, when it is riddled with more holes than a piece of swiss cheese.

We've plugged those holes as fast as you post them. They're complete nonsense.

Originally Posted by Alek

I can't disagree with you there. I can understand why they didn't rush into WTC 7, either, and why they thought that it was on the verge of collapse. Which brings me back to exactly what Silverstein was referring to by "pull it", if "it" isn't "the firefighters".

But "it" is the firefighters...

Originally Posted by Alek

I haven't ignored it. I've read it, analyzed it, thought about it, and rejected it. It still doesn't add up to this. Well, maybe in your mind.

We've shown over and over what nonsense that is.

Originally Posted by Alek

Great. Break out the flying saucers. And you want to believe the official lie because the government says so, and because the cost of accepting the truth is too much to bear.

You have no evidence at all that the official version is a lie, we have given you ample evidence showing your sites are full of lies. You believe the lies because you want to believe in them.

[quote=Alek]I saw that, and I appreciate you bringing that video to my attention, I hadn't seen it before. However, I *still* don't find it relevant as I don't believe asymmetric fire damage could be responsible for the type of collapse which is documented in the videos linked above. I also fully understand firefighters' reluctance to enter WTC 7, and I understand why they would think it would be in danger of collapsing, given the prior events of the day. I also tend to believe it wasn't in danger of collapsing without a LOT of help. If I'm wrong and fire can be used to implode a 600' skyscraper into a tight little rubble pile by causing it's core columns to all fail simultaneously then I suggest demolition teams are vastly overpaid.[quote]
You are wrong in so many ways. To begin with, the firefighters were reluctant to enter it not because of what happened earlier, but because they could hear the structure coming apart. They also noticed the top portion was kinked, and you can see this in other pics. The fire caused the entire interior to sag in, and eventually fall. There's a neat little avi here that shows your "squibs" actually don't appear until after the building starts to collapse. Now, that would be a neat trick!

Originally Posted by Alek

A few paragraphs up, you said this:

"There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from ..."

Which is it?

What the hell are you talking about? Read the interview! He's describing walking towards WTC 7, he nor any other firefighter was not actually in the building, and no one had attempted to put it out. They thought about fighting the fire, but changed their minds because it was obviously too dangerous.

Originally Posted by Alek

If they weren't necessary, you wouldn't be making them.

You must have a different meaning of the word than the dictionary does.

Alek · 17th March 2006, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

If you want me to ignore you, a good start would be to stop posting your conspiracy theory garbage in my thread on my forum. You came here and picked a fight. You got soundly beaten, and now you want the other side to wave the white flag? That's just adorable.

I wasn't aware you owned the forum. Perhaps the other users here see differently. I didn't come here to pick a fight, I came here to warn you that the emperor has no clothes. If "soundly beaten" means exposing you as a dishonest slimeball, then I was soundly beaten. I don't want a white flag, this isn't supposed to be a war. It's supposed to be about finding the truth, and having respect for dissenting views. It's apparent that the truth means quite little to you. You can't even bring yourself to watch a movie with dissenting views on one of the most important events in human history, the premise of which has major implications for the future of humanity. You don't have to agree with anything. But you won't even WATCH! You're a coward, and a fraud as a skeptic.

Quote:

It might also be a good idea not to call me a liar for no apparent reason. Your first accusation was that I had deleted my post to cover my tracks. When I pointed out that they were all still there, you dropped that accusation without apologizing and pretended it never happened. Then you back tracked and said that I hadn't watched the video at all, and said once again that I was a liar etc. etc. for criticizing a movie I'd never seen. When I pointed out that even this allegation was false, you again avoided making apologies for being completely wrong about me. Now you're hiding in the corner with some minor point that I didn't watch every minute of the train wreck. I never said I watched every minute of it. Anyone who watches this entire movie without stopping to check their facts is no skeptic.

Why isn't it a good idea? Is that some sort of threat? What are you going to do, write a letter and have me banned? I'd prefer instead that you SAC UP and watch the unseen film you disparage in the forum YOU created ABOUT THE FILM YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED. Are you getting angry? Good! It gets a lot worse. There is a lot more to be angry about.

I apologize for claiming you deleted the post, I was mistaken, you merely edited it. Nevertheless, my point remains valid.

Euromutt · 17th March 2006, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by Alek

There is a book entitled "Day of Deceit" written by Robert Stinnett. Stinnett proffers evidence that FDR had prior knowledge of the attack and let it happen so as to create a public pretense for US involvement in WW2.

I haven't read the book, but given the Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment plus Roosevelt's status as a traitor, I have little doubt it is true.

"Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment"? What is that supposed to mean, other than serving as a smokescreen for selecting evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion?
The bit about "Roosevelt's status as a traitor" smells of circular "logic" to me:
Why did Roosevelt expose the Pacific Fleet to attack?
- Because he was a traitor.
How do we know he was a traitor?
- Because he exposed the Pacific Fleet to attack.

As it happens, I've been rereading Eagle Against The Sun: The American War With Japan by Ronald H. Spector, and in chapter 5, "The Issue Is in Doubt," he discusses fairly extensively how the Japanese managed to surprise the Pacific Fleet the way they did.

Quote:

Some "revisionist" historians have argued the President Roosevelt and his close associates in the cabinet (Hull, Stimson and Knox) deliberately exposed the fleet to destruction at Pearl Harbor in order to ensure support for America's entry into World War II. Authors such a Charles C. Tansill, Charles A. Beard, Robert Theobald, and Harry Elmer Barnes claim [all circa 1950!] that since the U.S. was reading the Japanese code, Washington must have known in advance about the attack, and that Roosevelt consciously withheld vital information from the Hawaiian commanders. It was his purpose, they maintain, to keep the fleet in harbor and thus vulnerable to attack.
Although revisionists are convinced that Roosevelt purposely kept [General] Short and [Admiral] Kimmel in the dark, it might as plausibly be argued that both of them conspired to ignore Washington's repeated warnings. [Spector goes on to list a series of warning transmitted in the two weeks preceding the attack.]
The fact was that Kimmel and Short were alert to the possibility of imminent war with Japan. They simply did not expect it to begin at Pearl Harbor. Despite repeated fleet exercises, war games, studies, plans and discussions concerning the danger of surprise air attack, despite repeated surprise alerts and drills, the fact remained that American army and navy leaders at the highest levels simply could not really believe that a surprise air attack on the fleet would actually take place. In the most exhaustive study of Pearl Harbor, Gordon Prange singles out this fundamental belief as the root of the whole tragedy.

This is entirely consistent with the point Spector makes in earlier chapters that, at the time, the upper echelons of both the US and Japanese navies consisted of students of Alfred Thayer Mahan's doctrine of "command of the sea," which required a concentrated fleet of battleships to defeat the enemy's naval forces in a single decisive engagement. As the cliché goes, military commanders tend to prepare for the next war by re-fighting the last one, and when they were the winners last time round, they tend to stick with what works. In the case of both the Americans and the Japanese, Mahan's doctrine had worked, but the problem was that those occasions were, respectively, the Battle of Manila Bay (1898) and the Battle of Tsushima (1905), both of which, like Mahan's doctrine, predated the development of combat aircraft and aircraft carriers. Even by 1941, both naval staffs were firmly convinced of the battleship's supremacy; carrier-based aircraft were thought to be good for scouting and supporting combat role at most. At first glance, the nature of the Pearl Harbor attack would appear to contradict this notion, conducted as it was almost entirely by carrier-based aircraft, but closer examination supports it: the attack was aimed specifically at the American battle line, since the Japanese believed this to form the primary threat to their own fleet. Moreover, the Japanese that the only way aircraft could defeat battleships was by catching them by surprise while they were in port, which is why the attack was carried out the way it was. Even so, Yamamoto's plan met with considerable skepticism on the part of the Japanese Naval General Staff.

Onthe site of some Greek television show, I found some stuff on Stinett:

Quote:

64 years later a number of historians believes that President Roosevelt and the American leadership as a whole provoked the Japanese in the Pacific while later deliberately ignoring all warnings of the attack on Pearl Harbour in order to achieve America's involvement in the war. "We now know that firstly, there was a plan for an overt act of war and that, secondly, we had de-coded the Japanese Naval code. That was all kept secret for 60 years," according to journalist and author Robert Stinett who for the last 17 years has studied more than 2 million classified Naval documents. As for the so-called Provocation Policy of President Roosevelt, Stinett is firm: "The President wanted us to enter war operations. He followed what Plato had said; 'a noble lie will sacrifice the few to save the many.' That was the idea".

The position of the American author of the book Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbour is shared by British historian David Irving: "We knew it was going to happen. Churchill knew also because he had a variety of sources. There had been a great cover up on the side of the Americans."

(Punctuation edited)
Stinett's assertion that "that was all kept secret for 60 years" is false right off the bat. Despite the fact that it was first published in 1985, and cites earlier sources, Eagle Against The Sun extensively covers the American war plans--"Orange" and "Rainbow"--as well as the American gathering of signal intelligence on Japanese operations. In fact, if Stinett's statement were true, it would have been impossible for Stinett to publish Day of Deceit in 2000!

There was indeed "a plan for an overt act of war," the aforementioned "Orange Plan." What Stinett neglects to mention was that Orange was first drafted in 1905 (almost thirty years before FDR became president!) as part of a series of contingency war plans against potential enemies. Other "color plans" were "Green" against Mexico, "Black" against Germany, and "Red" against Great Britain. The existence of the latter indicates that the existence of a "color plan" did not ipso facto indicate that military action against a particular country was a given. "Orange," moreover, was based from its inception on the assumption that the Japanese would first attack the Philippines, and subsequently engage the US Pacific Fleet when it entered the western Pacific on its way to relieve the Philippines. This assumption, again, led to the refusal to genuinely believe that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor.

That Stinett's assertion is supported by David Irving does not exactly inspire confidence, given that Irving is primarily known for being a Holocaust denier.

Regarding the signal intelligence, well that's been thrashed out, and not just in Eagle Against The Sun. Spector continues:

Quote:

Among the mass of secret Japanese messages which were being intercepted and decoded in Washington there were signs that pointed towards Pearl Harbor, but many others seemed to indicate an attack on the Philippines and Singapore--or even against the Soviet Union. As Roberta Wohlstetter, a perceptive student of the Pearl Harbor debacle observes: "We failed to anticipate Pearl Harbor not for want of the relevant materials but because of a plethora of irrelevant ones. . . . There is a difference between having a signal available somewhere in the heap of irrelevances and perceiving it as a warning, and there is also a difference between perceiving it as a warning an acting on it."

Spector then addresses the claims made by John Toland in his 1982 book Infamy, pointing out the likely inaccuracy of the Lurline intercept, the clutter in which the Twelfth Naval District intercept got lost, and the fact that the Dutch East Indies intercept was relayed to DC without any reference made to Hawaii. He then turns to Toland's claim that, had Washington alerted Kimmel and Short, Nagumo's strike force would have turned back without attacking Pearl Harbor.

The problem with Toland's claim, as with every other "FDR let the Pacific Fleet be attacked to get the US into the war" claim, is that Nagumo's orders explicitly included instructions to go ahead with the attack even if his force were discovered out of range of Hawaii. The die was cast the moment Nagumo sailed for Hawaii on November 26th, so what FDR, Stimson, Hull, Knox and/or Marshall did or did not know by December 4th is academic.

Z · 18th March 2006, 12:34 AM

Well, I have watched the complete film. I have, as of now, visited twelve different websites espousing a variety of conspiracy theories about 9/11. I've now read about wooden mockups of 757s loaded with combustable materials; heat-beams from satellites used to pulverize concrete in the towers; advanced free-standing holography used to overlay a poorly-rendered 767 over a military missile or jet; secret nuclear devices that, amazingly, leave behind no dangerous radiation after use; and so on, and so forth. It's hard to wade through any one of these websites without encountering some strange X-Factor-style nonsense used to justify away any number of inconsistancies in their stories.

Even those that maintain some facade of rationality and lucidity are loaded with fallacies, ignorance, and a lot of leapt-to conclusions. Yes, a few things really don't add up; a few things would do well to be exposed to closer investigation. But the vast majority of what was on Loose Change is tripe. And Alex's behavior since joining the forums isn't going to bring more people towards his alleged 'truths', either. He parrots facts from the conspiracy sites without knowing what he's talking about, or even verifying the truth of those facts; while disparaging facts on other sites, again without verifying the truth of those facts. He tosses ad-hom and insult about as if it somehow justifies his apparent willful ignorance. And he still can't present any single piece of 'evidence' for the conspiracy theory that can't be understood or explained simply enough.

Now, I grant you, most of us here are NOT structural engineers, or physics majors, or demolitions experts; but the reports of those that would know best are the reports I'm most likely to accept. So far, the most qualified reports I've been able to read all accept that the Twin Towers fell as a result of the massive structural damage from the aircraft impacts, coupled with intense fires, creating a set of conditions suitable to allow total unilateral structural failure of the building at and above the points of impact; resulting in further structural failure as several thousand tons of debris impacted with already weakened upper structures, resulting in a pancake-style domino effect. Sure, they could be presenting the prepared party lines; but I find it highly unlikely that every qualified person who has reviewed the destruction is on the payroll of the Powers That Be.

Yes, a true skeptic (whatever that is) would probably want to sit and watch the entire movie (over time). He would then want to do some fact-checking, make some notes, etc. This film would make him think - but it would not lead him to the same conclusions it has led Alex to. It wouldn't be the end of the process, but a step in it; Alex, unfortunately, stops at any step that requires him to invalidate or even question anything presented in support of massive conspiracy theories by our own government.

My suggestion to those still on the fence: don't make Alex's mistake. CONTINUE to question, read, research, and learn. Even if it means you have to change your mind a hundred times. Even if it leaves you somewhat confused or bewildered. It would be better to base a world view on a COMPLETELY informed foundation, than on a biased representation from either side.

Alek · 18th March 2006, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

You believe in the conspiracy despite having no evidence. If you have evidence of a conspiracy, post it please.

I have evidence, I've posted evidence, and there is plenty more. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of me posting evidence, and you denying it out of hand, while simultaneously parroting government lies.

Quote:

You haven't even said what you think this is evidence of. Frankly, it isn't evidence of anything, and you've pretty much admitted as much.

It's evidence of tremors before the collapse of the north tower. Video evidence. Unfortunately, you aren't capable of discerning the difference between evidence and proof.

Quote:

Look Alek, you can't just post some half-ass video, say "whoa, look at that" and hold it up as some sort of evidence. It's not. If you think it is, be specific what you think it means and why. Otherwise, what use is it? Your little game of saying "it isn't evidence, but then it is" is tiring and pointless.

Ahh. I can feel the objectivity. Pro OCT video clips = "evidence". Anti OCT video clips = "some half-ass video". You, much like kookbreaker, have a serious reading comprehension problem. Neither did I say the video wasn't evidence, nor did I say it was proof. Your little game of saying "Where's the evidence! You have no evidence!" ad nauseum is pointless. Is this SOP for debunking ghost stories and psychics?

Quote:

There is no way you can tell what causes the shaking of the camera! The seismic data shows no tremors before the towers fell. That is a fact, if you claim otherwise I will call you a liar because you cannot produce a seismogram showing otherwise - at least not the one from Columbia U., which is the only one that recorded the tremors.

Listen Alek, your conspiracy heroes published incomplete data and quoted Lerner-Lam out of context. The evidence for that is obvious and overwhelming. Now you call him a "moral coward"? You are a dishonest liar and have no interest at all in the facts of the matter. The data is all that's important, it's too bad your bunch of conspiracy kooks deliberately misrepresented it. The seismograms can be seen here. They don't show what you claim they do.

