Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#2461    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,984 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:24 PM

View PostStundie, on 11 June 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

The laws of physics do not make compressed air travel back through it's escape route to find another exit.

Apparently, you are not familiar with the laws of physics and compressed air.

Quote

The fact that the squibs do not continue to expel compressed air as the building collapses proves you wrong..

On the contrary, the interior of the WTC buildings comprised mostly of air, so where did you think that all of that internal air was going to go as the buildings collapsed? Simple laws of physics and squibs go hand-in-hand, you understand.

Quote

Compressed Air and the WTC Towers


Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”
Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”


Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.

http://www.acfd.com/...r_company_6.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just like the compressed air in this photo.

Posted Image

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2462    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,984 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:39 PM

View PostStundie, on 11 June 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

Sorry but the only compressed air here at the collapse zone.

I do not see any compressed air popping out many floors below it, do you?? lol

That is why you are wrong.


I am correct. Compare the construction of that building with the WTC buildings. What are the differences?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2463    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,984 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:42 PM

View PostStundie, on 11 June 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

The laws of physics do not make compressed air travel back through it's escape route to find another exit.
The fact that the squibs do not continue to expel compressed air as the building collapses proves you wrong...

On the contrary, it proves you wrong.

Quote

Squibs

During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe.  The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them.  It's said that the towers were about 95% air.  But not all the air went so easily out the window space.  There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns.  So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core.  The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up.  Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core.

The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could.  According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...


Edited by skyeagle409, 11 June 2013 - 08:42 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2464    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,984 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 June 2013 - 01:22 AM

View PostStundie, on 11 June 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

That is why you are wrong. lol

Let's take another look.

Quote


Puffs Of Dust

CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

http://www.southernc...org/41/9-11.htm


The collapse of the WTC buildings compressing air, all within the laws of physics.

Edited by skyeagle409, 12 June 2013 - 01:27 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2465    conspiracy buff

conspiracy buff

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:05 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:12 AM

Just so you get an idea of how outrageous the official 9/11 story is;



Keep in mind, these are objective experts who studied the 9/11 commission's report and official story and had no axes to grind or reason to lie.

Edited by conspiracy buff, 19 June 2013 - 05:14 AM.

There is a grain of truth in every conspiracy known to man, you just have to be intelligent enough to find it.

#2466    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,984 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:15 AM

View Postconspiracy buff, on 19 June 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

Just so you get an idea of how outrageous the official 9/11 story is;



Keep in mind, these are objective experts who studied the 9/11 commission's report and official story and had no axes to grind or reason to lie.

In case you didn't know, they are a minority. The majority of architects, structural engineers and demolition experts support the official story.

ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted Image


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002


Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report
,
remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

And:

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse
of the World Trade Center Buildings
Disprove Explosives Theory


"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)
Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." - Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towersopposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tiltedas it came crashing down."
"The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."

Key findings include:
  • Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
  • Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.
  • The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.
Read more here: Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001


Steel without thermal protection can fail extremely quickly in a fire:

"One of the most common structures today is the strip mall built with steel bar joists and metal deck roofs. A serious fire in one of these structures should be expected to produce roof collapse in as little as 5 to 10 minutes." Firehouse.com Sept. 1998

Posted Image


https://sites.google...teelcolumnstobu



EFFECT OF SUPPORT CONDITIONS ON STEEL BEAMS EXPOSED OF FIRE


Department of Civil Engineering
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, New Zealand


1. Introduction
1.1 General

Structural steel has been widely used throughout the world. It is one of a designer’s best
options in view of its advantages over other materials. Steel is available in a range of discrete
size, and its ductile behaviour allows plastic deformation upon yielding, therefore avoiding
brittle failures.

In reinforced concrete structures, steel enhances the concrete strength by
carrying the tensile forces. It is also commonly used to reinforce timber constructions.
In spite of its advantages, steel on its own is vulnerable in fire.

Elevated temperatures in the steel cause reduction in its strength and stiffness which eventually leads to failure due to
excessive deformations. This is crucial in steel in compared with concrete or timber members
as steel conducts heat very well and often comes in thin or slender elements.


