|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#201 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#202 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#203 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#204 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
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:
Quote:
![]() |
__________________
![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#205 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#206 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#207 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
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? |
__________________
![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#208 |
Merchant of Doom
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 12,163
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#209 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#210 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
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:
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:
Quote:
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#211 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
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:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#212 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
That was disappointing.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#213 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
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:
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#214 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
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
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alek
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
Quote:
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
Originally Posted by Alek
Does this evidence fly right over your head? How can you ignore it so?
Originally Posted by Alek
![]()
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
|
__________________
![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#215 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
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:
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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#216 |
Evil Fokker
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,484
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#217 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#218 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#219 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"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:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#220 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#221 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#222 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#223 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
You believe in the conspiracy despite having no evidence. If you have evidence of a conspiracy, post it please.
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
Please explain how this was accomplished.
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
![]() 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
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
[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
Originally Posted by Alek
|
__________________
![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#224 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
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:
I apologize for claiming you deleted the post, I was mistaken, you merely edited it. Nevertheless, my point remains valid. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#225 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,092
|
"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:
Onthe site of some Greek television show, I found some stuff on Stinett:
Quote:
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:
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 ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#226 |
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#227 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
<stuff deleted>
Quote:
I already admitted the 500,000 ton towers could not topple. But thanks again.
Quote:
<stuff deleted>
Quote:
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#228 |
Variable Constant
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 10,069
|
|
__________________
Just digging through the old threads, wanted to put this link back out: http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#229 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,092
|
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 ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#230 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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'. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#231 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#232 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#233 |
Evil Fokker
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,484
|
Based on unfounded prejudices.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alek's 2nd post
Quote:
Quote:
You obviously are too naive to understand that 'Free Speech' does not mean speech without consequences.
Quote:
|
__________________
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. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#234 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
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
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
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
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
Originally Posted by Alek
![]()
Originally Posted by Alek
|
__________________
![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#235 |
Evil Fokker
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,484
|
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:
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. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#236 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#237 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#238 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#239 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,792
|
Good morning Alek.
Please allow me to quote myself from a previous post that you seemed to have missed.
Quote:
JPK |
__________________
"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier... A belief's a dangerous thing. People die for it. People kill for it." Rufus, the 13th apostle, Dogma "You can't prove air." Sylvia Browne John Kardel |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#240 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
|
<insubstantial drivel deleted>
Originally Posted by kookbreaker
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|