I hadn't analyzed the seismic data before, I hadn't even seen that video until today. It looks like it's worth some timeline analysis.

I'm not a liar and I'm interested IN ALL the facts of the matter. In fact, i've learned precisely why the twin towers couldn't have toppled, and that the Madrid bombing is incorrectly cited as being a steel structure. I've admitted when I've been wrong, and when I've misunderstood. You, on the other hand, have shown no objectivity at all, nor is any of the skepticism you reserve for alternative theories directed at the official government lie.

Quote:

PT Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute". Looks like you get to claim the distinction for your minute...

Thanks.

<stuff deleted>

Quote:

This is yet another display of your dishonesty and mischaracterizing of this event - it was not due solely to the fire and nobody has claimed it was. That you so desperately insist on bringing up this completely moot point shows the your desperation at the complete inefficacy of your theory. Now, show me a building that was set on fire due to a 140 ton jetliner hitting it at 450 mph that didn't collapse. And why are you so dumbfounded that it collapsed symmetrically? Would you expect 250,000 tons of steel and concrete to fall over on its side due to a collapse on the 80th floor? If you do, you're an idiot.

This is yet another display of your lack of reading comprehension. I was clearly referring to the WTC 7 building.

I already admitted the 500,000 ton towers could not topple. But thanks again.

Quote:

I'm not assuming anything! The steel portion of the Madrid tower completely collapsed, there's even pictures on the site for cryin' out loud! Are you seriously going to dispute this?

You assumed that because the concrete Madrid tower had a partial collapse (I wonder if all the steel failed at once and magically fell to the ground simultaneously?) that steel structures suffer complete collapse due to fire, such as witnessed at wtc7.net. And I asked you for the third time to provide some examples, some engineering precedent, and you haven't.

<stuff deleted>

Quote:

What the hell are you talking about? Read the interview! He's describing walking towards WTC 7, he nor any other firefighter was not actually in the building, and no one had attempted to put it out. They thought about fighting the fire, but changed their minds because it was obviously too dangerous.

Apparently you are still unclear on this, and I don't need to read the interview transcript, I've watched the actual video. I'll try one more time to clarify it for you, but I'm not going to bother posting the actual transcripts because you're unreasonable. If you want to find the truth then you will, if not, you won't.

Silverstein originally said in the video "we've already had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", and then "we watched the building collapse".

Then, shortly after that, a WTC worker is featured who says "We're getting ready to pull building six" followed by another man who says "we had to be careful about how we demolished building six"

So, subsequent to this Silverstein comes out and says essentially that he was referring to the firefighters, not the building. The only problem is, there were never any firefighters IN the building to begin with, as you yourself have already posted, I think twice now. Thus making Silversteins claim more mysterious. Here is a link which documents this:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...einanswers.htm

I urge anyone who is rational and sincerely interested in the truth to verify this, and watch the video. I'm done with the topic here.

Z · 18th March 2006, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by Alek

I urge anyone who is rational and sincerely interested in the truth to verify this, and watch the video. I'm done with the topic here.

Why do I not believe you?

Euromutt · 18th March 2006, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by zaayrdragon

Why do I not believe you?

Maybe because he's already said it once and gone back on his word.

Additional note to the Pearl Harbor stuff I posted previously: the claim that Roosevelt deliberately exposed the Pacific Fleet to destruction has been around a long time. Beard, one of the "revisionist" historians Spector mentions, first published the idea in 1948; Tanliss, Barnes and Theobald published in 1952, 1953 and 1954, respectively. As stated, Toland published Infamy in 1982. Every time, the evidence to support the notion has been found wanting. Why didn't this stop types like Stinett and Richard Maybury from regurgitating this long-discredited notion? It's fairly obvious: much of the reasons certain people concoct, or subscribe to, conspiracy theories is because they feel a deep-seated need to feel they are smarter than the majority of humanity. So when you've come up with your thesis upon which to graduate from the College of It Stands to Reason, and have carefully selected only that evidence which supports while diligently disregarding the evidence which contradicts it, it follows that you're unlikely--full of your own cleverness as you are--to check whether someone else might have come up with the same idea before you did, let alone check whether, and how, that person was debunked.

Unfortunately, I predict we're going to be seeing the same lame-ass conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 crop up repeatedly in the course of our lifetimes, as a next generation "thinks outside the box" and comes up with a "real" explanation of events, and thinks he's really clever for being the first to see it, when it fact the only reason he hasn't heard read it in the history books was because it was discredited the last time, and the time before that, etc.

(Yet another prediction that'll never win the JREF Million...
Me: Mr. Randi, I predict Jon Hogue is going to write another sh*t book about Nostradamus.
Randi: I could've told you that for a dollar seventy-five!)

Alek · 18th March 2006, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by Euromutt

"Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment"? What is that supposed to mean, other than serving as a smokescreen for selecting evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion?
The bit about "Roosevelt's status as a traitor" smells of circular "logic" to me:
Why did Roosevelt expose the Pacific Fleet to attack?
- Because he was a traitor.
How do we know he was a traitor?
- Because he exposed the Pacific Fleet to attack.

Hello, Euromutt.

It means the dialectic explains a pattern recurrent throughout history of governments using false flag attacks or similar deceptions to embroil their unwilling populaces into war. I don't try to select or fit evidence. For me it represents an element of a cynical worldview which is a starting point for historical review. Others may assume that history is made by the impersonal struggles between ideas, political systems, ideologies, races, and classes. I don't particularly subscribe to that.

I thought it was clear that my thinking Roosevelt was a traitor was independent of whether he had forknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. There is no circular logic here, I merely didn't elaborate on why I think he was a traitor. I'll tell you why, it's because he signed executive order 6102 expropriating (more like confiscating, but he offered a token price) the private gold of US citizens, essentially under the premise that their hoarding was responsible for the Great Depression. I don't know whether he had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor or not.

Quote:

...

Even by 1941, both naval staffs were firmly convinced of the battleship's supremacy; carrier-based aircraft were thought to be good for scouting and supporting combat role at most. At first glance, the nature of the Pearl Harbor attack would appear to contradict this notion, conducted as it was almost entirely by carrier-based aircraft, but closer examination supports it: the attack was aimed specifically at the American battle line, since the Japanese believed this to form the primary threat to their own fleet. Moreover, the Japanese that the only way aircraft could defeat battleships was by catching them by surprise while they were in port, which is why the attack was carried out the way it was. Even so, Yamamoto's plan met with considerable skepticism on the part of the Japanese Naval General Staff.

This is interesting, because I've read accounts which describe the opposite, that it was known that the monolithic battleship was quickly becoming obsolete. If I recall correctly, not a single aircraft carrier was destroyed at Pearl Harbor, and it was the battleships which were mostly destroyed. The carriers were elsewhere. I must confess ignorance of this subject though, I haven't read Stinnett's book nor any others about WW2, but it sounds like a fascinating subject.

Quote:

Onthe site of some Greek television show, I found some stuff on Stinett

Punctuation edited)
Stinett's assertion that "that was all kept secret for 60 years" is false right off the bat. Despite the fact that it was first published in 1985, and cites earlier sources, Eagle Against The Sun extensively covers the American war plans--"Orange" and "Rainbow"--as well as the American gathering of signal intelligence on Japanese operations. In fact, if Stinett's statement were true, it would have been impossible for Stinett to publish Day of Deceit in 2000!

I would say Stinnett is probably guilty of some self-aggrandizement here, by implying that his book is uncovering the "secret". It's probably pedantic to discredit him by suggesting that he should have said 59 years instead of 60. If the information was still mostly a secret after 1985 then he should probably be forgiven.

Quote:

...

That Stinett's assertion is supported by David Irving does not exactly inspire confidence, given that Irving is primarily known for being a Holocaust denier.

Isn't it a fallacy to suggest Stinnett's credibility depends on Irving? Stinnett doesn't have any control over who supports his work and who doesn't. If Adolf Hitler supports Josef Wagner's work, does this discredit Wagner?

Quote:

...

Regarding the signal intelligence, well that's been thrashed out, and not just in Eagle Against The Sun. Spector continues:Spector then addresses the claims made by John Toland in his 1982 book Infamy, pointing out the likely inaccuracy of the Lurline intercept, the clutter in which the Twelfth Naval District intercept got lost, and the fact that the Dutch East Indies intercept was relayed to DC without any reference made to Hawaii. He then turns to Toland's claim that, had Washington alerted Kimmel and Short, Nagumo's strike force would have turned back without attacking Pearl Harbor.

The problem with Toland's claim, as with every other "FDR let the Pacific Fleet be attacked to get the US into the war" claim, is that Nagumo's orders explicitly included instructions to go ahead with the attack even if his force were discovered out of range of Hawaii. The die was cast the moment Nagumo sailed for Hawaii on November 26th, so what FDR, Stimson, Hull, Knox and/or Marshall did or did not know by December 4th is academic.

I don't understand how this could be academic in context. The essence of Pearl Harbor was that it was a surprise attack, which was responsible for slaughtering 2400 people. If indeed there was foreknowledge, the element of surprise would have been lost, the casualties would have been far less and the US Navy could have parried the attack.

I imagine Stinnett's point is that absent such a brutal surprise attack with so many casualties, absent the horrific stories of trapped men burning and drowning inside the doomed battleships, and assuming a successful parry of Nagumo's attack, the American public would have remained disinterested in the war.

Your point is well taken though, Nagumo's actions would have resulted in a declaration of war by the US in any case. However, the relative lack of US casualties from a failed japanese incursion as opposed to a successful surprise attack would have undoubtedly resulted in more polarization and less unity and jingoism.

Again I must confess to being mostly ignorant of the details of WW2 history, perhaps you can enlighten me on some of them. I just read a Pearl Harbor FAQ which had some interesting tidbits, for instance:

"Nagumo's fleet assembled in the remote anchorage of Tankan Bay in the Kurile Islands and departed in strictest secrecy for Hawaii on 26 November 1941. The ships' route crossed the North Pacific and avoided normal shipping lanes. At dawn 7 December 1941, the Japanese task force had approached undetected to a point slightly more than 200 miles north of Oahu. At this time the U.S. carriers were not at Pearl Harbor."

and:

"The Japanese success was overwhelming, but it was not complete. They failed to damage any American aircraft carriers, which by a stroke of luck, had been absent from the harbor. "

Here is a link which documents the location of the US carriers.

Oh, by the way, my name is Alek, with a 'k'.

Alek · 18th March 2006, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by zaayrdragon

Well, I have watched the complete film. I have, as of now, visited twelve different websites espousing a variety of conspiracy theories about 9/11. I've now read about wooden mockups of 757s loaded with combustable materials; heat-beams from satellites used to pulverize concrete in the towers; advanced free-standing holography used to overlay a poorly-rendered 767 over a military missile or jet; secret nuclear devices that, amazingly, leave behind no dangerous radiation after use; and so on, and so forth. It's hard to wade through any one of these websites without encountering some strange X-Factor-style nonsense used to justify away any number of inconsistancies in their stories.

Thanks for watching the film (seriously), and for remaining open minded. Please try not to associate every implausible theory with every other theory, or theorist. Those of us who think something is seriously wrong are not served by all of the misinfo, and even disinfo that is out there. Perhaps you're more open-minded than I am, because not only do I not give credence to any of the above "theories" you mention, but I haven't even taken the time to review them. I doubt I could bother wading through them, either, and I suppose that's how most of you feel about Loose Change, or some of the other 9/11 films that are out there.

Quote:

Even those that maintain some facade of rationality and lucidity are loaded with fallacies, ignorance, and a lot of leapt-to conclusions. Yes, a few things really don't add up; a few things would do well to be exposed to closer investigation. But the vast majority of what was on Loose Change is tripe.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I feel the same way about the 9/11 Commission report.

Quote:

And Alex's behavior since joining the forums isn't going to bring more people towards his alleged 'truths', either. He parrots facts from the conspiracy sites without knowing what he's talking about, or even verifying the truth of those facts; while disparaging facts on other sites, again without verifying the truth of those facts.

You may be right. Sometimes I get so tired of bickering over what the "facts are" that I get defensive. Sometimes it seems like I take more crap than I dish out. I guess I hope that the best I can do is to throw a few links out there and hope someone picks them up. Or link to a few videos, and hope someone sees something that makes them question. Given the dis/misinfo that's out there, I could be wrong about a number of things. I don't think it's fair to say I don't know what I'm talking about. We just exist in different paradigms, such that it makes it difficult to communicate. And I reject the notion that you or anyone else is more capable of "verifying the facts". I think the basic problem here is that I don't trust official sources, and so when they are sourced, I become more skeptical. Yet ultimately, I am forced to resort to many of them myself.

Quote:

He tosses ad-hom and insult about as if it somehow justifies his apparent willful ignorance. And he still can't present any single piece of 'evidence' for the conspiracy theory that can't be understood or explained simply enough.

I'm in the distinct minority. In fact, I haven't seen anyone here who has even the most remote amount of skepticism for the OCT. Most every post directed towards me, with a few exceptions, has some degree of patronization, condescension, or ad hominem. The cumulative effect of this is to make me highly annoyed, which results in a positive feedback loop making everyone else annoyed. Try to keep in mind that it's pretty much one versus many here, and cut me some slack please.

Quote:

Now, I grant you, most of us here are NOT structural engineers, or physics majors, or demolitions experts; but the reports of those that would know best are the reports I'm most likely to accept. So far, the most qualified reports I've been able to read all accept that the Twin Towers fell as a result of the massive structural damage from the aircraft impacts, coupled with intense fires, creating a set of conditions suitable to allow total unilateral structural failure of the building at and above the points of impact; resulting in further structural failure as several thousand tons of debris impacted with already weakened upper structures, resulting in a pancake-style domino effect. Sure, they could be presenting the prepared party lines; but I find it highly unlikely that every qualified person who has reviewed the destruction is on the payroll of the Powers That Be.

I agree, I find that highly unlikely too. However, it may be an oversimplification of reality. It's well-known that intelligence agencies conspire in pretty elaborate ways to get their work done. For instance, they make a science of compartmentalization so as to ensure a number of things, like plausible deniability, secrecy, disavowment, etc... For instance, they're much more likely to hire real "terrorists" to perform some unsavory act than to order patriotic agents to do it.

Quote:

Yes, a true skeptic (whatever that is) would probably want to sit and watch the entire movie (over time). He would then want to do some fact-checking, make some notes, etc. This film would make him think - but it would not lead him to the same conclusions it has led Alex to. It wouldn't be the end of the process, but a step in it; Alex, unfortunately, stops at any step that requires him to invalidate or even question anything presented in support of massive conspiracy theories by our own government.

Of course I disagree. Not only hadn't I heard of some of the absurd theories you enumerated at the beginning of your post, I've discounted the ones I had heard of. I don't see a boogeyman around every corner. Unfortunately, I do see a non-stop pattern of fraud, deception, and abuse, and it doesn't begin nor end with government. Lets just say that I reserve the same amount of skepticism for the mainstream that the mainstream reserves for the "fringe". I think this is fair enough.

Quote:

My suggestion to those still on the fence: don't make Alex's mistake. CONTINUE to question, read, research, and learn. Even if it means you have to change your mind a hundred times. Even if it leaves you somewhat confused or bewildered. It would be better to base a world view on a COMPLETELY informed foundation, than on a biased representation from either side.