2.4.2 Steel design at elevated temperature

There are a few modifications to be considered when designing structures for fire conditions
although the concepts are similar to those for the ambient condition. Most of the material
properties change with temperature, the strength is reduced upon heating and thermal
expansion may induce internal forces that lead to structural failure with various mechanisms
depending on the type of supports, connections and structural arrangements.

Instability failure also needs to be considered even though the structure still has adequate
strength. The applied loads for fire design are less due to very low probability of the event
occurring when the structure is fully loaded at its maximum capacity, therefore a smaller
safety factor is acceptable.

The actual load at a given time as a proportion of the load that would cause collapse of the
structure is often referred to as the load ratio. Most constructions have a load ratio of 0.5 or
less. Smaller load ratio means greater fire resistance as the reduction of strength of any
member will not necessarily cause collapse of the structure.

Failure mechanisms

The failure of a beam is reached when its strength is exceeded at one or more particular points
termed plastic hinges, depending on they way it is supported. Figure 2.13 is the illustration by
Buchanan (2000), showing the bending moment, deflected shape and the failure mechanism
for different end conditions.

The development of plastic hinges shows ductile behaviour as energy is dissipated

http://www.civil.can...ts/JSepturo.pdf



In WTC Building 5, this large column and beam buckled on floor 8 of 9.

The fire was fueled by office materials only.


Posted Image



Edited by skyeagle409, 19 June 2013 - 05:25 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2467    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 19 June 2013 - 05:49 AM

View Postconspiracy buff, on 19 June 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

Just so you get an idea of how outrageous the official 9/11 story is;



Keep in mind, these are objective experts who studied the 9/11 commission's report and official story and had no axes to grind or reason to lie.

Yes, they have a reason to lie.  It's about money.  You realize Gage gets paid to do truther conferences... Right?  You realize that in the 2009 AIA conference, Gage et al had a booth selling their DVDs and books?  

You also realize that the title AIA, Richard Gage uses behind his name in all interviews and video, is a misrepresentation of AIA's standing on 9/11 conspiracy theories?  It is so bad that even AIA released a statement claiming they in now way support AE911T or the truth movement.

http://www.architect...acy-theory.aspx

Richard Gage is no longer employed at the Walnut Creek based Architectural firm.  Instead is now a full time truther.  How does he make a living?  You guessed it, by peddling the 9/11 truther conspiracy.  

So you ask...why would AE911T lie or be dishonest?  Simply put, if AE911T goes down the tubes, Gage would be homeless.  So instead of claiming he is wrong (which has been obvious for a long time now) , his motive to continue propagating lies is actually quite obvious.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#2468    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 19 June 2013 - 10:20 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 19 June 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

Yes, they have a reason to lie.  It's about money.  You realize Gage gets paid to do truther conferences... Right?  You realize that in the 2009 AIA conference, Gage et al had a booth selling their DVDs and books?  

...

Richard Gage is no longer employed at the Walnut Creek based Architectural firm.  Instead is now a full time truther.  How does he make a living?  You guessed it, by peddling the 9/11 truther conspiracy.  

There is no evidence that Richard Gage turned away from employment as a run-of-the-mill architect and formed AE911T with the purpose to make money.  If that were the aim then he might have done better to start his own architecture firm rather than a non-profit organisation.  That means any profits are put into producing more of the said DVDs, books, advertising and other activities – Gage cannot be expected to produce these for free!  Sure, he may take a wage from the organisation (he has got to live on something, right?), though it is also apparent in listening to Gage that he believes in the science of his work and has a passion for his message.  Your accusation, without evidence, that, “It’s about money”, is slander.


View PostRaptorBites, on 19 June 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

You also realize that the title AIA, Richard Gage uses behind his name in all interviews and video, is a misrepresentation of AIA's standing on 9/11 conspiracy theories?  It is so bad that even AIA released a statement claiming they in now way support AE911T or the truth movement.

A statement from the suited board members of AIA who say there is no official relationship to AE911T (quite true), though the fact is that more than 100 members of AIA have signed Gage’s petition calling for a new investigation of the WTC collapses (also quite true).  And Gage never states those views as that of the AIA, but as his own as a member of the AIA and that of his supporters.  To accuse that every time Gage speaks it is, “a misrepresentation of AIA’s standing”, is more slander.


