Even the Sanes Ones Are Crazy
The physics professor Steven Jones, seems to be portrayed as the more conservative sane one of the 9/11 “truth” movement. If you listen to him he is always going on about how this is just “science” and he isn’t speculating, just letting the physics make the argument. Even he buys into the unsubstantiated rumors in their community though. This is how it works, one member of the community distorts a story, someone else changes it a bit more, and before you know it, all of them believe something which couldn’t be further from the truth. From an interview on Alex Jones’ show at the 48 minute mark:
Steven: To suggest that Arabs had access to these buildings, particularly building 7, which housed a secret CIA office is ridiculous in the extreme.
Alex: Well it was Defense Intelligence, the Port Authority, the city police, I mean, everybody was there.
Steve: I know. You are right. It was a very secure building. I know that their security, who was in charge of the security at the towers? He would be offended to have the suggestion? Who was that?
Alex: MARVIN BUSH! Yes!
Steve: Oh yes, Marvin BUSH! I mean he would be offended to find out somehow these guys slipped by them.
(both laugh)
OK, for the last time guys, Marvin Bush was not in charge of security at the towers on September 11th, 2001. In fact he was NEVER head of security at the towers. He never had anything to do with the operational aspects of security there at all. Just because you keep on repeating this, does not make it true.
On a related note, Alex Jones argues right before this segment that "neo-cons" are now arguing that Arabs put bombs in the towers. Huh? Where is he getting this from? I have never heard of anyone making claims of bombs but the conspiracy theorists.
posted by James B. @ 11:56 AM
22 comments
22 Comments:
Like, Hey man, you know, I think that the Mormons were in on it, 'cause I mean, Steven Jones, like he's from Brigham Young U., and they're Mormons, and Sept. 11 is a big day for the Mornons like you could look this up and stuff, and like my man Jason, was going to do it, but I got tired of waiting but you should like look it up:
On Sept. 11, 1857, in southwestern Utah, a militiaof Mormons, attacked a wagon train bound for California. After a five-day siege, the militia persuaded the families to surrender under a flag of truce and a pledge of safe passage. Then, in the worst butchery in the entire colonization of America, approximately 140 men, women and children were slaughtered. Only 17 children under the age of 8 - were spared.
So it had to be the Mormons. I mean I can see thru it. We should ask them some Questions.
Great comments,Joan!
Here's a link to Kevin Barrett behaving admirably and sanely in the presence of a not so same interviewer.
buck-toothed vampire Rice
Racism - alive and well.
Or Bush and the Niger uranium lies?
Blame Italy for the documents.
As I've explained to you before - a LIE is when you know something to be untrue. You guys would all be liars if you said things that were untrue but believed were factual.
Token nigger for the white elite to trot out on TV, that would be racist.
From the Ted Rall school of liberalism.
And buck-toothed is one of the aspects of caricatures of blacks. Big-tooth, big-lipped with the ridiculous accent.
Alex Jones has a fine piece on his website debunking the Perntagon no-plane theory by the way.
Christ, Alex Jones isn't totally insane?
OK, so Alex Jones is the idiot, and Steven Jones is the idiot who agrees with him. Makes no difference to me, one Jones is as good as another.
James,
Just for a moment, would you consider that it's possible that some of the questions and assertions of the GSS'er are valid. Would that, in fact make you, and all the others who defend with smear tactics disguised as honesty and supporting your sad tripe parading as logic... wouldn't that make you the idiots?
Sure, some of their questions are valid, it is not hard to come up with a valid question, but as we have pointed out, they lie every chance they get.
I can pick out any article or speech by any conspiracy theorist at random and easily pick out 2-3 lies. Not just disagreements with interpretations or opinions, flat out lies.
On the other hand, I have asked you several times to point out even a single lie, in the nearly 300 posts that Pat and I have made, and you can't find a single one.
Why is this? Is this purely coincidental?
"On the other hand, I have asked you several times to point out even a single lie, in the nearly 300 posts that Pat and I have made, and you can't find a single one."
James,
You are fibbing here. I have indeed pointed out facts and conclusions in your posts here that are unsupported, incorrect, misleading, ad hominem, and just plain glib without honoring the exercise of honest debate. By virtue of your insistence, and Pat's insistence to continue your hard line, I have decided not be spend the time to prepare a comprehensive rebuttal. I have been posting individual rebuttals every few days. And, of course, it's not only me that find this blog's approach wrong.
What you have, basicly, is the talent of you and Pat, which is not to be underestimated, along with a few cronies and cheerleaders.
It is telling that your entry into this debate is not about getting the truth. It's about getting the makers of Loose Change. These are two different things. I'm glad to see that you have for the most part stopped dealing with Loose Change. However, your snarky attitude remains and is not helpful to finding the truth.
What you have, basicly, is the talent of you and Pat, which is not to be underestimated, along with a few cronies and cheerleaders.
So am I one of the cronies or am I a cheerleader? When exactly has this blog lied about anything? I'd like to know that.
I have linking a video of the collapse of the 2nd Tower.
I would love to know:
1) Do you dispute the authenicity of this video?