I would hope I'm not guilty of that, but sometimes I wonder. I've got just as much invested in what I believe as anyone else does. Nobody wants to be proven wrong, nobody wants to repudiate comfortable lies for disturbing truths. But I've been there, and I've done that, rightly or wrongly, and it wasn't easy. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about 9/11, and about other things. Maybe someone can convince me.

Alek · 18th March 2006, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by zaayrdragon

Why do I not believe you?

I meant I'm done with the "what Larry Silverstein said" versus "what Larry Silverstein meant". It's a dead horse. I think the man is suspect. Watch PBS: America Rebuilds for yourself.

kookbreaker · 18th March 2006, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Alek

I'm attacking him for lying, and being a weasel in general.

Based on unfounded prejudices.

Quote:

I fully support people's right to stop watching films that they think suck. However, If you start a thread on a skeptic's forum to slag a film you haven't watched you run the risk of getting called out by someone like me. I think a little reading comprehension is in order here.

Again, if the movie makes 10 deliberate mistakes in the first 10 minutes, it really doesn't pay to continue watching it, and it you are well within your rights to report it as a piece of propaganda.

Quote:

Nobody asked him his opinion. He slagged a film he hasn't watched. How's that for skepticism?

See above.

Quote:

You can hold whatever you want. I'm only suggesting he try the honest approach.

See above

Quote:

That's probably because I'm outnumbered and feeling defensive. Maybe if you were a little nicer, and maybe if people were a little more honest and objective, things would be different.

Wait a freaking moment, WE need to be nicer? Take a look at your second post to this fourm:

Originally Posted by alek's 2nd post

Just parrot someone else who has actually watched the film and decided to debunk it. What difference would it make, given that you've absolutely no pretense of objectivity? But then, "skeptics" don't need objectivity, they just need copious amounts of doubt, right?

I find it rather unlikely that you or several others in this thread are anything but selective skeptics. Perhaps if you applied the same degree of skepticism towards the 9/11 Commission's official conspiracy theory as you do to bigfoot sightings, spooky ghost stories, and psychics, then you may discover that their story doesn't quite add up.

You came in this forum with a chip on your shoulder, hoping for a fight. Well you got one, and got your butt handed to you. Now you are whining about us not being nice...that's a laugh

Quote:

I wasn't aware the use of the 1st amendment was contingent on your degree-issuing university's approval.

I wasn't aware the first amendement said anyting more than the GOVERNMENT will not interfere with your free speech. It says nothing about your employer, or any other private entity.

Quote:

It appears that she posted her analysis using the pseudonym "Jane Doe", with no mention of her identity or credentials what-so-ever. Then the Scholars website linked her page with her identity. Then slimeball decided to make a lame attempt to get her in some sort of trouble, which probably won't happen anyway because she didn't do anything "wrong". The only thing he's exposed is the fact that he has a little snitch-like mentality which is more suited to the East German Stasi secret police than the United States of America. Exercising your right to free speech in this country, anonymously or not is never "wrong", YOU, are wrong.

When one uses ones position at as an employee as a basis of authority, one had best make certain that one is in line with the employers wishes. If I use my companies' name to spout anti-semitic/racist propaganda I will likely face problems with my employer as well. Comparing this to 'Stasi' is ludicrous, since the government has little to do with this issue. If she loses her job as aresult of this, she has only herself to blame.

You obviously are too naive to understand that 'Free Speech' does not mean speech without consequences.

Quote:

Pure whine. Do you want some cheese to go with that?

It sounds like delphi has a little friend to run a smokescreen for him.

I didn't lie, I left, and came back. Would you prefer I go? Why don't you get Delphi to write the moderator a nasty email about me so I get banned? Then you can go back to debunking Bigfoot sightings.

You really aren't very good at this, are you?

WildCat · 18th March 2006, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Alek

I have evidence, I've posted evidence, and there is plenty more. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of me posting evidence, and you denying it out of hand, while simultaneously parroting government lies.

Your "evidence" was exposed as the BS it is. Let's review:
1. The WTC shouldn't have fallen, it was designed to withstand the impact of a airliner. This was shown to be a gross mischaracterization.

2. The WTC couldn't have fallen only due to the planes hitting it and subsequent fires. This was shown to be false, as every single structural engineering report agrees w/ the official reasons for collapse.

3. WTC 7 was hardly dameged, but fell anyway. Shown to be false, after which you changed your tune to:

4. WTC 7 had to be a controlled demolition due the fact no other steel building had collapsed due to fire. Shown to be false, as the steel portion of the Madrid tower did collapse. And the video shows what you think are "squibs" only appear after the building begins to collapse. In addition, firefighters near WTC 7 reported hearing the building beginning to collapse, and the videos and pictures show it is kinking and bending before it collapsed.

5. Seismic data shows trmors from the WTC before they collapsed. Shown to be false, using the very data you cited.

6. Shaky video that proves nothing.

In addition, you have not shown (or even offered a half-assed theory of) how the many tons of explosives necessary could have been installed and wired together w/o anyone noticing.

Originally Posted by Alek

Neither did I say the video wasn't evidence, nor did I say it was proof.

So now you're back to admitting the video is not evidence? Then why did you post it?

Originally Posted by Alek

Your little game of saying "Where's the evidence! You have no evidence!" ad nauseum is pointless. Is this SOP for debunking ghost stories and psychics?

It's SOP skeptics use for extraordinary claim that is offered w/ little or no evidence. It is very effective in separating the excrement from shinola.

Originally Posted by Alek

I hadn't analyzed the seismic data before, I hadn't even seen that video until today. It looks like it's worth some timeline analysis.

And yet you accepted w/o question a non-experts interpretation of the seismic data, and called the originator of the data a "moral coward" for not agreeing w/ your non-expert. Nice!

The video, coupled w/ the interview, also completely refutes your conspiracy theorists explanations of "what really happened". Yet, you are and will remain unconvinced (IMHO) because you really aren't interested in knowing any facts that make your theory inconvenient. In case you're wondering, psychics, homeopaths, dowsers, alien abductees, etc all use the same tactics here.

Originally Posted by Alek

I'm not a liar and I'm interested IN ALL the facts of the matter. In fact, i've learned precisely why the twin towers couldn't have toppled, and that the Madrid bombing is incorrectly cited as being a steel structure. I've admitted when I've been wrong, and when I've misunderstood.

Yet even when your pet theory has these holes blown into it, you still can't accept the more reasonable explanation.

Originally Posted by Alek

You, on the other hand, have shown no objectivity at all, nor is any of the skepticism you reserve for alternative theories directed at the official government lie.

See? You keep saying the official explanatio is a lie, even though all your evidence as such has been shown to be false! And you're going to lecture me on objectivity?!

Originally Posted by Alek

You assumed that because the concrete Madrid tower had a partial collapse (I wonder if all the steel failed at once and magically fell to the ground simultaneously?) that steel structures suffer complete collapse due to fire, such as witnessed at wtc7.net. And I asked you for the third time to provide some examples, some engineering precedent, and you haven't.

You haven't offered an example of a building of similar construction that received extensive damage and fires on par w/ WTC 7 that didn't collapse. See the problem here? W/o a reasonably close comparison, your above statement means squat.

Originally Posted by Alek

Silverstein originally said in the video "we've already had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", and then "we watched the building collapse".

Silverstein assumed command of the firefighting efforts on 9/11? I haven't seen the PBS documentary, so I have no idea in what context this quote was from. And context is everything in such matters.

Originally Posted by Alek

Then, shortly after that, a WTC worker is featured who says "We're getting ready to pull building six" followed by another man who says "we had to be careful about how we demolished building six"

Again, what is the context?

Originally Posted by Alek

So, subsequent to this Silverstein comes out and says essentially that he was referring to the firefighters, not the building. The only problem is, there were never any firefighters IN the building to begin with, as you yourself have already posted, I think twice now. Thus making Silversteins claim more mysterious. Here is a link which documents this:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...einanswers.htm

Wow! "Prison Planet"? The same guy who thinks there's RFID chips in $20 bills? Who thinks bin Ladin makes video/audio tapes under the direction of the CIA? You're joking, right?

Originally Posted by Alek

I urge anyone who is rational and sincerely interested in the truth to verify this, and watch the video. I'm done with the topic here.

Please stay, we need a good laugh around here every now and then...

kookbreaker · 18th March 2006, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Alek

This is interesting, because I've read accounts which describe the opposite, that it was known that the monolithic battleship was quickly becoming obsolete.

Nope. Battleships were still considered the mainstay. Carriers were unproved technology. The idea that the Government would toss the proven stuff in favor of something they hoped would work is absurd. Had the carriers been present, they would have been secondary targets, since it was the Battleships the Imperial Navy felt would interfere with the invasions of the Phillipines, etc.

Furthermore, the era of carrier battles only lasted a short time during the war. The last one being done in 1944, and there were only two signifigant carrier battles when you get down to it. Carriers were useful in many respects, but they were best suited for taking out other carriers. In the end, the Pacific saw more Battleship fights than Carrier battles, but the Carrier battles got all the attention.

Quote:

If I recall correctly, not a single aircraft carrier was destroyed at Pearl Harbor, and it was the battleships which were mostly destroyed. The carriers were elsewhere. I must confess ignorance of this subject though, I haven't read Stinnett's book nor any others about WW2, but it sounds like a fascinating subject.

Regarding Stinnett, my comments in this thread still stand:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=112

The man is deceptive WRT and his sources contradict him.

delphi_ote · 18th March 2006, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Alek

However, If you start a thread on a skeptic's forum to slag a film you haven't watched you run the risk of getting called out by someone like me.

I have watched the film. Not all of it. How many times do I have to say that before you'll stop making this accusation? At this point, I can't help but think you're making this mistake deliberately.

delphi_ote · 18th March 2006, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by Alek

Why don't you get Delphi to write the moderator a nasty email about me so I get banned?

Are you implying that the e-mail I sent was nasty? I was very courteous and outlined my case clearly. I also thanked him for his response.

Or do you think it's nasty to point out academic dishonesty? You never responded to my previous e-mail about the subject. It's very important that academics don't abuse their credentials, because it damages people's trust in experts.

This accusation seems a lot like the one about my not having seen the film. You're harping on the same note without listening to what anyone is saying.

delphi_ote · 18th March 2006, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Please stay, we need a good laugh around here every now and then...

Don't worry. He's not going anywhere.

JPK · 18th March 2006, 09:00 AM

Good morning Alek.
Please allow me to quote myself from a previous post that you seemed to have missed.

Quote:

Good morning Alek.
At the risk of making you look even more paranoid, would you care to tell us why exactly you think was conductced by the US government? I mean they must have had a reason right? How long ago did this plan start to take place? What other buildings are rigged to blow? You would have a great case if you could find one before someone else runs a plane into them.
You do not seem to be doing well by supplying physical evidence to hold up your end of the story so why not let us know your opinion on this.
JPK

It does apear that you have a problem with the "Big Bad Government" and that seems to be driving your thoughts here. Of course I could be wrong but you seem to be very selective about what you accept as evidence.

JPK

Alek · 18th March 2006, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

When one uses ones position at as an employee as a basis of authority, one had best make certain that one is in line with the employers wishes. If I use

You're obviously retarded, and virtually unable to comprehend english. Let me see if I can make it as unambiguous as possible so that even the likes of you can understand:

1) She posted her analysis using a psudonym from a private account, with no reference to her credentials, origin, or background. In english, this means she didn't use her position or authority.

2) The Scholars for 9/11 Truth linked her website to their page, presumably after her approval.

3) As soon as I pasted the 9/11 Truth link, delphi_ote obtained her identity through cross reference and began personally attacking her.

4) Taking issue with her article, and instead of countering or debunking her article in a public forum, he instead sent a private email to university authorities trying to get her in trouble.

5) We have freedom of speech in this country, which means that people have the right to express their belief, no matter how controversial or wrong.

Quote:

my companies' name to spout anti-semitic/racist propaganda I will likely face

Irrelevant, ridiculous analogy.

Quote:

problems with my employer as well. Comparing this to 'Stasi' is ludicrous, since the government has little to do with this issue. If she loses her job as aresult of this, she has only herself to blame.

The Stasi flourished because of a network of snitches and spies who formed a human surveillance grid. delphi_ote's behavior is typical of the slime in question. The fact that you think she may lose her job, and the fact that you think she should lose her job is more evidence of your apparent retardation, and abject ignorance as to what this country is all about. You're no better than the sniveling coward who wrote the letter.

Quote:

You obviously are too naive to understand that 'Free Speech' does not mean speech without consequences.

The consequences in this case should have been a reasoned rebuttal in a public forum, not some vain attempt to tattle on the speaker. You're not bright enough to grok this.

Quote:

You really aren't very good at this, are you?

17th March 2006, 05:16 PM	#202
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Alek ... and you should accept this without interpretation. Why? If something sounded like a bomb, it must be a bomb? That's absurd. Originally Posted by Alek Bankers trust suffered damage similar to what was claimed by the firefighter about WTC 7, and there is photographic evidence: Do you have video of the building burning on multiple floors like we've seen here for WTC7?
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

17th March 2006, 05:23 PM	#203
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Alek So, not only are you a liar, but you're a little punk who would "snitch" on someone in order to hopefully ruin her career, just because you disagree with what she has to say. I can't say I'm surprised. Please point out where I have lied. That was unfair.
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

17th March 2006, 05:28 PM	#204
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by Alek Another interesting video I found is this: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...20collapse.mpg Note the static position of the camera (probably due to the use of a tripod), then note the tremor that occurs moments before the collapse. Could you offer an explanation as to what this is? Yes, I can. It is obviously taken from very far away w/ a very long telephoto lens. This is obvious because the WTC is in focus, as is the building on the left which is much, much closer. This deep depth of field is the result of a long lens. My guess is that someone bumped the tripod (actually, it was probably a TV camera mounted on something much sturdier than a typical tripod, but that's irrelevant for our purposes). W/ this long lens, the slightest bump of the camera support would have the effect shown. Now IF, as you claim, it shook because of demolition charges going off, then why didn't it shake when 200,000 tons of concrete and steel collapsed and struck the ground w/ many times the force of the alleged demolition charges? This is a huge problem for your theory, isn't it? Quote: The Banker's Trust building appears just north of 6 o'clock directly south of the South Tower (WTC 2). Bankers trust suffered damage similar to what was claimed by the firefighter about WTC 7, and there is photographic evidence: So what is the difference between Banker's Trust and the WTC 7 building? Was the Banker's Trust building left burning out of control for hours? Therein lies your answer. Quote: It was later admittedly "pulled" according to the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds". Funny how you conspiracy guys are desperately trying to re-define that word to fit your purposes.
	__________________ Vive la liberté!

17th March 2006, 06:17 PM	#205
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by delphi_ote Please point out where I have lied. That was unfair. You opened the thread with a reference to a movie that you supposedly watched, at least in part. Then towards the end of the thread you admit to watching for the first time in some four years other footage of the towers collapsing, qualifying it with "willingly". Did someone coerce you into watching Loose Change version 2, or did you watch it willingly? If you consented (more like deigned) to watch it and were angrily surprised by footage that you didn't want to see, then obviously you aren't intelligent enough to intuit that a 9/11 documentary would feature plenty of footage of the towers collapsing. Since there is evidence that you aren't stupid, I have to conclude that you didn't in fact watch the movie, or you became too emotional and ended your viewing prematurely, otherwise you would have seen plenty of footage of the towers. Which, given your first post and the subject of the thread leads me to believe you're a liar. So, did you or did you not watch the film in its entirety? Did you manage to suppress your admitted emotional bias so that you could watch the film objectively, or did you fail in your self-proclaimed skepticism? If you haven't watched it, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and then attempt to debunk it point by point, as opposed to cherry picking what you would like? The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113

17th March 2006, 06:39 PM	#207
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by Alek If you haven't watched it, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and then attempt to debunk it point by point, as opposed to cherry picking what you would like? The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up. I have watched it, there's far too much there to do a point-by-point debunking. Why don't you just post what you think are the strongest points the movie makes, and we'll start from there? So far, all your points have been debunked. As far as cumulative evidence goes, 0+0+0+0+0+0=0... Do you have any responses to my point-by-point rebuttal of this post?
	__________________ Vive la liberté!