View PostRaptorBites, on 19 June 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

So you ask...why would AE911T lie or be dishonest?  Simply put, if AE911T goes down the tubes, Gage would be homeless.  So instead of claiming he is wrong (which has been obvious for a long time now) , his motive to continue propagating lies is actually quite obvious.

So what was Gage’s motive to found AE911T in the first place?  It was quite a risk investing his time and money, not to mention to all intents ending his architectural career, in this venture.  Before you come up with another slanderous claim, why not just check the AE911T objectives and mission statement for an answer, or listen to Gage when he said his efforts were designed to bring more architects and engineers into the debate?

http://www.ae911trut...n/about-us.html

Whatever Gage’s motive, the response of the Bush administration was one of apparent panic and counter-measure as they tried to pre-empt the new-found and growing public and professional awareness of the WTC demolitions with this confused statement: -

"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."
~President Bush, Oct. 31, 2006



Note the date – just 6 months after the foundation of AE911T.  So let me get this straight.  Not long after professional members of the truth movement go mainstream, followed this counterpunch that the alleged Al Qaeda mastermind of 9/11 had "planned attacks" whereby "explosives" were placed at "high" points in buildings.

This created a get-out clause that could be invoked had any evidence of demolition been introduced for which the official narrative could not provide some semblance of explanation:  'Oh it’s ok, terrorists planted the bombs that brought down the WTC buildings, everyone carry on'.  And we know adherents to the official story would have bought it.

One might wonder why Bush et al felt so concerned to set the wheels in motion on that fallback plan.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#2469    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,156 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:45 PM

Thanks very much Q, for setting the record straight on Gage and AE911Truth.

RaptorBites and others very nicely demonstrate the old Socratic observation that when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.


#2470    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,516 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:22 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 June 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Thanks very much Q, for setting the record straight on Gage and AE911Truth.

RaptorBites and others very nicely demonstrate the old Socratic observation that when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

Actually, you are both demonstrating that you don't know what 'slander' actually means and requires.  "It's about money" and 'misrepresentation of AIA's standing' are opinions,  the first of which has evidence for it since trutherism appears to be Gage's full time job, and both opinion and 'statements made with a reasonable belief they are true' are excluded from slander.  Furthermore, Gage is arguably a 'celebrity' and it's also questionable whether Gage has been 'harmed' by Raptor's utterance, which is required for you to show for 'slander', and it's also questionable that even if he was 'harmed' whether Gage is capable of further defamation since his reputation is already fairly poor.  But 'slander' sure sounds more ominous and serious, and in typical CT fashion, hyperbolic and exaggerated.  Not to mention the hypocrisy on Q's part considering how he likes to associate the word 'treason' with a certain other scientist...

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#2471    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,156 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:41 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 19 June 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

Actually, you are both demonstrating that you don't know what 'slander' actually means and requires.  "It's about money" and 'misrepresentation of AIA's standing' are opinions,  the first of which has evidence for it since trutherism appears to be Gage's full time job, and both opinion and 'statements made with a reasonable belief they are true' are excluded from slander.  Furthermore, Gage is arguably a 'celebrity' and it's also questionable whether Gage has been 'harmed' by Raptor's utterance, which is required for you to show for 'slander', and it's also questionable that even if he was 'harmed' whether Gage is capable of further defamation since his reputation is already fairly poor.  But 'slander' sure sounds more ominous and serious, and in typical CT fashion, hyperbolic and exaggerated.  Not to mention the hypocrisy on Q's part considering how he likes to associate the word 'treason' with a certain other scientist...

OK LG, let's use another term besides slander.  How about "ad hominem" or "inaccurate statement"?  Will those soothe your objection?

The point is that the claim that Gage, or Balsamo, or Jones, or any of the others who have gone public with their doubts and criticism have made money by doing so is absurd.  For myself, I have contributed a grand total of $100 to AE, and maybe twice that to PFT.  It is ridiculous to say they are getting rich, or whatever innuendo RB is trying to make about the financial gains.

So you can nitpick on the word "slander", but the larger point is that rather than address the issues raised by those men and their organizations, RB and others must impugn, slander, or whatever other word/concept you care to use, those men and their organizations.