2) Do you relize that this shows what other videos show? There may be other video that are higher resolution, I'm not sure. I don't have a cross reference to all the vids and their sources.
Based on this and other vids: What part of "explosives pulverizing concrete" do you not understand?
Do you realise that there is nothing in MIT Professor Eagar's original scientific explanation of the collapse that even begins to account for what is seen in the video? If Prof. Eagar view videos of this type, he, in fact, chose to ignor them in his analysis.
The same is true of NIST, as we have asserted over and over here in this blog, as well as elsewhere.
Do you not agree that the TV news media has almost totally ignored or manipulated coverage of WTC 7?
The TV news manipulation is so obvious that if you deny it, you are simply showing your lack of willingness to engage in honest debate.
Vid
>Here
Richard,
I would like to know who you are.
So now you're saying if I call a white person buck tooth it is racist?
How the hell do you come to that conclusion? I state the caricature for blacks, Race is black.
No, he's a disinformation shill for the CIA.
Shame you have zero evidence for this or the rest of your post. Now the fucking "truth" folks are part of the conspiracy.
But you are confusing conspiracy theory logic with normal logic. WTC7 was blown up to destroy documents, not because that makes sense, but because they need to create a reason why it should be blown up.
The conspirators went to great risk and expense to wire thousands of explosions into the towers to create a controlled demolition, not because this was actually needed to carry out their plot, but because the conspiracy theorists need them to have done that so that they would have evidence of a controlled demolition to point to.
The conspirators made 4 planes dissappear, just so they could crash one of them in a field, run two other converted 767 refuelers, which didn't even exist yet, disguised as commericial airplanes in the towers, and a cruise missile disguised as a 757 into the Pentagon, not because any of this makes sense, but because this is the only way they can fit this into their theory.
Err, that should say explosives, not explosions. Now I am starting to talk like Fetzer.
Richard,
I would like to know who you are.
I work for the CIA err I mean Post Office, yeah that's it....
I'm just a guy who thinks that the 9/11 CT is bunk and I care about it enough to throw in my $0.02 every once in a while. I also felt that having served in the Army it would be helpful for me to speak up on things every once in a while like thermate and pimped out javelins.
This is how it works, one member of the community distorts a story, someone else changes it a bit more, and before you know it, all of them believe something which couldn’t be further from the truth.
This is the exact mechanism of the Osama lie.
Bogglehead, we agree in general with the official version, yes. Nineteen hijackers operating under orders from Osama, no CD at the WTC, AA 77 at the Pentagon, UA 93 down in Shanksville as a result of a battle between the hijackers and the passengers. Not to say there isn't more to be learned from that day, just that none of it is likely to change those conclusions.
Pat, James, undense, shawn, or any one else wouldn't touch this in a million years.
You do realize that unlike you guys, we destroy your points, then when you repeat them we insult you? There hasn't been an honest debate because you folks are so intellectually dishonest. We're not the ones using faulty physics, quote mining, and leading videos/pictures.
This is the exact mechanism of the Osama lie.
See that guys? Newspeak, alive and well.
This blog isn't supporting the official version, right?
Well, besides the fact it's not the official version, but what actually happened, yes it does support what actually happened. Some of us choose to live in the real world.
Does this blog intend to show, in light of what would be necessary, that none of the requirements are met or that one of them can't be met?
First, they haven't come close to meeting the burden of proof. Second, they cannot because it isn't what happened, and you can't find evidence for something that did not happen.
Just admit that it takes dynamics, as opposed to the statics a structural engineer learns, to determine how quickly a building should collapse.
Irrelevant. We know exactly "how quickly a building should collapse". We saw it live on TV. Unless you're suggesting that C4 was used (which, up untill now, you have denied) your math is unneccesary. If it keeps you amused, then sure, go calculate to your hearts content, but when your calculations don't match the real-world result I hope you'll have the constitution to admit it's YOU that's wrong.
So to repeat, one of my goals is to model the collapse in terms of momentum and energy whereas you seem content with collapse initiation.
After that let me know if you agree that the collapse had enough energy to sustain fires underground or if there just happened to be a lot of left over thermate. If you run some figures and can blow away the official report with a detailed report of your own that shows there had to be bombs etc, then I might start beleving. If your here to point out errors in the report that's fine but I'm more concerned about the actual cause. Something tells me it wasn't CD. I don't need physics to tell me that.
Exactly. You're not fooling anyone. This "I just want to be absolutely sure" stuff has gotta go. You ARE absolutely sure. If you hadn't already convinced yourself that the whole thing was a CT, you wouldn't be so goddamn militant about your arguments, and so stubborn in the face of evidence and expert testemony. You base your entire beleif structure on "missing pieces" instead of actual evidence, and then claim to be a scientist. More importantly, when presented with new information your first thought is to try and find ways to discredit it, even when it's clear that you don't even understand it.
If you're a scientist, I'm a japanese jet pilot. How about actually showing us some of the physics behind your claims, since you claim that's where your area of expertise lies. So far all I've seen out of you is pseudo-scientific explanations, and your tendancy to string together unrelated facts and suppositions in order to suggest some weird connections and conspiracies. If you're a friggin' physicist, let's see some goddamn physics instead.
Post a Comment
<< Home