17th March 2006, 06:39 PM	#208
Hellbound Merchant of Doom Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades Posts: 11,066	Originally Posted by Alek The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up. You realize that evidence is like multiplication, more than addition, right? In other words, ten pieces of unlikely evidence doesn't make one piece of likely evidence. If you had ten unlikely evidences, any one of which proved conspiracy, then it'd be more like addition. However, all of your evidence must be true, plus more, to support your theory. That means it's like multiplication. If one piece falls, the entire thig crumbles. Or, .2+.2+.2+.2+.2 may equal one, but .2.2.2.2.2 equals .00032 Besides, we're still waiting for evidence of anything outside of what would be normal for a plane impact and fires. Sure, you've offered a lot of speculation and post-hoc reasoning, but to borrow from forensics, you haven't met the proof: You've offered no believable motive. You haven't offered any method that has reliable evidence to back it up (so far, ONE person out of thousands in and around the buildings that claims to have heard a boom from the basement, with no real detail). No evidence of anyone sneaking into the building to plant bombs. No evidence of controlled demolition (in fact, evidecne runs counter to this idea, squibs especially) No evidence of the free fall speeds you spout (easily disproven by the video, where debris falls faster than the building. Not freefall.) No "melted steel" No reason why an already damaged structure should not collapse (when plenty of reasons were offered, by experts in the field, as to why it should, and many suprised it lasted as long as it did) By the way, those airline stock trades everyone talks about were fully investigated by the SEC. Most of the airline trades were traced back to certain predictions made by investment advisors prior to 9/11, not the government or related parties. The documents advising these trades gave solid market reasons for them, no indication of any sort of prior knowledge.

17th March 2006, 06:40 PM	#209
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Alek You opened the thread with a reference to a movie that you supposedly watched, at least in part. Then towards the end of the thread you admit to watching for the first time in some four years other footage of the towers collapsing, qualifying it with "willingly". Did someone coerce you into watching Loose Change version 2, or did you watch it willingly? If you consented (more like deigned) to watch it and were angrily surprised by footage that you didn't want to see, then obviously you aren't intelligent enough to intuit that a 9/11 documentary would feature plenty of footage of the towers collapsing. Since there is evidence that you aren't stupid, I have to conclude that you didn't in fact watch the movie, or you became too emotional and ended your viewing prematurely, otherwise you would have seen plenty of footage of the towers. Which, given your first post and the subject of the thread leads me to believe you're a liar. So, did you or did you not watch the film in its entirety? Did you manage to suppress your admitted emotional bias so that you could watch the film objectively, or did you fail in your self-proclaimed skepticism? If you haven't watched it, why don't you check your emotions at the door, and then attempt to debunk it point by point, as opposed to cherry picking what you would like? The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up. You've confounded so many different logical fallacies and distortions into one post, I can't even really respond directly. By "watching the footage willingly" I mean I myself sought out and downloaded the footage. It wasn't presented to me in a movie, video, news report, etc. Please retract your statement that I am a liar. That was totally unfair and inaccurate. I did watch Loose Change, though not the entire movie. Roughly 30 minutes of it. I stopped at that point because so many claims were made without substantiating evidence. When I investigated those claims, it turns out they were wrong. Documentary makers have an obligation to track down facts and genuine experts, but it seems clear to me these students just didn't do that. I saw no reason to continue watching the video. Some day when I have spare time, maybe I'll watch the rest.
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

17th March 2006, 07:23 PM	#210
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by WildCat Yes, I can. It is obviously taken from very far away w/ a very long telephoto lens. This is obvious because the WTC is in focus, as is the building on the left which is much, much closer. This deep depth of field is the result of a long lens. My guess is that someone bumped the tripod (actually, it was probably a TV camera mounted on something much sturdier than a typical tripod, but that's irrelevant for our purposes). W/ this long lens, the slightest bump of the camera support would have the effect shown. The coincidence of the clumsy photographer bumping the camera seconds before the building collapses is a nice try, but I'm not convinced. Frankly, we both know that you weren't going to convince me with that. Quote: Now IF, as you claim, it shook because of demolition charges going off, then why didn't it shake when 200,000 tons of concrete and steel collapsed and struck the ground w/ many times the force of the alleged demolition charges? This is a huge problem for your theory, isn't it? I made no such claim, you made it for me, and then attempted to rationalize it away. Watch the video again, very closely, specifically the building to the left as the debris hit the ground some 10 seconds after the tower begins its collapse. I can see shaking, can you? This is consistent with the seismological data which indicates earthquakes before each collapse. Seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University stated, "Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small." Again, your skepticism is reserved only for the ACT (alternative conspiracy theory) not the OCT. You're obviously quite capable of making any number of spurious rationalizations to fit the evidence to your theory. The video is not proof of anything, but it's interesting, at least to me. Quote: Was the Banker's Trust building left burning out of control for hours? Therein lies your answer. I've observed hydrocarbon and cellulosic fire curves, I've observed the melting and weakening points of steel, and I've observed the reserve strength ratios engineered into typical modern steel buildings. What I haven't observed are any other examples of modern steel structures totally collapsing due to fire, other than WTC 1 and WTC 2. This was admitted in the "Why the Towers Fell" video whitewash. If you can find video and other evidence of this (and no, Korean department stores with shoddy construction don't qualify) then please post it. I would love to see all of these examples, because it would have grave implications for the ethics of sending firefighters into burning steel buildings! Certainly, it was a precedent setting day. Note that no jet impacted the WTC 7 building, so the only source of hydrocarbons would be from the tanks inside the building. WTC 7 was hardened to satisfy tenants like the CIA, the IRS, and the city of New York (Giuliani had a bunker in the building, or didn't you know?). I find it implausible that such a building would pancake symmetrically at virtual free-fall speed due to a miraculous, simultaneous, unilateral failure of it's core columns which in turn were due to asymmetric fire damage. Some other deniers do too, which is why they're coming up with other rationalizations for why the building was "legitimately" demolished. Quote: Funny how you conspiracy guys are desperately trying to re-define that word to fit your purposes. Funny you mention that. Have you actually seen the PBS video in question? Silverstein admits to "pulling it" and then "watching the building collapse." What he meant by "it" isn't exactly clear, he later claimed he was referring to firefighters, except, no firefighters were ever assigned to the building, they just let the building burn. Then later in the video, a worker can be seen and heard exclaiming "We're getting ready to pull building six" just before it collapses. Odder still, is that I couldn't find any evidence that "pull" is an industry term for controlled demolition. If it is a term that demolitionists use, it isn't documented on the web as far as I can tell. I'm not going to speculate on what Silverstein meant. I'll leave that up to you and your rationalizations.
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Last edited by Alek; 17th March 2006 at 07:27 PM.

17th March 2006, 07:36 PM	#211
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by WildCat I have watched it, there's far too much there to do a point-by-point debunking. Why don't you just post what you think are the strongest points the movie makes, and we'll start from there? So far, all your points have been debunked. As far as cumulative evidence goes, 0+0+0+0+0+0=0... Proclaiming victory and that you've debunked my claims doesn't make it so. It's more evidence of the vapidity, vanity, and intellectual insecurity I've seen from people who self-identify as "skeptics". The only thing that has been debunked in my mind, so far, is the idea that the towers should have toppled more due to the asymmetric nature of their damage. Clearly there weren't many possible ways in which they could have fallen, other than about straight down. And this was by a user on the bautforum. Is this about your ego, or about finding the truth? Quote: Do you have any responses to my point-by-point rebuttal of this post? Not yet, I'll take a look.
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113

17th March 2006, 07:44 PM	#212
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	That was disappointing.
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

17th March 2006, 07:56 PM	#213
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by Huntsman You realize that evidence is like multiplication, more than addition, right? In other words, ten pieces of unlikely evidence doesn't make one piece of likely evidence. If you had ten unlikely evidences, any one of which proved conspiracy, then it'd be more like addition. However, all of your evidence must be true, plus more, to support your theory. That means it's like multiplication. If one piece falls, the entire thig crumbles. Or, .2+.2+.2+.2+.2 may equal one, but .2.2.2.2.2 equals .00032 There are too many logical and conceptual errors in that last bit of inanity to bother with. I would merely point out that any theory can be disproven with just one piece of evidence, and that the valuation of evidence, particularly non-falsifiable evidence, is subjective. Quote: You've offered no believable motive. This is a forum populated by supposed "skeptics". I'm trying to stick to what can be falsified, which of course is difficult with any conspiracy theory. Offering motives is just speculation. I've spent the last 10 or so years learning about the motives, and they are fantastic. In fact, if I offered them, you would no doubt denounce me as a kook, not that it already hasn't been implied. So lets try and stick to the physical evidence, at least for the time being. We're having enough trouble seeing eye-to-eye with that. I will admit that my weltanschauung greatly influences my idea of what happend on 9/11. The context of our existence colors all of our perceptions, whether we like it or not, and no one is free from bias.
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113

17th March 2006, 08:18 PM	#214
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by Alek The coincidence of the clumsy photographer bumping the camera seconds before the building collapses is a nice try, but I'm not convinced. Frankly, we both know that you weren't going to convince me with that. You're right there. You're a True Believer™ who isn't going to let facts or evidence stand in your way. Originally Posted by Alek I made no such claim, you made it for me, and then attempted to rationalize it away. Are you saying you weren't insinuating that the tremor was the result of explosives being set off? Then what was the purpose of posting the video, and commenting on the shaking? Originally Posted by Alek Watch the video again, very closely, specifically the building to the left as the debris hit the ground some 10 seconds after the tower begins its collapse. I can see shaking, can you? It only appears to be shaking since the WTC is no longer in the shot. It's the same shaking as was there before the collapse - which you apparently admit wasn't due to any explosives or ground tremors. Originally Posted by Alek This is consistent with the seismological data which indicates earthquakes before each collapse. Lerner-Lam, who recorded that seismic data, has commented on your interpretation of his work: Quote: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." Originally Posted by Alek Again, your skepticism is reserved only for the ACT (alternative conspiracy theory) not the OCT. You're obviously quite capable of making any number of spurious rationalizations to fit the evidence to your theory. The video is not proof of anything, but it's interesting, at least to me. I have seen no reasons to be skeptical of the official explanation for the towers collapse. There is video of the planes hitting the towers, an ongoing trial of a defendant who has pled guilty to participating in the plot, numerous reports by structural engineers that confirm that the planes and resulting fires were more than adequate to bring them down. Your theory has no plausible motive, no opportunity to place the amount (we're talking more than 100 tons) of explosives in the buildings and wire it all together unobserved by the tens of thousands of people working there, no explanation as to why planes would be needed also, etc. Occam's Razor favors the official explanation, and it's not a close call by any stretch of the imagination. Originally Posted by Alek I've observed hydrocarbon and cellulosic fire curves, I've observed the melting and weakening points of steel, and I've observed the reserve strength ratios engineered into typical modern steel buildings. What I haven't observed are any other examples of modern steel structures totally collapsing due to fire, other than WTC 1 and WTC 2. Funny, because an example was posted earlier in this thread - one you personally cited, the Madrid Windsor Tower fire. To refresh your memory: Quote: The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor. If the entire building had been supported by steel (as was the WTC), the whole thing would also have collapsed. But only the upper floors were supported by steel, the rest was concrete. It also wasn't stuck by a 140 ton fuel-laden battering ram traveling 450 mph. I'm sure you realize this (the WTC incident) was rather unique, don't you? If the answer is "yes", then why do you keep repeating this line? Originally Posted by Alek This was admitted in the "Why the Towers Fell" video whitewash. If you can find video and other evidence of this (and no, Korean department stores with shoddy construction don't qualify) then please post it. I would love to see all of these examples, because it would have grave implications for the ethics of sending firefighters into burning steel buildings! I guarantee you, firefighters won't be rushing into the next high-rise struck by a fully loaded 757. Originally Posted by Alek Certainly, it was a precedent setting day. Note that no jet impacted the WTC 7 building, so the only source of hydrocarbons would be from the tanks inside the building. WTC 7 was hardened to satisfy tenants like the CIA, the IRS, and the city of New York (Giuliani had a bunker in the building, or didn't you know?). One of those tanks was a massive pressurized one in the basement, that had hoses going up to the upper floors. We're not talking about a backyard bbq tank here. There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from earlier you'd know that the firefighters near the building heard it failing several minutes before it collapsed, and got out of there because they believed it was unstable and on the verge of collapse. Does this evidence fly right over your head? How can you ignore it so? Originally Posted by Alek I find it implausible that such a building would pancake symmetrically at virtual free-fall speed due to a miraculous, simultaneous, unilateral failure of it's core columns which in turn were due to asymmetric fire damage. Some other deniers do too, which is why they're coming up with other rationalizations for why the building was "legitimately" demolished. Which boils down to... Originally Posted by Alek Funny you mention that. Have you actually seen the PBS video in question? Silverstein admits to "pulling it" and then "watching the building collapse." What he meant by "it" isn't exactly clear, he later claimed he was referring to firefighters, except, no firefighters were ever assigned to the building, they just let the building burn. Then later in the video, a worker can be seen and heard exclaiming "We're getting ready to pull building six" just before it collapses. As I also posted earlier, which you've apparently also ignored, is the video, complete w/ firefighters talking, of WTC 7 and how they're pulling everyone out - not because there's bombs going off, but it is unstable! Once again, you want to believe it, so you do. And any evidence to the contrary, you will ignore. Originally Posted by Alek Odder still, is that I couldn't find any evidence that "pull" is an industry term for controlled demolition. If it is a term that demolitionists use, it isn't documented on the web as far as I can tell. Then why do you keep using that term as if it is? Do you admit that when firefighters say "pull it" they mean "stop the firefighting efforts and get everyone out of there"? Originally Posted by Alek I'm not going to speculate on what Silverstein meant. I'll leave that up to you and your rationalizations. But you already have! And as the video I just posted shows, no rationalizations are necessary.
	__________________ Vive la liberté! Last edited by WildCat; 17th March 2006 at 08:22 PM.