#2472    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:54 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 19 June 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

Actually, you are both demonstrating that you don't know what 'slander' actually means and requires.  "It's about money" and 'misrepresentation of AIA's standing' are opinions,  the first of which has evidence for it since trutherism appears to be Gage's full time job, and both opinion and 'statements made with a reasonable belief they are true' are excluded from slander.  Furthermore, Gage is arguably a 'celebrity' and it's also questionable whether Gage has been 'harmed' by Raptor's utterance, which is required for you to show for 'slander', and it's also questionable that even if he was 'harmed' whether Gage is capable of further defamation since his reputation is already fairly poor.  But 'slander' sure sounds more ominous and serious, and in typical CT fashion, hyperbolic and exaggerated.  Not to mention the hypocrisy on Q's part considering how he likes to associate the word 'treason' with a certain other scientist...

You wrote a whole post to point out that slander in the legal definition, opposed to the common dictionary definition, is exaggerated?

Well heck, honestly, I wasn’t planning to press charges.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

The point is that RaptorBites has no evidence to prove his claims against Gage and AE911T.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#2473    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,516 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:55 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 June 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

OK LG, let's use another term besides slander.  How about "ad hominem" or "inaccurate statement"?  Will those soothe your objection?

It's not an ad hominem, are you even reading what Raptor said?  "They have reason to lie, it's about money" is not an ad hominem, unless you really think that money doesn't motivate people to lie?

Quote

It is ridiculous to say they are getting rich, or whatever innuendo RB is trying to make about the financial gains.

I agree, that probably is ridiculous to say they are getting rich, which is probably why you are the only one even talking about it.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#2474    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,516 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:07 PM

View PostQ24, on 19 June 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

You wrote a whole post to point out that slander in the legal definition, opposed to the common dictionary definition, is exaggerated?

Well heck, honestly, I wasn’t planning to press charges.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Ah, so then you mean 'slander' such as in, "What I actually said and indicated is that it is not “unerring faith” like we find of many official story adherents and Yamato here.".  Thanks for clearing that up, you slanderer you...

Quote

The point is that RaptorBites has no evidence to prove his claims against Gage and AE911T.

Ah yes, and out comes the highly selective use of the word 'prove', a standard that you never hold your brave 'expert' patriots (or yourself, see above, unless you've 'proven' that Yamato has unerring faith in academia) to.  Raptor has evidence that Gage has incentive to lie since this appears to be his main paying gig, but of course that doesn't count because it's not 'proven'.  On the other hand, there appears to be an academia-wide incentive via political pressure for the majority of experts to stay silent and/or lie concerning WTC, but that does count.  But as you continually reassure us, you're of course using 'the same standards throughout'.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#2475    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:54 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 19 June 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Ah, so then you mean 'slander' such as in, "What I actually said and indicated is that it is not “unerring faith” like we find of many official story adherents and Yamato here.".  Thanks for clearing that up, you slanderer you...

:lol:

Yes, slander as in when Chrlzs claimed I disparaged academia in everyday application, when there is clearly no evidence of that.  No, not as in when I said many official story adherents and Yamato display unerring faith in their selected academia – because that is true – and I could prove it using their own words that they do not consider for a second it could possibly be incorrect (perhaps you were not following the discussion closely).


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 19 June 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Ah yes, and out comes the highly selective use of the word 'prove', a standard that you never hold your brave 'expert' patriots (or yourself, see above, unless you've 'proven' that Yamato has unerring faith in academia) to.  Raptor has evidence that Gage has incentive to lie since this appears to be his main paying gig, but of course that doesn't count because it's not 'proven'.  On the other hand, there appears to be an academia-wide incentive via political pressure for the majority of experts to stay silent and/or lie concerning WTC, but that does count.  But as you continually reassure us, you're of course using 'the same standards throughout'.

I don’t accept how you are trying to present it:  “It’s about money” is posed as fact, not an opinion.  And none of the above provided RaptorBites with any evidence to prove his claims against Gage and AE911T.  Anything to divert from that point, hey?  Sorry I don’t have time to quibble and mud-sling over use of the word ‘slander’.  The point I was making is that without evidence the claims made against Gage and AE911T are hollow.  Oh, along with the Bush reaction to formation of professional 9/11 truth groups – that was part of the point too.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users