17th March 2006, 08:22 PM	#215
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by delphi_ote You've confounded so many different logical fallacies and distortions into one post, I can't even really respond directly. By "watching the footage willingly" I mean I myself sought out and downloaded the footage. It wasn't presented to me in a movie, video, news report, etc. Please retract your statement that I am a liar. That was totally unfair and inaccurate. I did watch Loose Change, though not the entire movie. Roughly 30 minutes of it. I stopped at that point because so many claims were made without substantiating evidence. When I investigated those claims, it turns out they were wrong. Documentary makers have an obligation to track down facts and genuine experts, but it seems clear to me these students just didn't do that. I saw no reason to continue watching the video. Some day when I have spare time, maybe I'll watch the rest. This is the dialectic in action. Finally, through logical contradiction we have arrived at the truth, that is, you in fact DID NOT watch the documentary in its entirety, but only thirty minutes. I think we're making progress here! Here's why you are a liar. In your christening post, you said: Quote: Has anyone else seen this 9/11 conspiracy theory "documentary?" A friend asked me to watch it, and it's making me so angry I can't say anything intelligible about it. We're going to be stuck forever with people denying this tragedy just like we're stuck with people denying the Holocaust. It's all over google video. Just type in "Loose Change" if you hate your brain. ETA: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Loose+Change Your first question, specifically the use of "anyone else", implies that you yourself have seen the movie, which you've now admitted isn't true. When most honest people talk about movies they've seen, the implication is that they've seen them in their entirety. Maybe this isn't true at the University of Central Florida. I don't know, I live in San Diego, California. Anyway, you lied. Opening a forum for the purpose of slagging a movie which you haven't even watched is deceitful. Your method of argumentation is patronizing, your demeanor is condescending. Attacking the author of someone I used as a source by sending a whiney email to their superior is downright pathetic. My original sentiment is more than accurate. So far, I'm not impressed with your credentials as a "skeptic". You're none of objective, rational, or honest, and apparently you can't control your emotions long enough to criticize a film you intend to debunk. The bickering is pointless. Can we agree to just mutually ignore each other?
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113

17th March 2006, 08:41 PM	#216
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 11,251	Originally Posted by Alek This is the dialectic in action. Finally, through logical contradiction we have arrived at the truth, that is, you in fact DID NOT watch the documentary in its entirety, but only thirty minutes. I think we're making progress here! Puh-leeze. You are attacking Delphi for not watching a pile of junk to its entirety? If someone tells you that a cup of milk is spoiled, do you attack them for not drinking the entire cup? Quote: Here's why you are a liar. In your christening post, you said: No. Not even close. This is like saying someone did not read all of StormFront's doctrines is lying for saying they've seen their stuff and found it to be racist. Quote: Your first question, specifically the use of "anyone else", implies that you yourself have seen the movie, which you've now admitted isn't true. Wrong. That wasn't even a good try. Quote: When most honest people talk about movies they've seen, the implication is that they've seen them in their entirety. I have, and known plenty of people who have walked out of really bad movies without seeing them to their end. When someone later asks them their opinion do they have to say they haven't seen it? Quote: Maybe this isn't true at the University of Central Florida. I don't know, I live in San Diego, California. Anyway, you lied. Just keep telling yourself that and you might beleive it. You'll be the only one, but that's better than none. Quote: Opening a forum for the purpose of slagging a movie which you haven't even watched is deceitful. Does this mean if a movie really, really sucks and we don't watch it until the end, then we cannot hold an opinion on the matter? That's beyond weak. Quote: Your method of argumentation is patronizing, your demeanor is condescending. Have you even read the snide, sniping remarks that you've made? You are busting irony meters here! Just look at your second post on this forum. You've got patronizing hostility out the wazoo! Quote: Attacking the author of someone I used as a source by sending a whiney email to their superior is downright pathetic. My original sentiment is more than accurate. Sorry bub, but in the real world if you try to use your professional status to support something you have to account for your employer. If what this person did was not wrong, then there would be no consequences. But they were using their status as an employee at an educational facility to enhance their arguement. That stuff will have consequences. Deal with it. Quote: So far, I'm not impressed with your credentials as a "skeptic". You're none of objective, rational, or honest, and apparently you can't control your emotions long enough to criticize a film you intend to debunk. Pure ad hominen, that is all you have left at this point beyond your faith to 9/11 conspiracies. Not surprising that you resort to bluster. You've been trying to salvage this pathetic attack since yesterday and it won't hold a drop of water. Give it up. Quote: The bickering is pointless. Can we agree to just mutually ignore each other? Sounds like Delphi's got your number. Speaking of lies, didn't you say you were leaving?
	__________________ 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.

17th March 2006, 09:47 PM	#217
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Alek The bickering is pointless. Can we agree to just mutually ignore each other? If you want me to ignore you, a good start would be to stop posting your conspiracy theory garbage in my thread on my forum. You came here and picked a fight. You got soundly beaten, and now you want the other side to wave the white flag? That's just adorable. It might also be a good idea not to call me a liar for no apparent reason. Your first accusation was that I had deleted my post to cover my tracks. When I pointed out that they were all still there, you dropped that accusation without apologizing and pretended it never happened. Then you back tracked and said that I hadn't watched the video at all, and said once again that I was a liar etc. etc. for criticizing a movie I'd never seen. When I pointed out that even this allegation was false, you again avoided making apologies for being completely wrong about me. Now you're hiding in the corner with some minor point that I didn't watch every minute of the train wreck. I never said I watched every minute of it. Anyone who watches this entire movie without stopping to check their facts is no skeptic.
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

17th March 2006, 09:58 PM	#218
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Alek Maybe this isn't true at the University of Central Florida. I don't know, I live in San Diego, California. You know, isolating that statement makes you look pretty silly. It's even more ridiculous in context, but it's worth bringing people's attention to this special moment in Alek nonsense. Did you think this was acerbic invective? Were we supposed to be cowed by your mighty wit? Did you understand that anyone reading your post would only scratch their heads and wonder just what would cause a human mind to wrench itself into a shape awkward enough to puke out an idea like that? Just what were you going for there?
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

17th March 2006, 10:05 PM	#219
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by WildCat You're right there. You're a True Believer™ who isn't going to let facts or evidence stand in your way. Are you using the forum equivalent of soundbite rebuttal? Very nice. Your guess as to what caused the tremor in that video aren't "facts or evidence". Quote: Are you saying you weren't insinuating that the tremor was the result of explosives being set off? Then what was the purpose of posting the video, and commenting on the shaking? Of course I was, but I didn't "claim" it, as you said. The evidence itself led you to your rightful conclusion, and then you did what you've been doing with all of the evidence: rationalizing it away. Quote: It only appears to be shaking since the WTC is no longer in the shot. It's the same shaking as was there before the collapse - which you apparently admit wasn't due to any explosives or ground tremors. It's amazing how two people can view the exact same video and come to completely different conclusions, isn't it? That's the sad, polarized state of the world these days. No, it isn't the same shaking. There is no shaking at all, followed by an obvious tremor, followed by stillness, followed by very minor shaking, presumably caused by debris hitting the ground. Quote: Lerner-Lam, who recorded that seismic data, has commented on your interpretation of his work: Lerner-Lam's subsequent testimony is unsubstantial and irrelevant. His little disclaimer is either because he's ignorant, a moral coward, or both. Maybe he made that disclaimer so that unethical cowards wouldn't send his boss emails regarding his kooky incompetence. The data is all that's important. Quote: I have seen no reasons to be skeptical of the official explanation for the towers collapse. There is video of the planes hitting the towers, an ongoing trial of a defendant who has pled guilty to participating in the plot, numerous reports by structural engineers that confirm that the planes and resulting fires were more than adequate to bring them down. That's because your eyes are closed, and you're unwilling to open them. Quote: Your theory has no plausible motive, no opportunity to place the amount (we're talking more than 100 tons) of explosives in the buildings and wire it all together unobserved by the tens of thousands of people working there, no explanation as to why planes would be needed also, etc. You already disparaged one of my plausible motives. $1.98, remember? "We" are talking 100 tons of explosives? No, that's all you. Are you seriously claiming it would require 100 tons of explosives to demolish one of the roughly 500,000 ton towers? You've lost credibility. Congratulations. Quote: Occam's Razor favors the official explanation, and it's not a close call by any stretch of the imagination. I was wondering when I'd see a misuse of Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor only suggests a preference for simpler theories over more complex ones. It doesn't either a) address disproven/discredited theories like the government's OCT or b) preclude less obvious and more complex theories from being true ESPECIALLY concerning theories involving human nature, and criminal motive. Quote: Funny, because an example was posted earlier in this thread - one you personally cited, the Madrid Windsor Tower fire. To refresh your memory: I made a mistake in citing it, as it obviously wasn't a steel, but concrete structure! The Madrid fire is commonly cited by many theorists, and they are wrong, as was I. However, I'm still not convinced that fire was responsible for the total symmetrical collapse of World Trade Center 7. Please find me a modern steel structure that has collapsed due solely due to fire (and video of the collapse if possible). You can't. Quote: If the entire building had been supported by steel (as was the WTC), the whole thing would also have collapsed. But only the upper floors were supported by steel, the rest was concrete. It also wasn't stuck by a 140 ton fuel-laden battering ram traveling 450 mph. I'm sure you realize this (the WTC incident) was rather unique, don't you? If the answer is "yes", then why do you keep repeating this line? Wrong, that's unscientific speculation on your part. More steel implies more thermal conductivity, and vastly more load capacity. You have no basis to assume such a thing. You've got your facts slightly wrong. The heaviest variant of the 757 weighs about 122 tons, fully loaded, not 140 tons. Additionally the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impacts of multiple Boeing 707 aircraft, which although weighing about 60,000 lbs. (iirc) less, actually has a higher cruising speed than the more modern 757 (possibly resulting in more energy delivered to the target. Admittedly, a designer of the towers said that they didn't plan for kerosene fires because they had no way of modeling them at the time. This is from the documentary "Why the Towers Fell". Yes, I agree the incident is unique, but that doesn't require me to accept the official conspiracy theory, when it is riddled with more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Quote: I guarantee you, firefighters won't be rushing into the next high-rise struck by a fully loaded 757. I can't disagree with you there. I can understand why they didn't rush into WTC 7, either, and why they thought that it was on the verge of collapse. Which brings me back to exactly what Silverstein was referring to by "pull it", if "it" isn't "the firefighters". Quote: One of those tanks was a massive pressurized one in the basement, that had hoses going up to the upper floors. We're not talking about a backyard bbq tank here. There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from earlier you'd know that the firefighters near the building heard it failing several minutes before it collapsed, and got out of there because they believed it was unstable and on the verge of collapse. Does this evidence fly right over your head? How can you ignore it so? I haven't ignored it. I've read it, analyzed it, thought about it, and rejected it. It still doesn't add up to this. Well, maybe in your mind. Quote: Which boils down to... Great. Break out the flying saucers. And you want to believe the official lie because the government says so, and because the cost of accepting the truth is too much to bear. Quote: As I also posted earlier, which you've apparently also ignored, is the video, complete w/ firefighters talking, of WTC 7 and how they're pulling everyone out - not because there's bombs going off, but it is unstable! Once again, you want to believe it, so you do. And any evidence to the contrary, you will ignore. I saw that, and I appreciate you bringing that video to my attention, I hadn't seen it before. However, I still don't find it relevant as I don't believe asymmetric fire damage could be responsible for the type of collapse which is documented in the videos linked above. I also fully understand firefighters' reluctance to enter WTC 7, and I understand why they would think it would be in danger of collapsing, given the prior events of the day. I also tend to believe it wasn't in danger of collapsing without a LOT of help. If I'm wrong and fire can be used to implode a 600' skyscraper into a tight little rubble pile by causing it's core columns to all fail simultaneously then I suggest demolition teams are vastly overpaid. Quote: Then why do you keep using that term as if it is? Do you admit that when firefighters say "pull it" they mean "stop the firefighting efforts and get everyone out of there"? A few paragraphs up, you said this: "There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from ..." Which is it? Quote: But you already have! And as the video I just posted shows, no rationalizations are necessary. If they weren't necessary, you wouldn't be making them.
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113

17th March 2006, 10:07 PM	#220
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by delphi_ote You know, isolating that statement makes you look pretty silly. It's even more ridiculous in context, but it's worth bringing people's attention to this special moment in Alek nonsense. Did you think this was acerbic invective? Were we supposed to be cowed by your mighty wit? Did you understand that anyone reading your post would only scratch their heads and wonder just what would cause a human mind to wrench itself into a shape awkward enough to puke out an idea like that? Just what were you going for there? I admit it was pretty juvenille, but far less juvenille than your email stunt. I grew up in Miami, so I can attest that central Florida pretty much sucks. It's got a bunch of people with parochial attitudes.
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113

17th March 2006, 10:17 PM	#221
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Alek I admit it was pretty juvenille, but far less juvenille than your email stunt. What was juvenile about my e-mail? What Dr. Wood is doing is dishonest and unprofessional. She wants to use her credentials and the reputation of her university to support her conspiracy theory writings, but she isn't subjecting those writings to academic criticism, because she won't place her name on the actual writings themselves. I e-mailed her at her university e-mail account and asked if she was responsible for the website. She has not yet responded. I'll let you know if she does.
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

17th March 2006, 11:06 PM	#222
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by kookbreaker Puh-leeze. You are attacking Delphi for not watching a pile of junk to its entirety? If someone tells you that a cup of milk is spoiled, do you attack them for not drinking the entire cup? I'm attacking him for lying, and being a weasel in general. I fully support people's right to stop watching films that they think suck. However, If you start a thread on a skeptic's forum to slag a film you haven't watched you run the risk of getting called out by someone like me. I think a little reading comprehension is in order here. Quote: I have, and known plenty of people who have walked out of really bad movies without seeing them to their end. When someone later asks them their opinion do they have to say they haven't seen it? Nobody asked him his opinion. He slagged a film he hasn't watched. How's that for skepticism? Quote: Does this mean if a movie really, really sucks and we don't watch it until the end, then we cannot hold an opinion on the matter? That's beyond weak. You can hold whatever you want. I'm only suggesting he try the honest approach. Quote: Have you even read the snide, sniping remarks that you've made? You are busting irony meters here! Just look at your second post on this forum. You've got patronizing hostility out the wazoo! That's probably because I'm outnumbered and feeling defensive. Maybe if you were a little nicer, and maybe if people were a little more honest and objective, things would be different. Quote: Sorry bub, but in the real world if you try to use your professional status to support something you have to account for your employer. If what this person did was not wrong, then there would be no consequences. But they were using their status as an employee at an educational facility to enhance their arguement. That stuff will have consequences. Deal with it. I wasn't aware the use of the 1st amendment was contingent on your degree-issuing university's approval. It appears that she posted her analysis using the pseudonym "Jane Doe", with no mention of her identity or credentials what-so-ever. Then the Scholars website linked her page with her identity. Then slimeball decided to make a lame attempt to get her in some sort of trouble, which probably won't happen anyway because she didn't do anything "wrong". The only thing he's exposed is the fact that he has a little snitch-like mentality which is more suited to the East German Stasi secret police than the United States of America. Exercising your right to free speech in this country, anonymously or not is never "wrong", YOU, are wrong. Quote: Pure ad hominen, that is all you have left at this point beyond your faith to 9/11 conspiracies. Pure whine. Do you want some cheese to go with that? Quote: Not surprising that you resort to bluster. You've been trying to salvage this pathetic attack since yesterday and it won't hold a drop of water. Give it up. Sounds like Delphi's got your number. It sounds like delphi has a little friend to run a smokescreen for him. Quote: Speaking of lies, didn't you say you were leaving? I didn't lie, I left, and came back. Would you prefer I go? Why don't you get Delphi to write the moderator a nasty email about me so I get banned? Then you can go back to debunking Bigfoot sightings.
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113

17th March 2006, 11:21 PM	#223
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by Alek Are you using the forum equivalent of soundbite rebuttal? Very nice. You believe in the conspiracy despite having no evidence. If you have evidence of a conspiracy, post it please. Originally Posted by Alek Your guess as to what caused the tremor in that video aren't "facts or evidence". You haven't even said what you think this is evidence of. Frankly, it isn't evidence of anything, and you've pretty much admitted as much. Originally Posted by Alek Of course I was, but I didn't "claim" it, as you said. The evidence itself led you to your rightful conclusion, and then you did what you've been doing with all of the evidence: rationalizing it away. Look Alek, you can't just post some half-ass video, say "whoa, look at that" and hold it up as some sort of evidence. It's not. If you think it is, be specific what you think it means and why. Otherwise, what use is it? Your little game of saying "it isn't evidence, but then it is" is tiring and pointless. Originally Posted by Alek It's amazing how two people can view the exact same video and come to completely different conclusions, isn't it? That's the sad, polarized state of the world these days. No, it isn't the same shaking. There is no shaking at all, followed by an obvious tremor, followed by stillness, followed by very minor shaking, presumably caused by debris hitting the ground. There is no way you can tell what causes the shaking of the camera! The seismic data shows no tremors before the towers fell. That is a fact, if you claim otherwise I will call you a liar because you cannot produce a seismogram showing otherwise - at least not the one from Columbia U., which is the only one that recorded the tremors. Originally Posted by Alek Lerner-Lam's subsequent testimony is unsubstantial and irrelevant. His little disclaimer is either because he's ignorant, a moral coward, or both. Maybe he made that disclaimer so that unethical cowards wouldn't send his boss emails regarding his kooky incompetence. The data is all that's important. Listen Alek, your conspiracy heroes published incomplete data and quoted Lerner-Lam out of context. The evidence for that is obvious and overwhelming. Now you call him a "moral coward"? You are a dishonest liar and have no interest at all in the facts of the matter. The data is all that's important, it's too bad your bunch of conspiracy kooks deliberately misrepresented it. The seismograms can be seen here. They don't show what you claim they do. Originally Posted by Alek That's because your eyes are closed, and you're unwilling to open them. PT Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute". Looks like you get to claim the distinction for your minute... Originally Posted by Alek You already disparaged one of my plausible motives. $1.98, remember? "We" are talking 100 tons of explosives? No, that's all you. Are you seriously claiming it would require 100 tons of explosives to demolish one of the roughly 500,000 ton towers? You've lost credibility. Congratulations. It took 20 tons of explosives to implode the Kingdome. The Kingdome is much, much smaller than the WTC. Yes, I am claiming that it would take at least 100 tons of explosives to bring down the 2 towers and WTC 7. Please explain how this was accomplished. Originally Posted by Alek I was wondering when I'd see a misuse of Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor only suggests a preference for simpler theories over more complex ones. It doesn't either a) address disproven/discredited theories like the government's OCT or b) preclude less obvious and more complex theories from being true ESPECIALLY concerning theories involving human nature, and criminal motive. Except you'd better have a whole lot of evidence to ignore the simpler theory. And so far, you have none at all! Originally Posted by Alek I made a mistake in citing it, as it obviously wasn't a steel, but concrete structure! The Madrid fire is commonly cited by many theorists, and they are wrong, as was I. However, I'm still not convinced that fire was responsible for the total symmetrical collapse of World Trade Center 7. Please find me a modern steel structure that has collapsed due solely due to fire (and video of the collapse if possible). You can't. This is yet another display of your dishonesty and mischaracterizing of this event - it was not due solely to the fire and nobody has claimed it was. That you so desperately insist on bringing up this completely moot point shows the your desperation at the complete inefficacy of your theory. Now, show me a building that was set on fire due to a 140 ton jetliner hitting it at 450 mph that didn't collapse. And why are you so dumbfounded that it collapsed symmetrically? Would you expect 250,000 tons of steel and concrete to fall over on its side due to a collapse on the 80th floor? If you do, you're an idiot. Originally Posted by Alek Wrong, that's unscientific speculation on your part. More steel implies more thermal conductivity, and vastly more load capacity. You have no basis to assume such a thing. I'm not assuming anything! The steel portion of the Madrid tower completely collapsed, there's even pictures on the site for cryin' out loud! Are you seriously going to dispute this? Originally Posted by Alek You've got your facts slightly wrong. The heaviest variant of the 757 weighs about 122 tons, fully loaded, not 140 tons. Additionally the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impacts of multiple Boeing 707 aircraft, which although weighing about 60,000 lbs. (iirc) less, actually has a higher cruising speed than the more modern 757 (possibly resulting in more energy delivered to the target. Admittedly, a designer of the towers said that they didn't plan for kerosene fires because they had no way of modeling them at the time. This is from the documentary "Why the Towers Fell". This is why nobody here can take you seriously. You swallow this crap from your conspiracy sites hook, line, and sinker w/o even thinking it might not be the way it is portrayed. The fact is (according to Leslie Robinson, chief structural engineer of the WTC) they were designed to absorb the impact of a 119,000 kg 707 that was lost in fog, had dumped excess fuel, and was flying at just above stall speed (290 kph). The 767's (my mistake, it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon) that hit the WTC weighed in at 125,000 kg and were traveling at 944 kph. Full details here. Now, that's a bigger impact by order of magnitude over the design specs. The fact that they held up as long as they did is the wonder here. But, I'm sure, this will be one more fact you'll brush aside in favor of your pet theory. Originally Posted by Alek Yes, I agree the incident is unique, but that doesn't require me to accept the official conspiracy theory, when it is riddled with more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. We've plugged those holes as fast as you post them. They're complete nonsense. Originally Posted by Alek I can't disagree with you there. I can understand why they didn't rush into WTC 7, either, and why they thought that it was on the verge of collapse. Which brings me back to exactly what Silverstein was referring to by "pull it", if "it" isn't "the firefighters". But "it" is the firefighters... Originally Posted by Alek I haven't ignored it. I've read it, analyzed it, thought about it, and rejected it. It still doesn't add up to this. Well, maybe in your mind. We've shown over and over what nonsense that is. Originally Posted by Alek Great. Break out the flying saucers. And you want to believe the official lie because the government says so, and because the cost of accepting the truth is too much to bear. You have no evidence at all that the official version is a lie, we have given you ample evidence showing your sites are full of lies. You believe the lies because you want to believe in them. [quote=Alek]I saw that, and I appreciate you bringing that video to my attention, I hadn't seen it before. However, I still don't find it relevant as I don't believe asymmetric fire damage could be responsible for the type of collapse which is documented in the videos linked above. I also fully understand firefighters' reluctance to enter WTC 7, and I understand why they would think it would be in danger of collapsing, given the prior events of the day. I also tend to believe it wasn't in danger of collapsing without a LOT of help. If I'm wrong and fire can be used to implode a 600' skyscraper into a tight little rubble pile by causing it's core columns to all fail simultaneously then I suggest demolition teams are vastly overpaid.[quote] You are wrong in so many ways. To begin with, the firefighters were reluctant to enter it not because of what happened earlier, but because they could hear the structure coming apart. They also noticed the top portion was kinked, and you can see this in other pics. The fire caused the entire interior to sag in, and eventually fall. There's a neat little avi here that shows your "squibs" actually don't appear until after the building starts to collapse. Now, that would be a neat trick! Originally Posted by Alek A few paragraphs up, you said this: "There was also no effort made at fighting the fires in the building, as it had been fully evacuated. And if you had bothered reading the NYC Fire Capt. interview I quoted from ..." Which is it? What the hell are you talking about? Read the interview! He's describing walking towards WTC 7, he nor any other firefighter was not actually in the building, and no one had attempted to put it out. They thought about fighting the fire, but changed their minds because it was obviously too dangerous. Originally Posted by Alek If they weren't necessary, you wouldn't be making them. You must have a different meaning of the word than the dictionary does.
	__________________ Vive la liberté! Last edited by WildCat; 17th March 2006 at 11:28 PM.

17th March 2006, 11:32 PM	#224
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by delphi_ote If you want me to ignore you, a good start would be to stop posting your conspiracy theory garbage in my thread on my forum. You came here and picked a fight. You got soundly beaten, and now you want the other side to wave the white flag? That's just adorable. I wasn't aware you owned the forum. Perhaps the other users here see differently. I didn't come here to pick a fight, I came here to warn you that the emperor has no clothes. If "soundly beaten" means exposing you as a dishonest slimeball, then I was soundly beaten. I don't want a white flag, this isn't supposed to be a war. It's supposed to be about finding the truth, and having respect for dissenting views. It's apparent that the truth means quite little to you. You can't even bring yourself to watch a movie with dissenting views on one of the most important events in human history, the premise of which has major implications for the future of humanity. You don't have to agree with anything. But you won't even WATCH! You're a coward, and a fraud as a skeptic. Quote: It might also be a good idea not to call me a liar for no apparent reason. Your first accusation was that I had deleted my post to cover my tracks. When I pointed out that they were all still there, you dropped that accusation without apologizing and pretended it never happened. Then you back tracked and said that I hadn't watched the video at all, and said once again that I was a liar etc. etc. for criticizing a movie I'd never seen. When I pointed out that even this allegation was false, you again avoided making apologies for being completely wrong about me. Now you're hiding in the corner with some minor point that I didn't watch every minute of the train wreck. I never said I watched every minute of it. Anyone who watches this entire movie without stopping to check their facts is no skeptic. Why isn't it a good idea? Is that some sort of threat? What are you going to do, write a letter and have me banned? I'd prefer instead that you SAC UP and watch the unseen film you disparage in the forum YOU created ABOUT THE FILM YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED. Are you getting angry? Good! It gets a lot worse. There is a lot more to be angry about. I apologize for claiming you deleted the post, I was mistaken, you merely edited it. Nevertheless, my point remains valid.
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113

17th March 2006, 11:54 PM	#225
Euromutt Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,092	Originally Posted by Alek There is a book entitled "Day of Deceit" written by Robert Stinnett. Stinnett proffers evidence that FDR had prior knowledge of the attack and let it happen so as to create a public pretense for US involvement in WW2. I haven't read the book, but given the Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment plus Roosevelt's status as a traitor, I have little doubt it is true. "Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment"? What is that supposed to mean, other than serving as a smokescreen for selecting evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion? The bit about "Roosevelt's status as a traitor" smells of circular "logic" to me: Why did Roosevelt expose the Pacific Fleet to attack? - Because he was a traitor. How do we know he was a traitor? - Because he exposed the Pacific Fleet to attack. As it happens, I've been rereading Eagle Against The Sun: The American War With Japan by Ronald H. Spector, and in chapter 5, "The Issue Is in Doubt," he discusses fairly extensively how the Japanese managed to surprise the Pacific Fleet the way they did. Quote: Some "revisionist" historians have argued the President Roosevelt and his close associates in the cabinet (Hull, Stimson and Knox) deliberately exposed the fleet to destruction at Pearl Harbor in order to ensure support for America's entry into World War II. Authors such a Charles C. Tansill, Charles A. Beard, Robert Theobald, and Harry Elmer Barnes claim [all circa 1950!] that since the U.S. was reading the Japanese code, Washington must have known in advance about the attack, and that Roosevelt consciously withheld vital information from the Hawaiian commanders. It was his purpose, they maintain, to keep the fleet in harbor and thus vulnerable to attack. Although revisionists are convinced that Roosevelt purposely kept [General] Short and [Admiral] Kimmel in the dark, it might as plausibly be argued that both of them conspired to ignore Washington's repeated warnings. [Spector goes on to list a series of warning transmitted in the two weeks preceding the attack.] The fact was that Kimmel and Short were alert to the possibility of imminent war with Japan. They simply did not expect it to begin at Pearl Harbor. Despite repeated fleet exercises, war games, studies, plans and discussions concerning the danger of surprise air attack, despite repeated surprise alerts and drills, the fact remained that American army and navy leaders at the highest levels simply could not really believe that a surprise air attack on the fleet would actually take place. In the most exhaustive study of Pearl Harbor, Gordon Prange singles out this fundamental belief as the root of the whole tragedy. This is entirely consistent with the point Spector makes in earlier chapters that, at the time, the upper echelons of both the US and Japanese navies consisted of students of Alfred Thayer Mahan's doctrine of "command of the sea," which required a concentrated fleet of battleships to defeat the enemy's naval forces in a single decisive engagement. As the cliché goes, military commanders tend to prepare for the next war by re-fighting the last one, and when they were the winners last time round, they tend to stick with what works. In the case of both the Americans and the Japanese, Mahan's doctrine had worked, but the problem was that those occasions were, respectively, the Battle of Manila Bay (1898) and the Battle of Tsushima (1905), both of which, like Mahan's doctrine, predated the development of combat aircraft and aircraft carriers. Even by 1941, both naval staffs were firmly convinced of the battleship's supremacy; carrier-based aircraft were thought to be good for scouting and supporting combat role at most. At first glance, the nature of the Pearl Harbor attack would appear to contradict this notion, conducted as it was almost entirely by carrier-based aircraft, but closer examination supports it: the attack was aimed specifically at the American battle line, since the Japanese believed this to form the primary threat to their own fleet. Moreover, the Japanese that the only way aircraft could defeat battleships was by catching them by surprise while they were in port, which is why the attack was carried out the way it was. Even so, Yamamoto's plan met with considerable skepticism on the part of the Japanese Naval General Staff. Onthe site of some Greek television show, I found some stuff on Stinett: Quote: 64 years later a number of historians believes that President Roosevelt and the American leadership as a whole provoked the Japanese in the Pacific while later deliberately ignoring all warnings of the attack on Pearl Harbour in order to achieve America's involvement in the war. "We now know that firstly, there was a plan for an overt act of war and that, secondly, we had de-coded the Japanese Naval code. That was all kept secret for 60 years," according to journalist and author Robert Stinett who for the last 17 years has studied more than 2 million classified Naval documents. As for the so-called Provocation Policy of President Roosevelt, Stinett is firm: "The President wanted us to enter war operations. He followed what Plato had said; 'a noble lie will sacrifice the few to save the many.' That was the idea". The position of the American author of the book Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbour is shared by British historian David Irving: "We knew it was going to happen. Churchill knew also because he had a variety of sources. There had been a great cover up on the side of the Americans." (Punctuation edited) Stinett's assertion that "that was all kept secret for 60 years" is false right off the bat. Despite the fact that it was first published in 1985, and cites earlier sources, Eagle Against The Sun extensively covers the American war plans--"Orange" and "Rainbow"--as well as the American gathering of signal intelligence on Japanese operations. In fact, if Stinett's statement were true, it would have been impossible for Stinett to publish Day of Deceit in 2000! There was indeed "a plan for an overt act of war," the aforementioned "Orange Plan." What Stinett neglects to mention was that Orange was first drafted in 1905 (almost thirty years before FDR became president!) as part of a series of contingency war plans against potential enemies. Other "color plans" were "Green" against Mexico, "Black" against Germany, and "Red" against Great Britain. The existence of the latter indicates that the existence of a "color plan" did not ipso facto indicate that military action against a particular country was a given. "Orange," moreover, was based from its inception on the assumption that the Japanese would first attack the Philippines, and subsequently engage the US Pacific Fleet when it entered the western Pacific on its way to relieve the Philippines. This assumption, again, led to the refusal to genuinely believe that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor. That Stinett's assertion is supported by David Irving does not exactly inspire confidence, given that Irving is primarily known for being a Holocaust denier. Regarding the signal intelligence, well that's been thrashed out, and not just in Eagle Against The Sun. Spector continues: Quote: Among the mass of secret Japanese messages which were being intercepted and decoded in Washington there were signs that pointed towards Pearl Harbor, but many others seemed to indicate an attack on the Philippines and Singapore--or even against the Soviet Union. As Roberta Wohlstetter, a perceptive student of the Pearl Harbor debacle observes: "We failed to anticipate Pearl Harbor not for want of the relevant materials but because of a plethora of irrelevant ones. . . . There is a difference between having a signal available somewhere in the heap of irrelevances and perceiving it as a warning, and there is also a difference between perceiving it as a warning an acting on it." Spector then addresses the claims made by John Toland in his 1982 book Infamy, pointing out the likely inaccuracy of the Lurline intercept, the clutter in which the Twelfth Naval District intercept got lost, and the fact that the Dutch East Indies intercept was relayed to DC without any reference made to Hawaii. He then turns to Toland's claim that, had Washington alerted Kimmel and Short, Nagumo's strike force would have turned back without attacking Pearl Harbor. The problem with Toland's claim, as with every other "FDR let the Pacific Fleet be attacked to get the US into the war" claim, is that Nagumo's orders explicitly included instructions to go ahead with the attack even if his force were discovered out of range of Hawaii. The die was cast the moment Nagumo sailed for Hawaii on November 26th, so what FDR, Stimson, Hull, Knox and/or Marshall did or did not know by December 4th is academic.
	__________________ "Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo by birth, by choice

18th March 2006, 12:34 AM	#226
Z Variable Constant Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Posts: 10,069	Well, I have watched the complete film. I have, as of now, visited twelve different websites espousing a variety of conspiracy theories about 9/11. I've now read about wooden mockups of 757s loaded with combustable materials; heat-beams from satellites used to pulverize concrete in the towers; advanced free-standing holography used to overlay a poorly-rendered 767 over a military missile or jet; secret nuclear devices that, amazingly, leave behind no dangerous radiation after use; and so on, and so forth. It's hard to wade through any one of these websites without encountering some strange X-Factor-style nonsense used to justify away any number of inconsistancies in their stories. Even those that maintain some facade of rationality and lucidity are loaded with fallacies, ignorance, and a lot of leapt-to conclusions. Yes, a few things really don't add up; a few things would do well to be exposed to closer investigation. But the vast majority of what was on Loose Change is tripe. And Alex's behavior since joining the forums isn't going to bring more people towards his alleged 'truths', either. He parrots facts from the conspiracy sites without knowing what he's talking about, or even verifying the truth of those facts; while disparaging facts on other sites, again without verifying the truth of those facts. He tosses ad-hom and insult about as if it somehow justifies his apparent willful ignorance. And he still can't present any single piece of 'evidence' for the conspiracy theory that can't be understood or explained simply enough. Now, I grant you, most of us here are NOT structural engineers, or physics majors, or demolitions experts; but the reports of those that would know best are the reports I'm most likely to accept. So far, the most qualified reports I've been able to read all accept that the Twin Towers fell as a result of the massive structural damage from the aircraft impacts, coupled with intense fires, creating a set of conditions suitable to allow total unilateral structural failure of the building at and above the points of impact; resulting in further structural failure as several thousand tons of debris impacted with already weakened upper structures, resulting in a pancake-style domino effect. Sure, they could be presenting the prepared party lines; but I find it highly unlikely that every qualified person who has reviewed the destruction is on the payroll of the Powers That Be. Yes, a true skeptic (whatever that is) would probably want to sit and watch the entire movie (over time). He would then want to do some fact-checking, make some notes, etc. This film would make him think - but it would not lead him to the same conclusions it has led Alex to. It wouldn't be the end of the process, but a step in it; Alex, unfortunately, stops at any step that requires him to invalidate or even question anything presented in support of massive conspiracy theories by our own government. My suggestion to those still on the fence: don't make Alex's mistake. CONTINUE to question, read, research, and learn. Even if it means you have to change your mind a hundred times. Even if it leaves you somewhat confused or bewildered. It would be better to base a world view on a COMPLETELY informed foundation, than on a biased representation from either side.
	__________________ Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out: http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm

18th March 2006, 12:44 AM	#227
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by WildCat You believe in the conspiracy despite having no evidence. If you have evidence of a conspiracy, post it please. I have evidence, I've posted evidence, and there is plenty more. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of me posting evidence, and you denying it out of hand, while simultaneously parroting government lies. Quote: You haven't even said what you think this is evidence of. Frankly, it isn't evidence of anything, and you've pretty much admitted as much. It's evidence of tremors before the collapse of the north tower. Video evidence. Unfortunately, you aren't capable of discerning the difference between evidence and proof. Quote: Look Alek, you can't just post some half-ass video, say "whoa, look at that" and hold it up as some sort of evidence. It's not. If you think it is, be specific what you think it means and why. Otherwise, what use is it? Your little game of saying "it isn't evidence, but then it is" is tiring and pointless. Ahh. I can feel the objectivity. Pro OCT video clips = "evidence". Anti OCT video clips = "some half-ass video". You, much like kookbreaker, have a serious reading comprehension problem. Neither did I say the video wasn't evidence, nor did I say it was proof. Your little game of saying "Where's the evidence! You have no evidence!" ad nauseum is pointless. Is this SOP for debunking ghost stories and psychics? Quote: There is no way you can tell what causes the shaking of the camera! The seismic data shows no tremors before the towers fell. That is a fact, if you claim otherwise I will call you a liar because you cannot produce a seismogram showing otherwise - at least not the one from Columbia U., which is the only one that recorded the tremors. Listen Alek, your conspiracy heroes published incomplete data and quoted Lerner-Lam out of context. The evidence for that is obvious and overwhelming. Now you call him a "moral coward"? You are a dishonest liar and have no interest at all in the facts of the matter. The data is all that's important, it's too bad your bunch of conspiracy kooks deliberately misrepresented it. The seismograms can be seen here. They don't show what you claim they do. I hadn't analyzed the seismic data before, I hadn't even seen that video until today. It looks like it's worth some timeline analysis. I'm not a liar and I'm interested IN ALL the facts of the matter. In fact, i've learned precisely why the twin towers couldn't have toppled, and that the Madrid bombing is incorrectly cited as being a steel structure. I've admitted when I've been wrong, and when I've misunderstood. You, on the other hand, have shown no objectivity at all, nor is any of the skepticism you reserve for alternative theories directed at the official government lie. Quote: PT Barnum said "There's a sucker born every minute". Looks like you get to claim the distinction for your minute... Thanks. <stuff deleted> Quote: This is yet another display of your dishonesty and mischaracterizing of this event - it was not due solely to the fire and nobody has claimed it was. That you so desperately insist on bringing up this completely moot point shows the your desperation at the complete inefficacy of your theory. Now, show me a building that was set on fire due to a 140 ton jetliner hitting it at 450 mph that didn't collapse. And why are you so dumbfounded that it collapsed symmetrically? Would you expect 250,000 tons of steel and concrete to fall over on its side due to a collapse on the 80th floor? If you do, you're an idiot. This is yet another display of your lack of reading comprehension. I was clearly referring to the WTC 7 building. I already admitted the 500,000 ton towers could not topple. But thanks again. Quote: I'm not assuming anything! The steel portion of the Madrid tower completely collapsed, there's even pictures on the site for cryin' out loud! Are you seriously going to dispute this? You assumed that because the concrete Madrid tower had a partial collapse (I wonder if all the steel failed at once and magically fell to the ground simultaneously?) that steel structures suffer complete collapse due to fire, such as witnessed at wtc7.net. And I asked you for the third time to provide some examples, some engineering precedent, and you haven't. <stuff deleted> Quote: What the hell are you talking about? Read the interview! He's describing walking towards WTC 7, he nor any other firefighter was not actually in the building, and no one had attempted to put it out. They thought about fighting the fire, but changed their minds because it was obviously too dangerous. Apparently you are still unclear on this, and I don't need to read the interview transcript, I've watched the actual video. I'll try one more time to clarify it for you, but I'm not going to bother posting the actual transcripts because you're unreasonable. If you want to find the truth then you will, if not, you won't. Silverstein originally said in the video "we've already had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", and then "we watched the building collapse". Then, shortly after that, a WTC worker is featured who says "We're getting ready to pull building six" followed by another man who says "we had to be careful about how we demolished building six" So, subsequent to this Silverstein comes out and says essentially that he was referring to the firefighters, not the building. The only problem is, there were never any firefighters IN the building to begin with, as you yourself have already posted, I think twice now. Thus making Silversteins claim more mysterious. Here is a link which documents this: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...einanswers.htm I urge anyone who is rational and sincerely interested in the truth to verify this, and watch the video. I'm done with the topic here.
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113

18th March 2006, 01:06 AM	#228
Z Variable Constant Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Posts: 10,069	Originally Posted by Alek I urge anyone who is rational and sincerely interested in the truth to verify this, and watch the video. I'm done with the topic here. Why do I not believe you?
	__________________ Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out: http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm

18th March 2006, 02:42 AM	#229
Euromutt Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,092	Originally Posted by zaayrdragon Why do I not believe you? Maybe because he's already said it once and gone back on his word. Additional note to the Pearl Harbor stuff I posted previously: the claim that Roosevelt deliberately exposed the Pacific Fleet to destruction has been around a long time. Beard, one of the "revisionist" historians Spector mentions, first published the idea in 1948; Tanliss, Barnes and Theobald published in 1952, 1953 and 1954, respectively. As stated, Toland published Infamy in 1982. Every time, the evidence to support the notion has been found wanting. Why didn't this stop types like Stinett and Richard Maybury from regurgitating this long-discredited notion? It's fairly obvious: much of the reasons certain people concoct, or subscribe to, conspiracy theories is because they feel a deep-seated need to feel they are smarter than the majority of humanity. So when you've come up with your thesis upon which to graduate from the College of It Stands to Reason, and have carefully selected only that evidence which supports while diligently disregarding the evidence which contradicts it, it follows that you're unlikely--full of your own cleverness as you are--to check whether someone else might have come up with the same idea before you did, let alone check whether, and how, that person was debunked. Unfortunately, I predict we're going to be seeing the same lame-ass conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 crop up repeatedly in the course of our lifetimes, as a next generation "thinks outside the box" and comes up with a "real" explanation of events, and thinks he's really clever for being the first to see it, when it fact the only reason he hasn't heard read it in the history books was because it was discredited the last time, and the time before that, etc. (Yet another prediction that'll never win the JREF Million... Me: Mr. Randi, I predict Jon Hogue is going to write another sh*t book about Nostradamus. Randi: I could've told you that for a dollar seventy-five!)
	__________________ "Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo by birth, by choice Last edited by Euromutt; 18th March 2006 at 02:50 AM.

18th March 2006, 03:05 AM	#230
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by Euromutt "Hegelian dialectic and its historical employment"? What is that supposed to mean, other than serving as a smokescreen for selecting evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion? The bit about "Roosevelt's status as a traitor" smells of circular "logic" to me: Why did Roosevelt expose the Pacific Fleet to attack? - Because he was a traitor. How do we know he was a traitor? - Because he exposed the Pacific Fleet to attack. Hello, Euromutt. It means the dialectic explains a pattern recurrent throughout history of governments using false flag attacks or similar deceptions to embroil their unwilling populaces into war. I don't try to select or fit evidence. For me it represents an element of a cynical worldview which is a starting point for historical review. Others may assume that history is made by the impersonal struggles between ideas, political systems, ideologies, races, and classes. I don't particularly subscribe to that. I thought it was clear that my thinking Roosevelt was a traitor was independent of whether he had forknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. There is no circular logic here, I merely didn't elaborate on why I think he was a traitor. I'll tell you why, it's because he signed executive order 6102 expropriating (more like confiscating, but he offered a token price) the private gold of US citizens, essentially under the premise that their hoarding was responsible for the Great Depression. I don't know whether he had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor or not. Quote: ... Even by 1941, both naval staffs were firmly convinced of the battleship's supremacy; carrier-based aircraft were thought to be good for scouting and supporting combat role at most. At first glance, the nature of the Pearl Harbor attack would appear to contradict this notion, conducted as it was almost entirely by carrier-based aircraft, but closer examination supports it: the attack was aimed specifically at the American battle line, since the Japanese believed this to form the primary threat to their own fleet. Moreover, the Japanese that the only way aircraft could defeat battleships was by catching them by surprise while they were in port, which is why the attack was carried out the way it was. Even so, Yamamoto's plan met with considerable skepticism on the part of the Japanese Naval General Staff. This is interesting, because I've read accounts which describe the opposite, that it was known that the monolithic battleship was quickly becoming obsolete. If I recall correctly, not a single aircraft carrier was destroyed at Pearl Harbor, and it was the battleships which were mostly destroyed. The carriers were elsewhere. I must confess ignorance of this subject though, I haven't read Stinnett's book nor any others about WW2, but it sounds like a fascinating subject. Quote: Onthe site of some Greek television show, I found some stuff on StinettPunctuation edited) Stinett's assertion that "that was all kept secret for 60 years" is false right off the bat. Despite the fact that it was first published in 1985, and cites earlier sources, Eagle Against The Sun extensively covers the American war plans--"Orange" and "Rainbow"--as well as the American gathering of signal intelligence on Japanese operations. In fact, if Stinett's statement were true, it would have been impossible for Stinett to publish Day of Deceit in 2000! I would say Stinnett is probably guilty of some self-aggrandizement here, by implying that his book is uncovering the "secret". It's probably pedantic to discredit him by suggesting that he should have said 59 years instead of 60. If the information was still mostly a secret after 1985 then he should probably be forgiven. Quote: ... That Stinett's assertion is supported by David Irving does not exactly inspire confidence, given that Irving is primarily known for being a Holocaust denier. Isn't it a fallacy to suggest Stinnett's credibility depends on Irving? Stinnett doesn't have any control over who supports his work and who doesn't. If Adolf Hitler supports Josef Wagner's work, does this discredit Wagner? Quote: ... Regarding the signal intelligence, well that's been thrashed out, and not just in Eagle Against The Sun. Spector continues:Spector then addresses the claims made by John Toland in his 1982 book Infamy, pointing out the likely inaccuracy of the Lurline intercept, the clutter in which the Twelfth Naval District intercept got lost, and the fact that the Dutch East Indies intercept was relayed to DC without any reference made to Hawaii. He then turns to Toland's claim that, had Washington alerted Kimmel and Short, Nagumo's strike force would have turned back without attacking Pearl Harbor. The problem with Toland's claim, as with every other "FDR let the Pacific Fleet be attacked to get the US into the war" claim, is that Nagumo's orders explicitly included instructions to go ahead with the attack even if his force were discovered out of range of Hawaii. The die was cast the moment Nagumo sailed for Hawaii on November 26th, so what FDR, Stimson, Hull, Knox and/or Marshall did or did not know by December 4th is academic. I don't understand how this could be academic in context. The essence of Pearl Harbor was that it was a surprise attack, which was responsible for slaughtering 2400 people. If indeed there was foreknowledge, the element of surprise would have been lost, the casualties would have been far less and the US Navy could have parried the attack. I imagine Stinnett's point is that absent such a brutal surprise attack with so many casualties, absent the horrific stories of trapped men burning and drowning inside the doomed battleships, and assuming a successful parry of Nagumo's attack, the American public would have remained disinterested in the war. Your point is well taken though, Nagumo's actions would have resulted in a declaration of war by the US in any case. However, the relative lack of US casualties from a failed japanese incursion as opposed to a successful surprise attack would have undoubtedly resulted in more polarization and less unity and jingoism. Again I must confess to being mostly ignorant of the details of WW2 history, perhaps you can enlighten me on some of them. I just read a Pearl Harbor FAQ which had some interesting tidbits, for instance: "Nagumo's fleet assembled in the remote anchorage of Tankan Bay in the Kurile Islands and departed in strictest secrecy for Hawaii on 26 November 1941. The ships' route crossed the North Pacific and avoided normal shipping lanes. At dawn 7 December 1941, the Japanese task force had approached undetected to a point slightly more than 200 miles north of Oahu. At this time the U.S. carriers were not at Pearl Harbor." and: "The Japanese success was overwhelming, but it was not complete. They failed to damage any American aircraft carriers, which by a stroke of luck, had been absent from the harbor. " Here is a link which documents the location of the US carriers. Oh, by the way, my name is Alek, with a 'k'.
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Last edited by Alek; 18th March 2006 at 04:51 AM.

18th March 2006, 04:04 AM	#231
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by zaayrdragon Well, I have watched the complete film. I have, as of now, visited twelve different websites espousing a variety of conspiracy theories about 9/11. I've now read about wooden mockups of 757s loaded with combustable materials; heat-beams from satellites used to pulverize concrete in the towers; advanced free-standing holography used to overlay a poorly-rendered 767 over a military missile or jet; secret nuclear devices that, amazingly, leave behind no dangerous radiation after use; and so on, and so forth. It's hard to wade through any one of these websites without encountering some strange X-Factor-style nonsense used to justify away any number of inconsistancies in their stories. Thanks for watching the film (seriously), and for remaining open minded. Please try not to associate every implausible theory with every other theory, or theorist. Those of us who think something is seriously wrong are not served by all of the misinfo, and even disinfo that is out there. Perhaps you're more open-minded than I am, because not only do I not give credence to any of the above "theories" you mention, but I haven't even taken the time to review them. I doubt I could bother wading through them, either, and I suppose that's how most of you feel about Loose Change, or some of the other 9/11 films that are out there. Quote: Even those that maintain some facade of rationality and lucidity are loaded with fallacies, ignorance, and a lot of leapt-to conclusions. Yes, a few things really don't add up; a few things would do well to be exposed to closer investigation. But the vast majority of what was on Loose Change is tripe. I'm sorry you feel that way. I feel the same way about the 9/11 Commission report. Quote: And Alex's behavior since joining the forums isn't going to bring more people towards his alleged 'truths', either. He parrots facts from the conspiracy sites without knowing what he's talking about, or even verifying the truth of those facts; while disparaging facts on other sites, again without verifying the truth of those facts. You may be right. Sometimes I get so tired of bickering over what the "facts are" that I get defensive. Sometimes it seems like I take more crap than I dish out. I guess I hope that the best I can do is to throw a few links out there and hope someone picks them up. Or link to a few videos, and hope someone sees something that makes them question. Given the dis/misinfo that's out there, I could be wrong about a number of things. I don't think it's fair to say I don't know what I'm talking about. We just exist in different paradigms, such that it makes it difficult to communicate. And I reject the notion that you or anyone else is more capable of "verifying the facts". I think the basic problem here is that I don't trust official sources, and so when they are sourced, I become more skeptical. Yet ultimately, I am forced to resort to many of them myself. Quote: He tosses ad-hom and insult about as if it somehow justifies his apparent willful ignorance. And he still can't present any single piece of 'evidence' for the conspiracy theory that can't be understood or explained simply enough. I'm in the distinct minority. In fact, I haven't seen anyone here who has even the most remote amount of skepticism for the OCT. Most every post directed towards me, with a few exceptions, has some degree of patronization, condescension, or ad hominem. The cumulative effect of this is to make me highly annoyed, which results in a positive feedback loop making everyone else annoyed. Try to keep in mind that it's pretty much one versus many here, and cut me some slack please. Quote: Now, I grant you, most of us here are NOT structural engineers, or physics majors, or demolitions experts; but the reports of those that would know best are the reports I'm most likely to accept. So far, the most qualified reports I've been able to read all accept that the Twin Towers fell as a result of the massive structural damage from the aircraft impacts, coupled with intense fires, creating a set of conditions suitable to allow total unilateral structural failure of the building at and above the points of impact; resulting in further structural failure as several thousand tons of debris impacted with already weakened upper structures, resulting in a pancake-style domino effect. Sure, they could be presenting the prepared party lines; but I find it highly unlikely that every qualified person who has reviewed the destruction is on the payroll of the Powers That Be. I agree, I find that highly unlikely too. However, it may be an oversimplification of reality. It's well-known that intelligence agencies conspire in pretty elaborate ways to get their work done. For instance, they make a science of compartmentalization so as to ensure a number of things, like plausible deniability, secrecy, disavowment, etc... For instance, they're much more likely to hire real "terrorists" to perform some unsavory act than to order patriotic agents to do it. Quote: Yes, a true skeptic (whatever that is) would probably want to sit and watch the entire movie (over time). He would then want to do some fact-checking, make some notes, etc. This film would make him think - but it would not lead him to the same conclusions it has led Alex to. It wouldn't be the end of the process, but a step in it; Alex, unfortunately, stops at any step that requires him to invalidate or even question anything presented in support of massive conspiracy theories by our own government. Of course I disagree. Not only hadn't I heard of some of the absurd theories you enumerated at the beginning of your post, I've discounted the ones I had heard of. I don't see a boogeyman around every corner. Unfortunately, I do see a non-stop pattern of fraud, deception, and abuse, and it doesn't begin nor end with government. Lets just say that I reserve the same amount of skepticism for the mainstream that the mainstream reserves for the "fringe". I think this is fair enough. Quote: My suggestion to those still on the fence: don't make Alex's mistake. CONTINUE to question, read, research, and learn. Even if it means you have to change your mind a hundred times. Even if it leaves you somewhat confused or bewildered. It would be better to base a world view on a COMPLETELY informed foundation, than on a biased representation from either side. I would hope I'm not guilty of that, but sometimes I wonder. I've got just as much invested in what I believe as anyone else does. Nobody wants to be proven wrong, nobody wants to repudiate comfortable lies for disturbing truths. But I've been there, and I've done that, rightly or wrongly, and it wasn't easy. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about 9/11, and about other things. Maybe someone can convince me.
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113

18th March 2006, 04:08 AM	#232
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113	Originally Posted by zaayrdragon Why do I not believe you? I meant I'm done with the "what Larry Silverstein said" versus "what Larry Silverstein meant". It's a dead horse. I think the man is suspect. Watch PBS: America Rebuilds for yourself.
Alek Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 113

18th March 2006, 06:36 AM	#233
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 11,251	Originally Posted by Alek I'm attacking him for lying, and being a weasel in general. Based on unfounded prejudices. Quote: I fully support people's right to stop watching films that they think suck. However, If you start a thread on a skeptic's forum to slag a film you haven't watched you run the risk of getting called out by someone like me. I think a little reading comprehension is in order here. Again, if the movie makes 10 deliberate mistakes in the first 10 minutes, it really doesn't pay to continue watching it, and it you are well within your rights to report it as a piece of propaganda. Quote: Nobody asked him his opinion. He slagged a film he hasn't watched. How's that for skepticism? See above. Quote: You can hold whatever you want. I'm only suggesting he try the honest approach. See above Quote: That's probably because I'm outnumbered and feeling defensive. Maybe if you were a little nicer, and maybe if people were a little more honest and objective, things would be different. Wait a freaking moment, WE need to be nicer? Take a look at your second post to this fourm: Originally Posted by alek's 2nd post Just parrot someone else who has actually watched the film and decided to debunk it. What difference would it make, given that you've absolutely no pretense of objectivity? But then, "skeptics" don't need objectivity, they just need copious amounts of doubt, right? I find it rather unlikely that you or several others in this thread are anything but selective skeptics. Perhaps if you applied the same degree of skepticism towards the 9/11 Commission's official conspiracy theory as you do to bigfoot sightings, spooky ghost stories, and psychics, then you may discover that their story doesn't quite add up. You came in this forum with a chip on your shoulder, hoping for a fight. Well you got one, and got your butt handed to you. Now you are whining about us not being nice...that's a laugh Quote: I wasn't aware the use of the 1st amendment was contingent on your degree-issuing university's approval. I wasn't aware the first amendement said anyting more than the GOVERNMENT will not interfere with your free speech. It says nothing about your employer, or any other private entity. Quote: It appears that she posted her analysis using the pseudonym "Jane Doe", with no mention of her identity or credentials what-so-ever. Then the Scholars website linked her page with her identity. Then slimeball decided to make a lame attempt to get her in some sort of trouble, which probably won't happen anyway because she didn't do anything "wrong". The only thing he's exposed is the fact that he has a little snitch-like mentality which is more suited to the East German Stasi secret police than the United States of America. Exercising your right to free speech in this country, anonymously or not is never "wrong", YOU, are wrong. When one uses ones position at as an employee as a basis of authority, one had best make certain that one is in line with the employers wishes. If I use my companies' name to spout anti-semitic/racist propaganda I will likely face problems with my employer as well. Comparing this to 'Stasi' is ludicrous, since the government has little to do with this issue. If she loses her job as aresult of this, she has only herself to blame. You obviously are too naive to understand that 'Free Speech' does not mean speech without consequences. Quote: Pure whine. Do you want some cheese to go with that? It sounds like delphi has a little friend to run a smokescreen for him. I didn't lie, I left, and came back. Would you prefer I go? Why don't you get Delphi to write the moderator a nasty email about me so I get banned? Then you can go back to debunking Bigfoot sightings. You really aren't very good at this, are you?
	__________________ 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.

18th March 2006, 06:47 AM	#234
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by Alek I have evidence, I've posted evidence, and there is plenty more. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of me posting evidence, and you denying it out of hand, while simultaneously parroting government lies. Your "evidence" was exposed as the BS it is. Let's review: 1. The WTC shouldn't have fallen, it was designed to withstand the impact of a airliner. This was shown to be a gross mischaracterization. 2. The WTC couldn't have fallen only due to the planes hitting it and subsequent fires. This was shown to be false, as every single structural engineering report agrees w/ the official reasons for collapse. 3. WTC 7 was hardly dameged, but fell anyway. Shown to be false, after which you changed your tune to: 4. WTC 7 had to be a controlled demolition due the fact no other steel building had collapsed due to fire. Shown to be false, as the steel portion of the Madrid tower did collapse. And the video shows what you think are "squibs" only appear after the building begins to collapse. In addition, firefighters near WTC 7 reported hearing the building beginning to collapse, and the videos and pictures show it is kinking and bending before it collapsed. 5. Seismic data shows trmors from the WTC before they collapsed. Shown to be false, using the very data you cited. 6. Shaky video that proves nothing. In addition, you have not shown (or even offered a half-assed theory of) how the many tons of explosives necessary could have been installed and wired together w/o anyone noticing. Originally Posted by Alek Neither did I say the video wasn't evidence, nor did I say it was proof. So now you're back to admitting the video is not evidence? Then why did you post it? Originally Posted by Alek Your little game of saying "Where's the evidence! You have no evidence!" ad nauseum is pointless. Is this SOP for debunking ghost stories and psychics? It's SOP skeptics use for extraordinary claim that is offered w/ little or no evidence. It is very effective in separating the excrement from shinola. Originally Posted by Alek I hadn't analyzed the seismic data before, I hadn't even seen that video until today. It looks like it's worth some timeline analysis. And yet you accepted w/o question a non-experts interpretation of the seismic data, and called the originator of the data a "moral coward" for not agreeing w/ your non-expert. Nice! The video, coupled w/ the interview, also completely refutes your conspiracy theorists explanations of "what really happened". Yet, you are and will remain unconvinced (IMHO) because you really aren't interested in knowing any facts that make your theory inconvenient. In case you're wondering, psychics, homeopaths, dowsers, alien abductees, etc all use the same tactics here. Originally Posted by Alek I'm not a liar and I'm interested IN ALL the facts of the matter. In fact, i've learned precisely why the twin towers couldn't have toppled, and that the Madrid bombing is incorrectly cited as being a steel structure. I've admitted when I've been wrong, and when I've misunderstood. Yet even when your pet theory has these holes blown into it, you still can't accept the more reasonable explanation. Originally Posted by Alek You, on the other hand, have shown no objectivity at all, nor is any of the skepticism you reserve for alternative theories directed at the official government lie. See? You keep saying the official explanatio is a lie, even though all your evidence as such has been shown to be false! And you're going to lecture me on objectivity?! Originally Posted by Alek You assumed that because the concrete Madrid tower had a partial collapse (I wonder if all the steel failed at once and magically fell to the ground simultaneously?) that steel structures suffer complete collapse due to fire, such as witnessed at wtc7.net. And I asked you for the third time to provide some examples, some engineering precedent, and you haven't. You haven't offered an example of a building of similar construction that received extensive damage and fires on par w/ WTC 7 that didn't collapse. See the problem here? W/o a reasonably close comparison, your above statement means squat. Originally Posted by Alek Silverstein originally said in the video "we've already had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", and then "we watched the building collapse". Silverstein assumed command of the firefighting efforts on 9/11? I haven't seen the PBS documentary, so I have no idea in what context this quote was from. And context is everything in such matters. Originally Posted by Alek Then, shortly after that, a WTC worker is featured who says "We're getting ready to pull building six" followed by another man who says "we had to be careful about how we demolished building six" Again, what is the context? Originally Posted by Alek So, subsequent to this Silverstein comes out and says essentially that he was referring to the firefighters, not the building. The only problem is, there were never any firefighters IN the building to begin with, as you yourself have already posted, I think twice now. Thus making Silversteins claim more mysterious. Here is a link which documents this: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...einanswers.htm Wow! "Prison Planet"? The same guy who thinks there's RFID chips in $20 bills? Who thinks bin Ladin makes video/audio tapes under the direction of the CIA? You're joking, right? Originally Posted by Alek I urge anyone who is rational and sincerely interested in the truth to verify this, and watch the video. I'm done with the topic here. Please stay, we need a good laugh around here every now and then...
	__________________ Vive la liberté! Last edited by WildCat; 18th March 2006 at 06:52 AM.

18th March 2006, 06:57 AM	#235
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 11,251	Originally Posted by Alek This is interesting, because I've read accounts which describe the opposite, that it was known that the monolithic battleship was quickly becoming obsolete. Nope. Battleships were still considered the mainstay. Carriers were unproved technology. The idea that the Government would toss the proven stuff in favor of something they hoped would work is absurd. Had the carriers been present, they would have been secondary targets, since it was the Battleships the Imperial Navy felt would interfere with the invasions of the Phillipines, etc. Furthermore, the era of carrier battles only lasted a short time during the war. The last one being done in 1944, and there were only two signifigant carrier battles when you get down to it. Carriers were useful in many respects, but they were best suited for taking out other carriers. In the end, the Pacific saw more Battleship fights than Carrier battles, but the Carrier battles got all the attention. Quote: If I recall correctly, not a single aircraft carrier was destroyed at Pearl Harbor, and it was the battleships which were mostly destroyed. The carriers were elsewhere. I must confess ignorance of this subject though, I haven't read Stinnett's book nor any others about WW2, but it sounds like a fascinating subject. Regarding Stinnett, my comments in this thread still stand: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=112 The man is deceptive WRT and his sources contradict him.
	__________________ 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.

18th March 2006, 07:13 AM	#236
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Alek However, If you start a thread on a skeptic's forum to slag a film you haven't watched you run the risk of getting called out by someone like me. I have watched the film. Not all of it. How many times do I have to say that before you'll stop making this accusation? At this point, I can't help but think you're making this mistake deliberately.
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994

18th March 2006, 07:31 AM	#237
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994	Originally Posted by Alek Why don't you get Delphi to write the moderator a nasty email about me so I get banned? Are you implying that the e-mail I sent was nasty? I was very courteous and outlined my case clearly. I also thanked him for his response. Or do you think it's nasty to point out academic dishonesty? You never responded to my previous e-mail about the subject. It's very important that academics don't abuse their credentials, because it damages people's trust in experts. This accusation seems a lot like the one about my not having seen the film. You're harping on the same note without listening to what anyone is saying.
delphi_ote Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,994